Pod Save America - The MAGA Supreme Court's Assault on America

Episode Date: June 28, 2026

Dan is joined by Strict Scrutiny's Leah Litman to talk about this week's big Supreme Court decisions giving Trump the right to kick out Haitian immigrants and deny asylum claims for people stopped just shy of the American border, as well as a ruling — with some surprising ideological crossover — tossing out claims against Monsanto for how it labels Roundup, its popular weedkiller. Then Dan and Leah discuss all the major decisions still to come this week, on birthright citizenship, trans rights, and more. Lastly — rage warning! — Leah reacts to Susan Collins's claim that her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh *didn't* have an impact on Roe v. Wade getting overturned.For a transcript of an episode of Pod Save America, please email [e-mail].

Welcome to Potsave America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. You're about to hear a great conversation I just had with Leah Littman, a law professor, co-hosts of Kirklandia's strict scrutiny, and author of Lawless How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative grievances, fringe theories, and bad vibes. We talked about this week's monumental Supreme Court decisions on the Trump administration's immigration policy, what's making Leah anxious about the upcoming decision on birthright citizenship, and the legacy of Roe v. Wade, including how it's playing in the race to unseat Susan Collins in Maine. We also talked about some of the other decisions we're expecting to come out of the court soon, including decisions on mail ballots, trans participation in sports, and the independence of the Federal

Reserve. It was a great conversation, and we'll get to in a minute. But before we do, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to friends of the pod. Subscribers get access to add free episodes of Pod Save America. Subscriber-only shows like Pod Save America Only Friends and my show, Polarcoaster, and discounted tickets to Crooked Media events, including this fall's CrookedCon. Plus, it's the best way to support independent pro-democracy media. Head to Crooked.com slash friends to subscribe today. Also, check out my substack newsletter of the message box, which is where I share all of my best, most in-depth takes. And I have a special deal for Pod Save America fans.

Sign up now at Crooked.com slash yes-wee-dan. Get 20% off your subscription for an entire year. That's crooked.com slash yes, we, we Dan. All right. Here's my conversation with Leah Lipman. Leah Lipman, welcome back to Pod Save America. Thanks for having me. Under these great circumstances.

So originally when we scheduled this, we thought there was a chance a Supreme Court would have released all of its big monumental decisions at the end of this quarter. Per usual, Sam Alito, John Roberts have screwed up our best laid plans, but they have released a number of very important decisions that I want to talk to you about. And then I want to talk about the decisions that are looming, that are doomed to possibly ruin many people's Fourth of July break. Let us start with the case that I think has the most impact for the most people. Can I just start with the timing point? Please, please do, please. Okay, because it's not just that you thought they would finish by the end of this week. It's that traditionally and historically, the court has finished releasing opinions

and argued cases before the holiday week. And these guys have one fucking job. And they're not even doing that. Right. Like they cannot bother to do law. And yet they can't finish according to schedule. Despite loving history and tradition, they cannot conform to this most basic tradition about how the Supreme Court works. Which is important for many reasons, but primarily for podcast recording schedule. Exactly. Yes. Exactly. Super inconvenient. Okay. So this is important point to make. I'm glad you made that point. I want to start with the case that I think has the most impact on the most people. This is the six three decision. Everyone listening can guess who the six and who the three are that will allow the Trump administration

to rescind temporary protective status for 350,000 Haitian immigrants. This case is about a lot of things. It's a big deal. Talk to me about what was at stake in this case and what the ruling says. Oh, my gosh. This case is so maddening. I have just become angrier about it with every passing hour. So the case involved actually two different revocations of the temporary protected status program. And TPS is a method where the executive branch can offer immigration relief to individuals who undergo a rigorous vetting process who are from certain countries. when returning them to those countries would be horrific because of conditions in those countries. And so Haiti was one such country after, you know, devastating natural disasters coupled with, you know, the basic failure of the government. It's super dangerous to be in Haiti. And so temporary protected status was offered so too with respect to Syrian nationals.

And so early on in the Trump administration, fall 2025, Christine Ome says, we are just going to end. end these TPS programs for individuals from several different countries, and those decisions to end the program were challenged. And these cases involved challenges to the end of TPS for Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals. By statute, Congress, because of the importance of the TPS program to people's lives, you know, they structure their lives around being able to live and work in the United States, required the executive branch to undergo a fairly rigorous process before deciding to end TPS. And specifically, the executive branch had to consult among different agencies to determine

that conditions in that country were indeed sufficiently different, that ending TPS was justified. And there's almost no question that the Trump administration didn't do that. With respect to Haiti in particular, emails suggest that the Department of Homeland Security asked the State Department to weigh in about conditions in Haiti and then went ahead and canceled TBS before state department even weighed in. That's not actually consultation. And I don't think there's any argument on that point. You add to that the fact that the president said vile, horrible, grotesque things about Haitian nationals. And it sure looks like they decided to end TPS, not because conditions in Haiti had changed, but because the president just wanted to fulfill

Stephen Miller's white supremacist immigration dreams. And so those were the challenges that the Trump administration violated statutes by not following the required processes and violated the Constitution by implementing this policy out of racial animus discriminating on the basis of race. And in the six to three opinion, Sam Alito was like, I don't care, do you? You know, on the statutory arguments, he said, who cares whether or not they complied with a statute? Courts can't review whether they violated the statute or not. So that's a new finding, right?

That is a new, entirely new. new rule. For decades, it has been understood that even though the statutes don't allow courts to second guess, the secretary's determination, ultimate determination about whether to end TPS, they do allow courts to ensure that the secretary followed the required process to ensure sound decision making. And Sam Alito and Co. wipe away all of those rules and render all of these statutes unenforceable. They're basically guidelines at this point. The executive branch faces no consequences for openly flouting them. Donald Trump, Mark Wayne Mullen, could stand up tomorrow and say, we're not going to follow these statutes. And there's not a thing that courts could do

about it in light of that ruling. I want to get to the comments in a minute and the racial animus points. I think that's very important. And really plays a big role in why the decision is so maddening and the opinion by elite is so mandating. But what is the reason? You know, it seems like a pretty basic thing. Congress rights laws. The executive must follow said laws. If the executive does not follow those laws, someone who has standing sues and the courts come in and say, you did not follow those laws, you must do something different. Is there something that they find an inherent authority of the present immigration? What is the basis for saying the laws don't apply on this particular issue? It's so wild to hear you say that because this unfortunately was a theme of almost all of the court's

decisions from this last week, saying that people whose rights were violated can't do. a thing about it, can't sue to challenge in federal courts. So here, their rationale was Congress had actually decided to impose these rules on the executive branch and to foreclose the possibility that courts could review whether the executive branch complied with those rules. So they put the decision at Congress's feet rather than saying the Constitution doesn't allow courts to review those determinations. So now let's get to the racial animus point and why that matters here. Because I think for people who have been following this saga for a long time, the Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and J.D. Vance and the entire American media accused during the 2024 campaign of

eating the pets in Ohio. That's what we're talking about here, right? Well, and it wasn't just that. It is the president said people from Haiti have AIDS. He called it a shithole country. He said they were Haitian Nationals poisoning the blood of the country. A bunch of racist vile remarks. And Sam Alito does not even have the backbone to recite those remarks in his opinion. He just declares they're not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means, given that the president also said he wanted to admit more people from Sweden and Norway. Like, again, he tried. He tried, to say, I guess they're xenophobic and really about opposition to immigration policy, which makes no sense. And also, in any case, I don't understand why that would be constitutional.

And if he cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person who he's saying isn't racist, I think that's a pretty big indication that maybe the person is racist and saying racist things. But he just kind of said nothing to see here and legalized. what the president did and said. And so this means for patients, about there are 350,000 of them, I believe, many of them in this country for quite a while now. I think TPS has been around for almost a decade, right? Yeah, more than a decade.

And so these people can all be deported now, either in there when they go to the, because you have to go to a regular check-in, right? And so they go to the next time they encounter a nice officer, a CPP officer, they could be deported. Same is true of Syrians. Now, I know Stephen Miller was on Fox News, minimizing the, dangers in Haiti and comparing it to Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles. But Syria seems like a harder case to make that this is a totally safe and fine place to go back to. I mean, I think Haiti

is a really tough place. Maybe even tougher than Syria actually at a moment time. Yes. Exactly. And so this would be the largest delegalization in United States history. So while these cases specifically are about Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals. The Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protected status for individuals from other countries, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and more. You know, when Trump took office, there were more than a million people living in the United States with temporary protected status. And suddenly all of those people potentially lose their legal authorization to remain in the United States. And your point about check-ins just drives home, the people they are penalizing are the people who followed

the immigration rules. They underwent this vetting process. They do check-ins with immigration officers. And so now the federal government knows who they are, where they are, and could be poised to effectuate these mass deportations. In her dissent, Justice Kagan says, as a result of the court's order, they're basically telling the executive branch, you can put these people on the next plane and send them off. And it's just cruel what the Supreme Court is potentially allowed. and inviting the Trump administration to do. So for the non-Syrians, non-Hatians who have protective status, like you mentioned, Venezuelans, or we also talking about people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall

of the Afghani government, people who helped the American military and diplomats there, talking about Ukrainian refugees. All these other groups, can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of paper and remove their TPS or go through the fake process? They don't even have to go through anymore. Like, are we just like one Stephen Miller email away from all from one point? 2 million or whatever it is, people potentially being deported? Potentially, yes.

And there have been cases challenging the recitions of the other temporary protected status programs as well. But in light of this decision telling courts they can't review any of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gutter racism, it's going to be really hard for any court to pause those rescissions. Great. So this is not, this is honestly, truly terrible. And so then we have a second, we had a second immigration.

decision that came down. Now, this one is less immediate in its consequences and hinges, as I understand it, on the meeting of the word arrive in immigration law. Can you explain? This is another six-three with the typical six and the typical three decision. Can you explain what's going on in this case? Yeah. So this case is about the meaning of asylum law under international law and statutes of Congress has passed. Individuals who arrive in the United States are entitled to claim asylum. And they are entitled to have their asylum claim assessed in a legitimate process and procedure. What the Supreme Court said is an individual doesn't arrive in the United States, and therefore they aren't entitled to claim asylum or have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped outside of the physical

borders of the United States. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, this creates a giant loophole. It tells the executive branch, so long as you physically block people from entering the United States, you do not have to consider their asylum applications. You can just turn them away wholesale. And that decision was entirely unnecessary. Part of what is so, I think, heinous, both about the asylum case and the TPS case, is that the Supreme Court did not have to reach them. On this asylum case, the case originated as a challenge to a policy that isn't in existence. It was a challenge to the so-called metering policy that began almost a decade ago. And under that policy, immigration officials would turn away people and say, we can't process your asylum applications if the quota for the number of individuals who could be processed at the border had been met.

That policy was ended. there was not in effect any policy that presented this question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. Instead, the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well, we've decided you could do this thing that you may want to do and therefore paved the way for them to implement another callous immigration policy. And so in the original metering policy, which began at the end of the Obama administration, you would show up and they would say, we just had, there are too many people today. We're not going to be able to get to your case. Come back tomorrow. Yes.

And we will look at your case. And so at that point, it wasn't an attempt to deny them. It was essentially recognizing you've shown up at the door. We can't let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the right to make your asylum case. And we are going to, or we are going to allow you to do that on a different day when there is an actual someone who can hear it, basically, right? Yes.

That was the sensible. And so. Now, this seems like such an insanely stupid decision on so many levels, because doesn't it seem to argue that if you are someone who has a, you believe you have a legitimate asylum case, you're coming to the United States to avail yourself of your human right to seek asylum consistent with our laws and traditions, you are better off sneaking across the border. Exactly. And getting caught and then claiming an asylum case, then showing up at the front door and asking to present your case. This decision is unhinged. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die. And among the reasons is it creates this incentive for people to try to sneak across the border because only if they manage to get into the United States borders, would they be able to claim asylum? This is another example of the Supreme Court adopting a rule that penalizes people who are trying to comply with immigration law by presenting themselves at the border and trying to assert an asylum claim. It's basically funneling them into these trafficking organizations that are making money

to get them into the country as opposed to. To me, that's what it seems so insane about it. And so the net result of this, other than the consequence of the people who then now get injured, get hurt, get killed, are trafficked, you know, young women and children who go to these groups end up in very bad places often in an attempt to get the United States. What is going to happen is the Stephen Miller could just tell the CBP, don't like let anyone, like, no one gets in. So we will not recognize any legitimate asylum claims that come in

through the normal process. Yes, it does not matter if someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed in their home country. The administration can just refuse to consider that. Now, in this, I learned from the very, the very excellent emergency, strict scrutiny podcast you guys did that came out today, yesterday? What is to day. Time has no meaning anymore. It's June. Friday. I listen to it this morning. But that during the release of this decision, that something very dramatic and perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court happening, could you lay that out for us? So it's not entirely unprecedented, although it's deeply rare. By tradition, what happens is when the

Supreme Court releases an opinion, the author of the majority opinion will provide some remarks and offer a brief summary of their case. Occasionally, but only in rare circumstances, will the author of the dissent then proceed to summarize their dissent? And reading portions of your dissent from the bench is reserved for very strongly held dissents where you want to signal a very obvious, strong objection to what the majority has done. So in the asylum case, Justice Sotomayor read portions of her dissent. And then Sam O'Meuxial... Alito proceeded to respond. And having the author of the majority opinion respond after the author of the dissent, summarizes their dissent, has happened maybe once or twice before. And Justice Alito also intimated that, well, had he known Justice Sotomayor would have summarized more of her dissent, he definitely had additional things. He would have said because he could totally rebut all of her arguments. And it's just so petulant. And, yeah, unbefitting a justice.

Well, I mean, this is a long pattern of behavior for Samuel Alito, going back to the 2010 state of the Union where he was so set that Barack Obama deigned disagree with the decision to allow corporations, billionaires to buy our political system that he had to react viscerally and loudly during the state. He had to basically had to heckle the President of the United States. Exactly. Exactly.

You think, right, the Tea Party or whoever else invented heckling at the state of the union. No, no, no, no, no, no, sweet summer child. It was Sam Alito. Yes, a man who clearly has impulse control problems. Particularly when criticized, perhaps, by coincidence. Definition of a judicial temperament. Yes.

When criticized by people who, by coincidence, have to be people of color. Right. And particularly. This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform.

Whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates with options for every use and category. No matter where you start, your website is flexible to what you need, with intuitive drag-and-drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled visual design effects, and more ways to list what you offer. No experience required. Squarespace domains makes it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all-inclusive price, no hidden fees or add-ons required. Make smarter business decisions with Squarespace's intuitive built-in analytics tools,

review website traffic, learn where to focus engagement, and track revenue from bookings, invoices, or product sales, all from one place. Plus, Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life, whether that means building a website or adding a professional email service. Head to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, go to Squarespace.com slash cricket to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's Squarespace.com slash cricket. Pot Save America has brought you by Sleep Me. Quick question. When was the last time you went to bed

before midnight without your phone beaming blue light into your weary little eyes? Last night. Last night, nothing you go to sleep early. Nothing pairs worse with trying to fall asleep than having a full breakdown of the latest news cycle running on a loop in your head. Here's what's happening. The stress, the screen time, it all raises your core body temperature and a body that's too warm cannot get into deep sleep. You're not just tired because the news is exhausting. You're tired because your body never actually recovered from the day. The good news is that you can do something about it and it's simpler than you think. Lower you. your bed temperature. Sure, you could develop better habits of mind.

Enter Chili Bed 2.0. The water-based mattress stopper that actively controls your bed temperature from 55 to 115 degrees all night long. All night? No new mattress, no renovation. It fits over what you already have. Chili Bad 2.0 actively cools or warms your bed using water, and water is key here. Chili Bad uses actively chilled water to cool your bed, actually pulling heat away from your body. It's like the difference between standing in front of a fan and jumping into a cold pool. The new 2.0 comes with a redesigned. quieter than ever with a larger internal tank. The topper itself is now a premium performance-grade cover that unzips for easy washing

and has built-in waterproof protection. And unlike a lot of tech out there, there's no subscription. You buy it, you own it, two-year warranty, designed and assembled in the USA, just north of Charlotte. I love the chili pad. I have the one point-o. I'm an upgrade to the 2.0. And basically, you bet has an air conditioner on it. You can make it warm when you're cold.

You can make it cold when you're warm. You can, you know, what I like to do is I set it really cold before I go to sleep. and I'm watching TV, and then right before bed, I raise the temperature. Interesting. Because then as I'm falling to sleep, it's cool, but then I'm not cold in the night. Oh. Okay. That's interesting.

Visit www. www. Sleep.me slash crooked to get up to $255 off your chili pad 2.0 with code crooked. That's www.s. SLEEP.m.m. slash cricket. Free shipping and free returns in a 30-night trial so you can test it out, dream big, and wake up better.

The headlines will still be there in the morning. Boy, will they? You might as well wake up ready for them. Okay, another big case happened here. And this one caused a different corner of the internet to be aflame. The Maha corner of the internet is very upset about a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a suit against Monsanto's parent company involving claims that the weed killer Roundup caused cancer.

And this one is interesting because this is not our traditional six three. group of the six, the three we know in love and the six we have come to detest in many cases. This is a seven two decision where Kagan and Sotomayor actually were with the majority. And Kataji, Brown Jackson and New York, which I believe were with, were the ones who dissented. Talk to me about this case. And did the majority get it right in this one? So the case is about the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act or FIFRA. Fiffra, as we call it, yes.

K. Shah has called this one of her favorite statutes. I don't know why. But it's a federal law that gives the EPA, the environmental protection agency, the authority to regulate pesticides, et cetera. And what happens is companies submit their proposed label for their pesticide to the EPA, and then the EPA signs off on them. And the question in this case is whether an individual could sue a pesticide manufacturer saying that the label that the EPA had approved did not contain enough information to adequately

warn them about the danger of the product. And so here the allegation was, Monsanto's product Roundup contains an ingredient that causes cancer. And that's not disclosed on the EPA warning label. And so what the Supreme Court said here is this statute gives the EPA and the EPA alone the authority to determine what goes on a label. And the label can only be changed if the EPA orders a change or if the EPA approves a change. Private parties states they can't impose additional requirements beyond what the EPA has decided, is warranted. And so where do you come down on this as a law professor and legal scholar yourself? Yeah. So I think the court probably got it right here. in part because the agency has a lot of authority over how these labels are made and what goes on them.

And I think there was a congressional choice to prioritize uniformity over other considerations and wanting a single process, a single decision maker to determine what goes on these labels and valuing the EPA's expertise over the expertise of, say, state juries or state decision makers. And that's a choice. Congress considered the pluses and minuses. And I think the court was probably right to say we need to respect the choice that Congress has made. Now, I have other issues with the Monsanto decision, just considered in light of some of the other cases that the court made. But I think standing alone, the court probably got it right. And now this was about one specific case in Missouri, but there are other suits against Monsanto out there that will be tossed out because of this. Exactly. Yes. Yep. And does this have an impact on broadly on corporate liability or the ability of individuals to sue

companies along lines? Or is it pretty specific to this one, FIFRA, if I'm saying that. Exactly. Yes. FIFRA related ruling. It's pretty specific to the FIFRA statute itself, because the court focused on the fact that Congress in that statute has a provision labeled uniformity. And in the statute gave the EPA a bunch of authority over all stages of the labeling process. And that's not necessarily going to be true in other statutes. And so, yes, it's going to insulate this set of corporations from this particular type of lawsuit, but not beyond that. And could these individuals sue the EPA for the label not being, you know, fully be fulsome enough to give them what they needed to know to make the right decisions here? Or are these people just

kind of screwed? Yeah. So they can file Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits against the EPA and challenge the agency's actions with respect to these labels that is not going to get them damages, you know, for any harm that they might have experienced because of a failure of these warning labels, but they could try to get the EPA to change them going forward. And you said that you, well, this in a vacuum, maybe what's the right decision? You have concerns more broadly. I take it that as the fact that corporations are like 1 million in O in the Roberts Court over the last 22 years or whatever it is.

That would be the general flavor of the objection. And even if you just look at the decisions from this past week. So Monsanto, corporations can't be sued for labels that allegedly contain insufficient warnings that cause people to get cancer. Earlier this week, the court said, you can't sue corporations for abetting human rights abuses that foreign governments commit. They said corporations, however, can sue foreign governments, namely Cuba, for taking their oil. They said individuals who are incarcerated, they cannot sue state officials who violate their religious freedom rights. They said TPS recipients can't sue to challenge the executive branch for violating their rights under the

statute. In another immigration case, they said effectively lawful permanent residents can't enforce this statute protecting their right to reenter the United States at the border. So who gets to sue to enforce their rights? Corporations. You can't sue corporations for violating international law, for potentially violating state tort law. You can't sue state officials for violating federal law. You can't sue federal officials for violating federal law. And so if you just aggregate all of these decisions together, it's like, okay, who has rights, who doesn't? Corporations, everyone else. You're bringing up the TPS thing. It's been to go back to something I meant to ask you before. Given this decision, what would stop a president, AOC, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris,

whoever else from just deciding on day one that they wanted to grant TPS to everyone from, say, Mexico? It's so funny you say that, Dan, because that was actually an argument in the case, that the challengers said, look, if you completely insulate these decisions from review, they can be abused in either direction. So in one of the final passages of the opinion, And Sam Alito suggests, well, look, the plaintiffs in these cases, they throw out these hypotheticals, we're not going to necessarily say those would be unreviewable. But maybe Congress could fix them. And so there was this narrow potential caveat that the court reserved for itself because they view

themselves as the ultimate decision maker to potentially say maybe some wholesale abdications might be reviewable. But who knows? So just if per chance, say a Democratic president wanted to unveil themselves of the executive authority that they found inherited Donald Trump's actions, there was a way for them to stop that from happening. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Perfect, perfect, perfect. Good. Let's make sure, you know, I didn't go to law school, but I'm sort of picking up what's happening here. I mean, from these decisions, it's not clear Sam Alito did either.

Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay. Let's get to the cases that have not yet been released and will maybe release Monday or Tuesday of next week. We think. We hope. Do we hope, honestly, like, they're bad things coming. I hope for you as someone who has a podcast schedule you have to get to that that happens earlier in the week.

Better, I would say, for everyone Monday and Tuesday, than Thursday, perhaps. Okay. All right. The biggest one that everyone's waiting for is the one on birthright citizenship. Everyone seems to think that since the Constitution is quite explicit on this, that it would be seemingly impossible for the Supreme court to do this. You had a piece of the contrarian where you raise some real question. You have some worries about this. I'd like to hear what those worries are. And I think it also raises some measure of concern that they've been sitting on this. Like, this is something they could have done in a one

sentence order a year ago. And we've been waiting and waiting and waiting. And just based on what I've read and reserved, the fact that they're waiting so long on this, at least suggest that there's something going on. So what is going on here? Tell me about the case. Tell me about why specifically you have worries about what this decision might say. Yeah. So the case is a challenge. to the president's executive order that purports to deny birthright citizenship to some people who are born in the United States, even though the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens. So it's a wildly illegal executive order. And I think most people,

even after the oral argument, and even now, think it's more likely than not that the Supreme Court will say that order can't be enforced and it's unconstitutional. But, and this is a big butt. The recent immigration decisions are really concerning. The fact that the court adopted such broad reasoning in cases where they didn't have to do so at all, I think is causing some people to rethink their confidence in what the court might do on birthright. I think the delay could also signal that the decision isn't going to be unanimous. And if it's not unanimous, that's going to meaningfully alter the Overton window as far as what people's understanding of our constitutional multiracial democracy is, you know, if you have dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito,

is birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for a Republican appointees where the expectation is? You will only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule birthright citizenship, just like you could only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule Roe versus Wade. It would also invite, you know, future chance. challenges to birthright down the road. So I think those are some of the things that are on people's mind. But then there's this additional consideration for me, which is even if the court does the right thing, I mean, they just cannot get all of the credit and all of the plaudits that are inevitably going to be heaped on them for standing up to the president when, as we were just

talking about, they bent over backwards to greenlight, some of the more xenophobic white nationalist elements of his immigration agenda when they didn't have to do so. They are the ones that created the need for this case on birthright citizenship and indeed demanded that the federal government bring the case to them when last year in the nationwide injunction case, they refused to just come out and say, even if lower courts can't block this policy on a nationwide basis, we Supreme Court can because it's wildly unconstitutional. And instead they made the Solicitor General promise that he would appeal any unfavorable ruling back to them, to give them the opportunity to be the hero. And so they were the ones that created this potential opportunity for great PR for themselves

that will give them cover for who knows what else they might do in addition to all of the terrible things they've already done. Yeah, it's interesting because John Roberts is a very political individual and he is tries, and he's not a very good political individual, but he tries to be one. And so I can see in his simple-minded view where he's like, we're going to do all these terrible things. And then we're going to head in a Fourth of July break with this decision that will cause everyone to say, see all those liberals who want to expand the court and due term limits and say we're a bunch of maga shills are wrong. And then there will be a series of legal pundits who will then applaud John Roberts. And he will ride off into the sunset as a hero, right? I mean, you say he's simple-minded and not that great.

But the end of your sentence, I just think is correct. when the court, if and when the court rules against birthright citizenship, there will be all of those takes. And people talking about how the court has stood up to the president and isn't just in the bag for MAGA and isn't on board with all of Trump's agenda. And therefore, you libs and you progressives who want to reform the court, what would you do if Donald Trump could reform the court when he disagreed with it? Like there's going to be so much of that. But those takes are why. America's most popular influential Supreme Court podcast exists, right? Like, you will be, you, you, Kada Musil, will be on that wall fighting back against that.

I know that, yes. I mean, we have been screaming about this for over a year at this point. And trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. So don't think you're not, you have not put your wheel to the, your shoulder to the wheel of history. Yes. Yes. Yes.

But, no, I mean, it's not to say it's going to work, but it is going to generate some of the coverage that they want. And it's just going to be annoying as fuck when it does. Yes. So let's say hypothetically, this is a seven two decision and, you know, Alito and Thomas, whoever else, they are against it. Can you fathom in your brain what that argument would be? Like, it is hard to find something as plain text as this in the, with as a simple and

specific application as this, you know, it's like obviously freedom of speech is in there, but then there are all kinds of different applications you can take on it. This is basically like, if this happens, you are a citizen. And Trump administration is arguing, if this happens, you are not a citizen. Like, what is the, what is the legal argument someone could muster as bullshit and fake as it would be that would say that birthright citizenship is not a lot? They could be curtailed or stopped by an administration. Yes. So having ventured into the dark recesses of right-wing legal circles, I can offer you at least two. Please, please.

One would be to say that there is a recognized exception for birthright citizenship, that birthright citizenship does not extend to the children of invading armies. You know, if, for example, Canada decided to invade the United States and, you know, officers who participated in that invasion had children born in the United States while they did so, then those children would not be citizens of the United States. And some on the right have argued that unauthorized immigration is the equivalent of an invasion of the United States, you know, borrowing on great replacement theory and other white nationalist tropes. And so one possible legal theory is the justices could equate unlawful, unauthorized immigration with an invasion and say

children who are born to individuals without legal status in the United States are the equivalent of the children of invading armies. That's one possibility. Another possibility is the court basically reads the exceptions to be the rule. So the phrase, as we were talking about in the 14th Amendment is all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And part of that exception recognizes that children of foreign diplomats, for example, you know, they are not born as United States citizens, just like. children of invading armies aren't United States citizens. And so part of the federal government's argument is to basically take those quite narrow exceptions and generalize them into a rule that

basically swallows the rule of birthright that says, well, individuals whose parents don't have an allegiance to the United States, their children can't be citizens. And so those are two possible avenues. Both are ridiculous and I think rest on underlying racist tropes about who is sufficiently American that birthright citizenship was intended to rebut. That's exactly what Dred Scott versus Sanford did when it concluded that individuals who were descendants of its slave persons couldn't be citizens because they too weren't American enough and didn't have allegiance to the United States, et cetera, et cetera. But I think that those are two of the theories that are on hand. That's very dark and very disturbing.

And thank you for visiting the dark side to share that with us. I think it's also notable that maybe this decision will come out right about the time the United States World Cup team is playing in the knockout round where the leading score of the World Cup team is someone who has their citizenship through birthright citizenship. Just a fact for that. Now, obviously, if they were to rule this just, I know we're in a dark hypothetical place here, it wouldn't be, would they make it retroactive? So this is part of the uncertainty. You know, the administration developed guidance about how they would implement the birthright order, but courts blocked that before the order would take effect. So we don't know whether the Supreme Court would say those injunctions vacated individuals who were born in the United States after this executive order was promulgated. They are not citizens.

We don't know whether the court would say, no, this just applies prospectively. now that we have said it can be enforced. It's all TBD, this new lawless, very uncertain era. It's all for grabs. Pod Save America is brought you by SimplySafe. No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into, but the scary statistic is that every 26 seconds in the U.S. a family experiences a break-in.

Scary, yes, but that's why Simpli-Safe has worked to make home security accessible to more American families. But here's one American family right here. Yeah, the Lovitz. The Lovitz. The Lovits have, I set up to Simply Save. And incredibly easy to do. You can customize it on the website.

It arrives. You set it up in a matter of minutes. Base station and the number pad and all the little sensors. And then the app is great. The customer support really reliable. And it gives you peace of mind. With Simply Safe, you can customize your system to fit your needs. Then ships fast directly to your door.

The app guided setup is simple. And there's no drilling required so you can install and arm your system in under an hour. Simply Save is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras. And 24-7 professional monitoring. Over 5 million people value and trust SimplySafe with their home security every day. Right now, our listeners, will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring, and your first month is free.

Just visit SimplySafe.com slash crooked. That's half off at SimplySafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimplySafe. Pod Save America is brought you by Willie's Remedy. I love Willie's Remedy. Willys is a premium THC-infused social tonic crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson, and the man's a genius. It's a low-calorie, low-sugar, alcohol alternative that actually works,

delivering fast-acting, euphoric social buzz without the regrets that come from alcohol. Willie's social tonics come in 5MG and 10-MG doses with the best-in-class flavor experience so smooth and balanced. You barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. We had Willie's drinks at the wedding. We called it the grin and tonic. I have finally tried Willys. It's awesome.

It really is. It's great. It's really. It's a great. It's my favorite thing. We just bought a bunch of other bottles in the house. Better than an edible. It's faster, but also smoother.

You can enjoy the tonics as a shot, sipped over ice or mixed into your favorite moktail. Each bottle of Willys is third-party lab tested for accurate dosage so you can trust and customize your experience. Willie's unique blend of THC, CBD, CBG, and L-thianine delivers a feeling of calm, clarity, euphoria, and relaxation. One shot of Willys helps you relax, unwind, and de-stress. It's perfect for taking the edge off at the end of a long day or socializing with friends. Willie ships directly to your door in 40-plus states and has sold out three times in the first six months with over 300,000-plus happy customers. So order now at Drinkwill.com and use code Crooked for 20% off. your first order, plus free shipping on orders over $95 and live like a legend.

Drinkwillies.com, code crooked. So looking at the other cases that are out there, and there's also some pretty big ones. So there is one involving a ban on trans participation in youth sports. There is one about whether the president was able to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed board. And then there are two election cases. Am I missing any other big ones out there? Are those the ones? Those are the ones that I would say are the big ones. Well, so when you said Lisa Cook, it's not just a case about Lisa Cook. There's also a case about whether Trump can fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission and all other independent agencies. They're not joint. They're two separate cases. Okay. You maybe explain those two cases for us.

Sure. Yeah. So one case involves whether Donald Trump can fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and all other independent agencies. agencies that are led by these independent multi-member commissions like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or you name it, National Labor Relations Board, et cetera. The Federal Reserve or is that separate? Well, the Federal Reserve is that separate case because what happened is earlier in the Trump administration, Trump fired a bunch of these heads of multi-member commissions, even though the Supreme Court has a case that's nearly a centuries old.

that says Congress can limit the president's ability to fire the heads of these multi-member commissions, specifically the Federal Trade Commission. So Donald Trump fired people in violation of these laws, and the Supreme Court said, actually we'll let him do that while the litigation is ongoing, because we Supreme Court have decided to adopt this great new rule. It's called the Unitary Executive Theory. And it means the president gets to have near plenary power to fire people who exercise significant executive power. But then they added a sentence, except the Federal Reserve Board, because that has a distinct historical tradition in the tradition of the Bank of the United States. That bespoke Fed exception, of course, illustrated that their new unitary executive rule was catastrophic immediately

once it would be unleashed onto the world because it would give the president the power to effectively blow up the United States and global economy. But that didn't give them pause. Instead, they just created that bespoke exception. And so what did Donald Trump do? He went ahead and tried to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board because, you know, when you give a fascist a cookie, what happens, right? They try to take another cookie. So then the Supreme Court ended up with these pair of cases.

And one set of cases asks, is it constitutional for Congress to attempt to limit the president's ability to fire at the heads of these multi-member commissions? That's a hugely important case because if the court hands the president that power, they will be giving him the power to control these agencies that exercise such sweeping powers over our lives, over government contracts, over other corporations have to comply with the law. You know, Federal Trade Commission, for example, they police Amazon. You know, they police antitrust law. If you tell the president, you can fire people who don't enforce antitrust law the way you want

them to. That's allowing him to give murders to his friends and penalize his enemies. So that case is super consequential. But they also have that case about Lisa Cook. And that case asks, well, given that this statute does limit the president's ability to fire Lisa Cook, did the president comply with those limitations? So I don't want the Cook case to kind of obscure the significance of the other case, which will affect every other independent agency. Let me ask a question on the independent agency case. Now, the president gets to appoint the heads of all of these jobs, right?

and they are approved by the Senate. And the reason the president can't just fire them like he could fire his Department of Home, his Secretary of Homeland Security or whatever else is because the way the law was written says they can only fire him for cause. Is that what it is? Yep. Because Congress decided these agencies would just run better if they were somewhat insulated from politics and relied more on expertise.

And then the question before the court is whether the president's inherent executive authority override that whether the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to him in that specific executive authority, right? Exactly. Whether the Constitution entitles the president to say you're fired, no matter what Congress is. Okay. And then the possible exception of the Fed because of its unique tradition. Because the justices have stock portfolios.

Yes. Exactly. They're all quite wealthy. And Clarence Simon says several very close friends who need, who need. that money to send him on vacation and elsewhere. Exactly. Private jet fuel. Don't pay for itself, Dan. Okay. So, all right, let's get to the transports case. This one, if I remember correctly, from the oral arguments earlier this year, seemed quite dire in what we thought the court would read, but maybe talk about that case. And if there's any, you see any hope here. Yeah. So this case

is about whether state laws that effectively ban transgender athletes from participating in sports violate either Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis. of sex in educational programs or educational institutions, and also whether these state laws violate the federal constitutions, guarantee of equal protection. The oral argument in the cases was awful. The lawyer for the federal government, who of course was arguing in support of these state law bans and against trans athletes, said one of the more grotesque things, I think, that has ever been said at the Supreme Court lectern when he referred to trans athletes. as males who take performance enhancing drugs.

And I just don't think there's any question that the six Republican appointees are going to say, these state laws are consistent with Title IX. The only lingering question is whether they're also going to say these state laws are constitutional or whether they will instead send the case back to the lower court to decide that constitutional question, perhaps with some additional fact finding. I honestly think that is the best we can hope for at this point. And the other thing to watch for is whether you get separate writings that say not only does Title IX permit states to ban trans athletes from participating at sports, potentially it requires states and schools to ban trans athletes from participating in sports. So that's kind of the spectrum of possibilities.

It's very bleak. Yeah. So we have two sort of major things that go, I guess, go beyond sports participation, right? One is suggesting that Title IX would require some measure of discrimination against trans people, whether that could be in anything involving education, right? Funding scholarships across the board, right? So that's one. That seems quite bad.

And then even worse, I would imagine, is making some case that, I mean, am I over-reading this, that the net result of an equal protection finding here would be that trans people have no equal protection rights? Being trans would not guarantee equal protection rights in the way that being black or a woman

or of a certain religious group? Yeah, the danger is the Supreme Court says laws that discriminate against trans people do not trigger any kind of meaningful judicial scrutiny. So courts should just defer to governments that discriminate on the basis of gender identity

and give those laws a pass. Given the extent to which states and the federal government have been trying to erase trans people and strip trans people of their rights, that would be a really concerning development because it would make challenging all of those laws or policies that are anti-trans in court. Could Congress then, in a different world with a different Congress and a different president, do something to address that? by passing laws that would guarantee, like either amending Title IX or like, what would a Congress do that would solve that problem?

Potentially, yes. So Congress could enact a statute. Maybe the statute itself just prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity, no matter the context in school and elsewhere. Maybe Congress creates a spending program that says, look, if you receive any federal funds, you have to promise not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Those are two possibilities. And yet I am left with but the Supreme Court. I cannot rule out the possibility that this court would invalidate those laws, maybe saying, well, they exceed Congress's powers.

Maybe the court would say, well, those laws actually discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the federal constitution. You know, maybe the court would say they had another spending clause decision. This is one of the other awful decisions from this week where they basically said spending programs can't be enforced against the state officials who are carrying them out. So maybe they would make those spending conditions effectively toothless. But there are things Congress could do. But basically anything Congress could do that is good requires a different Supreme Court. Yeah, which is true of all. That is true of all things. All things, yes. Stipulated, agreed to.

We have to deal with that. Yeah. The Supreme Court is also considering a Mississippi law that allows the five-day grace period for mail-on ballots received after election day to be counted. This law is, of course, being challenged by the RNC. And this has implications both for Mississippi and perhaps more broadly, like in California now where Spencer Pratt, who is a MAGA favorite, his chance spot in the runoff went away as more votes came in. And so talk a little bit about this case. And if it has broader implications for this grace period for mail-in balloting, which

is Trump is trying to, wrote an executive order to try to stop the, the, the Postal Service from delivery mail-in ballots, although that was stopped by federal courts. Just talk a little bit about what's going on there. Yeah. So the challenge here, the Republican National Committee, says this federal law that creates Election Day as this first Tuesday in November, that prohibits states from counting ballots that are received after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or by Election Day. If the Supreme Court adopts that theory, that would nullify or change how votes are counted,

in 29 some states. And of course, we are a few months away from the midterms. I think there's a real concern that changing the rules of the election at this point would put state and local election officials in a really tough spot because they have already begun to prepare to administer the election in accordance with what their state rules are now and requiring them to all of a sudden change on a dime because the Supreme Court like read election day to be this magical unicorn of a date on which everything but only some things have to be completed by would be hugely destabilizing. I also think it would create a lot of voter confusion and chaos that could potentially lead to voter suppression and people not actually returning their ballots and whatnot.

So I am very concerned about that case just because of its potential destabilizing and sweeping implications and also because of what it might invite next. If the Supreme Court says states can't count ballots that are received after election day, why can states count ballots that are received before election day? If election day is this magical day that everything is supposed to happen by, why can they count ballots after election day even if the ballots were received before election day? So part of what is so concerning about this case is it could call into question so many established voting practices that we have just taken for granted in addition to fucking with the midterms. And the sea change here potentially is that the courts to date have given states because of the

constitution wide latitude in how they conduct their elections. And many of the cases that have been thrown out, even some Trump cases in 2020, or based on that principle that the Constitution grants the states to do it. They have to do it in accordance with the Constitution. but beyond that, you want to do your election all by mail, you can do that. You want to count them, you want to count ones that arrive after election day but a postmarking four. You can do that. But that could open the door to other things going forward here.

Potentially. So even though states, of course, have the general authority to run elections, Congress can establish rules regarding federal elections. Now, the president can't. So all of his unhinged theories about what he can then can't do. and what he does and doesn't want, right, I think are still wildly illegal no matter what the Supreme Court says in this absentee ballot case. But this federal law that just, again, creates an election day in no way displaces how states have conducted elections for years. And so I think the challenge is what other challenges to other state laws, you know, this theory would invite in addition to the position it would put state and local election officials.

in the lead up to the midterm elections. And it probably is worth noting that the people who will probably be most disenfranchised with this are military members serving overseas, which are where a lot of the ballots come from that show up after Election Day. That is indeed true. Indeed, the practice of, you know, voting outside of Election Day partially originated during the Civil War to ensure that Union soldiers would not be disenfranchised. There is always a possibility that the Republican appointees announced no ballots can be

You counted after election day, if they're received after election day, except for overseas uniformed officers. Now, that might not protect the families of people who are stationed overseas and whatnot. And that would also create its own form of chaos. But who knows? Pod Save America is brought to you by Armoura Colostrum. When you prioritize your body's baseline, you're better equipped to show up with focus and energy, no matter what the day holds.

Armour Colostrum is a simple, nature-inspired addition to your daily wellness routine. While many turn to probiotics for gut support, they often only focus on one part of a complex system. Armour Cholostrum works differently by providing comprehensive nourishment for your gut's natural barrier. It's designed to help sustain your microbiome and support your body's natural defenses against the stressors of modern life. Elevate yourself care from the inside out, armor colostrum provides a blueprint of nutrients that complement your body's natural renewal processes. From supporting skin and hair vibrancy to assisting with daily recovery, it's the ultimate tool for those looking to optimize their well-being at the cellular level. Research has also shown that Colostrum can be a powerful ally for your active life. It supports the body's natural ability to absorb nutrients and maintain lean muscle.

We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to armor.com slash cricket or enter crooked to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-A.com slash crooked. The other case is actually one that has gotten very little attention, but it actually has potentially dramatic impacts. In fact, some have said that this case, which involves how whether party committees can coordinate with candidates would be the biggest campaign finance decision since Citizens United, which is saying a lot because we've had cases

like McCutcheon and others in the middle here. Also in the oral arguments here did not seem particularly encouraging. So maybe you try to explain this case to people why they should care about it. Yeah. So it sounds technical because it's a challenge to what's called a coordination limit, as you were saying. which is a political party's ability to coordinate how they spend their money with a candidate. It effectively amounts to a ban on political parties donating money to a candidate because if they coordinate, they're effectively giving them money to the candidate to decide how it could be spent.

And there is a concern that if you say, well, contribution limits, actually those might be constitutional, that is like the last remaining vestige of campaign finance law. Because even as the Supreme Court has opened up these pathways for corporations, super PACs, to spend an unlimited amount of their own money doing their own advertising, they have not yet struck down limitations on billionaires and corporations' ability to give money directly to candidates. And once you start, saying actually contribution limits, those are no good either, then that invites individuals giving directly money to candidates. And I think that's one of the big concerns about this case.

Yeah, like in practical consideration, right? So there's two things. There's what this case would mean right now and how elections are conducted today. And then there is the larger question about whether contribution limits at all are now a violation of free speech, which leads to instead of Elon Musk writing, spending $130,000. $32 million or whatever it was to in a series of outside groups to elect Donald Trump. He just gives Donald Trump $1032 million. Exactly.

Cut out the middleman. Yes, that seems bad. But just like as you think about it now, you can give about $7,000 to a candidate. Half in the primary, half in the general, as an individual, whether you are you or me or Elon Musk. That's the most we can give directly to Graham Platner, John Osoff, Roy Cooper, whoever else. you can give, an individual can give $132,000, $132,900 to the DNC or the RNC. And so now, instead of giving my $7,000, my little over $7,000 to Grand Platinum, I just give $132,000 to the DNC, and then they spend that on behalf of, this matters more in presidential campaigns than it does anything else because that's where it be spent directly. But it does have big implications and just once again gives more power to rich people.

This is almost certainly going to the court will approve this. This is in line with every other decision they've made since John Roberts became the chief justice. And the Trump administration isn't even defending the law here. They are on the other side of it because it's the NRC, the National Logan Senatorial Committee, is the plaintiff in the case. So this one is, this is a big mess. This is one for election nerds are paying a lot of attention to and people who work on elections. But they get some pretty big implications for what else is to. What else is to come in our politics?

Yeah, completely. Because in the short term, it would just rapidly increase the amount of money that rich individuals can give directly to candidates. But then in the longer term, it potentially opens up a pathway for no limits at all. There is a small outside chance that the court says there's no actual controversy here. And the case is moot and they don't decide it. But that is the best scenario. I mean, look, I mean, this Supreme Court, there's always hope, right? Like, we can't, yeah.

Give them that. One thing they've earned is the benefit of the doubt. Better to the doubt. All right. Before we go, I want to hit on Roe v. Wade this past week was the four-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, which overturned the Roeby Wade decision. The legacy of that decision continues to live in our lives, in our politics, everywhere. It is coming up in this main Senate race where Susan Collins is running against Grand Pioneer.

And she got asked about it on Fox News. I wanted to play the clip and get your reaction to it. You held up for quite some time on your vote of support for now Justice Kavanaugh. Is this an issue that you think is troublesome for you in this race now that Roe v. Wade was overturned in Maine across the country? Well, first of all, let me make clear that I disagreed with the Supreme Court's six to three decision overturning Roe v. Wade. but the fact is that whether Justice Kavanaugh were confirmed or not, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned given the six to three vote. Not true, Sam Alito says.

Could you maybe explain where Susan Collins has her facts wrong on this one? Where to start. There's so much to potentially say about this lip. I am going to step out the way and let you go. Okay, we'll start with the factual inaccuracy. these, had Justice Kavanaugh not been confirmed, there were not five votes to overrule Roe versus Wade. Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to overrule Roe versus Wade. He instead voted to change the legal test in a way that would have expanded state's ability to restrict

abortion more so than they could have done before the decision, but not to the point of overruling Roe versus Wade. So that's just factually inaccurate. There were just five justices who voted to overall row. And just to be clear, she confirmed the fifth justice. And she confirmed Brett Kavanaugh, exactly, who was one of those five. So facts, not so great. Second, I absolutely just despise this framing of, I disagree with the court's decision. I don't regret my vote because it just makes me wonder, what great things has Brett Kavanaugh done that make the loss of women's lives, their fertility, their health worth it. Like how many women have to lose their lives for you to conclude that actually maybe you do regret your vote?

So that is just horrifying. And then there's this sense that maybe she, you know, made this decision, but it didn't really affect Mainers, which is also wrong. because, you know, people who live in Maine, which still has abortion access, might travel. And sometimes people experience medical emergencies that might require medical care, including abortion care. And if you're traveling in a state where after Roe abortion is banned, you are potentially in a circumstance where you could not receive medical care. Add to that the fact that the medication abortion rulings potentially jeopardize access to medication abortion, even in states like Maine that want to protect abortion. And I just think she is really papering over so many of the horrific consequences that her vote to confirm the fifth vote to overrule Roe have had. And it just one of the more tragic things about the 2024 presidential election is I think people came away from it thinking, well, actually the Republican Party isn't going to bear any consequences for overruling Roe.

And the public has just decided not to force them to pay a price. for, again, the loss of lives, health, fertility, more that we have seen in the wake of Roe being overruled. And I hope that is not the case. I hope then in 2026, you know, people who enable this post-Roe landscape are held accountable. But it is just very depressing. I think any time I think about the fact that people just decided to give a bunch of politicians a pass for what they have unleashed on people in this country. So let me, can I give the counterpoint to that? Yeah, let's do it. Because I talked with some polar coaster this past week because of the anniversary of Dobbs.

And what is really interesting about the polling on this is abortion was a very divisive issue in this country up until the moment of Dobs. And the number of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice had reached an all-time high right after Dobbs. And four years later has stayed the same. It has not gone down. As obviously in that immediate aftermath and in that election in 2020, as these republic states are rushing to pass their bills, abortion was the number one issue in politics. It was discussed everywhere.

People were dealing with, it was just a topic of conversation. As it's dropped in salience, it has not changed the politics of, which I think is very, very positive. and creates the path for accountability for these people. And there are opportunities in 2026 to hold these people accountable. You have Susan Collins. Yes. You have Ken Paxton.

You have an array of officials in Ohio, right? In a whole bunch of other states that passed some of the most the cruelest and most retrograde reproductive rights laws in this country can all pay the price. Everyone should go to VoteSafeAmerica.com to figure out how to do that. But I really do believe Donald Trump was this unicorn figure because even though he is the person other than Susan Collins, most responsible for Roe being overturned, no one actually believed that he truly was anti-choice. Like I remember in focus groups, people would say, if you asked in a focus group if Donald Trump was anti-abortion or anti-choice, they would laugh. He would say he, Donald Trump probably paid for abortions. Yeah. Yeah.

And he probably, like, I mean, here's a guy who cheated on all his wives, sleeps around. Like, he's a disgusting cat. He's from Manhattan. He probably, like, obviously he doesn't care about abortion. That is not true for the rest of this republic. It's certainly not true of Ken Paxton, who is a principal architect of that law and the enforcement of that law. And so there are opportunities to hold people accountable here. And like, this is, I do believe that Dobbs was a, it did not bear, it did not bear fruit in 2024 because of a long list of unique circumstances.

that bedeviled that election that we don't have to get into, but was a fundamental signature moment that changed politics in this country in ways that will ensure those people are held accountable and more and more states will elect the right people to put in place laws and maybe one day we'll have a Supreme Court that can undo the damage that was done there. I very much hope you are correct. And I just worry that I have rarely gone wrong in estimating the amount of misogyny that Americans will tolerate in their politics. And again, I very much hope you are right.

May it be the case. And we have the ability to impact that ourselves right now. Exactly. Exactly. In many different ways. Yes. Whether that is like calling your officials to remind them that actually you do care about abortion access and reproductive rights.

Are your senators confirming nominees, giving blue slips to nominees, who you don't think will protect reproductive freedom. John Ketterman, for instance, yes. You know, not naming names, but. Someone who is on the ballot in 2028 will be a primary challenge, yes. Yes. Or, again, electing officials, helping to get out the vote to help elect officials, you know, who will protect reproductive freedom, you know,

and to vote against people who didn't. All of those are ways to make this happen. And I think we kind of need to make reproductive freedom a salient issue. I think is part of protecting democracy. like you can't really separate these two things. Nope. So, yeah. Finger stuff.

See, that seems what was perhaps not the most optimistic and hopeful pod that we've done in Pots Save America for the last many years, although quite insightful, interesting and entertaining, I would say. Maybe we can end on that positive-ish note. Leah Libman, thanks so much for joining us. And everyone, check out strict scrutiny. You guys can have another podcast out this week on Monday. I was talking about some decisions and then maybe more, depending on what we hear from

the rest of the court. Is that right? That is all correct. new episode on Monday and then likely additional episodes whenever the Supreme Court does fuck knows what. Leah, thank you so much. Thanks. Thanks to Leah for stopping by. John, John and Tommy will be backing your feed with a new episode on Tuesday.

Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari with Reed Jorlin, Elijah Cohn and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroote, Ben Hethkoe, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Pellevieve, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.