UNBIASED - January 12, 2026: New ICE Footage of Minneapolis Shooting and When Deadly Force Is Justified, Two Transgender Athlete Cases Before the Supreme Court, Reality of Trump's Greenland Comments, and More.

Episode Date: January 12, 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠SUBSTACK⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: ICE Updates: New Footage Shows Agents Perspective in Minneapolis, Standard for Deadly Force, PLUS U.S. Citizens' Rights Against ICE Agents (0:40) What We Know About Trump's Desire for Greenland (15:03) Supreme Court Will Hear Two Transgender Athlete Cases Tomorrow; Here's What to Know (~25:45) Quick Hitters: Fed Chair Powell Under Investigation, Machado to Meet Trump at White House, Sen. Kelly Sues Hegseth, Gallup Poll Finds Record Number Political Independents (~44:00) Critical Thinking Segment (~46:35) A Piece of Good News (~48:00) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, January 12th. Let's talk about some news. Quick note first about Iran. I know it's a highly requested topic. But just as a reminder, my general rule here is that I do not dive into international matters until the United States takes some form of, you know, action. So when and if the United States, United States does do that and does get involved. I will certainly talk about it then, but for now, we are going to stick to domestic affairs. Starting with some updates to the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, since we last talked, there have been some updates, and I do want to cover those

updates. I also want to clear up something that I said in last week's episode and answer some of your questions about what kind of jurisdiction ICE agents have over U.S. citizens. So let's start with clearing up some precedent first. In last week's episode, I highlighted the fact that ICE agents cannot fire at the driver of a moving vehicle unless they have the reasonable belief that the driver poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That per the DHS use of force policy to justify the use of deadly force. An agent has to have the reasonable belief that the subject, in this case the driver, poses an imminent threat of either death or serious bodily injury. And that can either be to the agent or to someone else. So whether

the shots were justified here comes down to whether the agent had a reasonable belief that Renee Good posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, either to that agent or to someone else. And in last week's episode, we talked a little bit about what reasonable belief means. And I said that according to the Supreme Court, when it comes to claims of deadly force, it is an objective standard, meaning the reasonableness of an agent's use of force has to be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 2020 vision of hindsight. So courts will ask what a reasonable officer on the scene would have done based on the circumstances that the officer actually faced, not with hindsight after all the facts are known.

And in answering that question, courts allow for the fact that agents and officers are often forced to make split second decisions in situations that are tense or uncertain. you know, rapidly evolving. So there's, there's quite a lot of deference given to law enforcement officers, including ICE agents. But this is the part that I messed up. So in last week's episode, I said that the question is, at the moment the shots were fired, regardless of what happened leading up to that moment, regardless of the actions the officer took beforehand, would a reasonable officer have believed that the driver posed an imminent threat of death or bodily serious bodily injury. Now, that's sometimes called the moment of threat doctrine, but the Supreme

Court actually rejected that doctrine very recently in May of last year. And it was in a case called Barnes v. Felix. So the Supreme Court said in Barnes that the moment of threat doctrine improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment reasonable officer analysis because, one, it ignores relevant context and events leading up to the shooting. And two, it conflicts with longstanding precedent requiring a broader totality of the circumstances review. So per the court's ruling in Barnes, courts must look not just at what was happening, you know, in the millisecond when the trigger was bold. They have to consider all relevant circumstances the officer knew before that happened. So deadly force claims are judged by whether a reasonable officer on the scene would have believed

there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. And this judgment is objective and it accounts for split second decisions. But courts cannot limit that inquiry to just the moment the officer pulled the trigger. They have to consider the broader context leading up to that moment. So that is what we're looking at here. in the wake of Renee Good's death. Considering the events that led up to the moment of the shooting, would a reasonable officer on the scene have believed

that Good posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury? And we do have this new cell phone footage that was released over the weekend, which was taken on the ICE agent's cell phone, the agent that ultimately fired the shots. In that footage, you can basically hear Renee Good saying, actually exactly what she says is quote, that's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you. And she's saying this as the agent is walking around the car,

taking a video of the car and of the license plate. While he's filming, there is another woman in the video standing on the street saying things to the agent like, show your face. And you want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. The woman who's saying those things, is also filming the ICE agent as he is filming her as well as Good's car.

At this point, another ICE agent can be heard telling Good, get out of the car, get out of the fucking car, and again, get out of the car. And that is when Good puts her car into reverse and starts to pull away. The agent recording the video can be heard yelling at this point as if he's about to be hit by the car. And then you can hear contact mate or you can hear like impact sounds. It's unclear whether that impact was Good's car hitting the agent's cell phone, whether that was Good's car hitting the agent's body, whether that was the agent's cell phone hitting his own body.

You're not really sure, but he yells as if he's about to be hit and there is some sort of impact heard. But all within a one second time frame, the impact is heard and the shots are fired. And from there, an ICE agent, it's not totally clear whether it's the one taking the video or it's another agent that's, you know, right in that vicinity can then be heard saying, fucking bitch, as Good's car comes to a rolling stop, crashing into that light pole and a parked car. So again, you know, from that perspective, now that we have this new angle now that we have this new footage, we asked the question again, the same question we were asking

last week. Would a reasonable officer on the scene have believed that good posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury? Now, a lot of you also have questions about ICE's jurisdiction over U.S. citizens. In other words, what power do ICE agents have over lawful U.S. citizens and what rights do U.S. citizens have in the situation where they're confronted by ICE agents. So this is what I will tell you. If an ICE agent confronts a U.S. citizen, that citizen has the same basic constitutional rights that they would have with any other law enforcement encounter. Now, the problem is a lot of people don't know their rights, and that's why I'm here to help. I'm going to tell you exactly what rights that, what rights you have. And this applies, you know,

in situations with police officers. This applies in situations with ICE agents. You have the same basic constitutional rights. So first, you have the right to remain silent. You do not have to answer any questions about anything. You don't have to answer where you were born. You don't have to answer questions about your citizenship status. You don't have to answer questions about how you entered the United States. You don't have to answer questions about anything else for that matter, even if an officer or an agent asks you. You also have the right to ask if you are being detained or if you are free to leave. If an officer says that you are free to leave, you can walk away. If the officer or agent says no, that means you are being detained and you cannot walk away.

You also have the right to refuse a search without a warrant unless officers have probable cause or as I just said a warrant. So ICE agents can't search you without your consent unless they have probable cause. However, they can pat down the outside of your clothes if they think you might have a weapon. Now, if an agent tries to search you or your belongings beyond that pat down, you can say you do not consent to the search. Don't get physical with the agent. You can just say you don't consent. And this is why.

if you get physical, you can be arrested or at the very least detained. If you simply say you don't consent, you are preserving your legal rights because let's say you say you don't consent, right? And they search anyway. If that search turns out to be unlawful because they violated your constitutional rights, your refusal in that situation helps you challenge it in court later because any evidence that is found in an illegal search can be thrown out, first of all, and the government might lose their case against you. So that's another thing. If you are detained or taken into custody, you have the right to contact an attorney. Even if you don't have an attorney, you can tell agents that you want to speak with one. Now, here's another thing to keep in mind, ICE operates in a civil

context, whereas typical police arrests operate in a criminal context. What this means is that when it comes to ICE enforcement, Miranda warnings aren't required in the same way that they are in criminal cases. So ICE might not be legally required to stop their questioning just because you say you want to talk to a lawyer. It depends on the circumstances. But you do always have the right to remain silent. So they can continue asking you questions, but you do not have to answer. Along similar lines, you don't have to sign anything. If you're given paperwork, don't sign it until you. you talk to a lawyer. Or if you do sign it, make sure you understand exactly what you are signing. Also remember that under federal law, ICE officers are allowed to interrogate someone that they

reasonably believe is an alien, meaning not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. They are also allowed to arrest, detain, and transport aliens in certain circumstances. And they can care. carry out immigration warrants. Now, this is important. An ICE agent can detain someone that they reasonably believe is not a U.S. citizen, even if that person ends up being a U.S. citizen, okay? But they can detain someone that they reasonably believe is not. This is the key, though. If a person turns out to be a U.S. citizen, ICE can no longer keep them in custody. Detaining a citizen without proper cause would violate the Constitution, okay? And then this is the last thing I want to talk about, warrants.

So ICE can only enter your home with a judicial warrant that has been signed by a judge. And it's important that you know not all warrants are the same. There are judicial warrants and there are administrative warrants. A judicial warrant is signed by a judge and it allows law enforcement to enter your home. An administrative warrant is an internal ICE document. It is not signed by a judge. it does not give agents the legal authority to enter your home without your consent. If ICE only has an administrative warrant, you can legally refuse to let them into your house.

So if ICE comes to your door hypothetically and says they have a warrant and to let them in, you can ask them, you know, either slide the warrant under the door or hold it up to a window. And from there, you can check whether that warrant has been signed by a judge. If it is signed by a judge, they have the right to enter. If it is not, you can refuse entry. You can say something along the lines of, you know, I don't consent to entry based on this warrant. But if you have a judicial warrant signed by a judge, please show it to me.

So to wrap this up, this is what's important to remember. If you are a U.S. citizen and you are confronted by ICE, you do not lose your constitutional rights. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to ask whether you're being detained or whether you're free to leave. You have the right to refuse a search if there's no valid warrant. saying I don't consent doesn't necessarily stop officers from acting if they believe they have legal authority to do so, but it does protect your rights later. You have the right to speak to a

lawyer. At the same time, ICE agents are allowed to question and temporarily detain someone they reasonably believe is not a U.S. citizen, even if that belief later turns out to be wrong. But once that person is confirmed to be a U.S. citizen, ICE cannot keep them in custody. And then finally, when it comes to your home, only a judicial warrant signed by a judge gives law enforcement the authority to enter your home without your consent. An administrative ICE warrant is not enough. If ICE only has an administrative warrant, you can legally refuse entry. You are allowed to ask to see if the warrant has been signed by a judge before opening the door. So the one liner to remember here is this. ICE has the authority to enforce immigration law. And with that,

that comes certain powers, but it does not override the Constitution. And the last thing I want to say is this. The vast majority of United States citizens will never be detained by ICE. Okay, ProPublica found that 170 U.S. citizens have been detained by ICE in 2025. Now, obviously, that number is not zero, but it's a very, very small number compared to the to the amount of citizens here in the United States. So I never. want to scare you into thinking that you're at serious risk of being confronted by an ice agent or you're at serious risk of being detained. But as with anything, anything is possible. So it is important to know your rights. And I hope that this conversation helped. Okay. So now what I want to do

is briefly talk about Greenland, because a lot of you have been asking whether this is serious, what the legal limits are, and why this is suddenly back in the news. The reason this is back in the news is because this past Friday, President Trump told reporters that we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not. Now, that comment followed earlier comments by him where he suggested that if the United States doesn't act, Russia or China could move in, which of course makes it sound like Greenland is more of a national security issue than anything else. Keep in mind that this is not the first time Trump has talked about Greenland. Back in 2019, during his first term, he openly floated the idea of buying it. And at the time, he said that Greenland was quote unquote strategically interesting. That proposal was met with almost universal rejection in Greenland itself.

Fast forward to December 2024, a month after the most recent election, Trump brought up the idea again. And Trump said that the United States ownership and control of Greenland was an absolute necessity for national security and global freedom. Greenland's leadership responded immediately and again rejected the idea. The then prime minister said Greenland belongs to its people. It is not for sale and it never will be. And European leaders also wait in on this. Countries like France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK, Denmark issued this joint statement basically affirming that Greenland belongs to its people and emphasized NATO unity. So that's where we're at with this. But that brings us to the question, why Greenland? Greenland is a self-governing territory within the kingdom of Denmark. It's big too. It's about 8,000. 36,000 square miles, but it's not that populated. Only about 57,000 people live there. Geographically, it's ice, coastline, glaciers, tundra, but economically and strategically, it's a lot more than that. Greenland is actually pretty rich in minerals like lithium and certain rare earth elements, along with oil and gas, and those rare earth elements and minerals are especially relevant

because China currently dominates much of the global supply chain for them. So Greenland is enticing for the United States for this reason alone, but arguably the most important factor is location. Greenland is basically right between North America and Europe. So if you're moving ships, subs, aircraft between those two regions, especially through the North Atlantic, Greenland sits right along that path. And that makes it a natural strategic checkpoint. In fact, the United States has been involved in Greenland since World War II when American forces were allowed in to make sure Nazi Germany couldn't use the island as the shortcut between Europe and North America. That relationship was formalized in 1951 through this defense agreement that allowed U.S. forces to be stationed there. And at the height of the Cold War, the United States operated about 50 bases on the island.

Today, the United States only has one base there. but this is just to say location-wise, Greenland has always made sense for the United States. But this is the legal question. Can the United States actually acquire Greenland if Denmark and Greenland oppose it? There are a few major legal barriers here. So the first one is NATO. Denmark is a NATO member. Under Article 5, an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all. So if the United States were to use force against Greenland, it would either trigger a massive alliance crisis. or it would expose Article 5 as effectively meaningless. Either outcome would fundamentally reshape NATO and how NATO works. The second barrier is international law, specifically the UN Charter.

Article 2 requires member states to resolve disputes peacefully, and it prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. a unilateral annexation of Greenland without Denmark's consent would of course violate these provisions. But even beyond NATO and beyond the UN Charter, there's also Greenland's right to self-determination. Under international law, territories like Greenland have a recognized right to self-determination, meaning the people who live there are going to say in their political future, right? And Greenland isn't just, you know, land that Denmark can hand over. it's a self-governing territory with with its own elected government and international law treats

the will of its population as legally significant. So even if Denmark hypothetically agreed to a transfer, ignoring Greenlander's opposition would still be legally and politically problematic. And then even on Denmark side, this isn't, it's not a simple executive decision, just like it's not here in the United States. Any transfer of sovereignty would almost certainly require parliamentary, approval, likely constitutional review. But right now Denmark is clear that Greenland is not for sale and Denmark has consistently supported Greenland's autonomy. And then finally, here in the United States, like I just said, acquiring Greenland is not something the president could just do himself. Under federal law here in the United States, acquiring a foreign territory requires congressional

approval. Funding would need to be authorized. Any treaty or agreement would likely need Senate ratification. So it's not just, you know, oh, the president wants to do this, so this is what's going to happen. At this point, there's no publicly known plan for how or whether the administration would actually attempt to move forward on this. So this is all very much just, you know, it's an idea. It's discussions are happening. What we do know is that it's being discussed more. And we also know that Danish and Greenlandic envoys are actually expected in Washington this week for talks.

So we'll have to see what unfolds there. but this is what we know as of right now. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the transgender athlete cases that are being heard at the Supreme Court tomorrow. And then we'll finish with quick hitters, critical thinking, and one piece of good news. In 2026, one of the things that I'm focused on is replacing all of my kitchen and cookware with non-toxic products, especially with a baby on the way.

It just feels like a really important move. I've done a ton of research on this, and it freaks me out, honestly, that's so many products out there that we cook with every day and we store our food in have these harmful chemicals. So once I found Caraway, the switch was a no-brainer. I decided to go with the 12-piece ceramic cookware set in white, but my number one thing about these pans is that they are made without PTFE, PFOA, and PFAs, also known as Forever Chemicals. We've talked about Forever chemicals on this show before, but if you don't know what they are, I highly recommend doing some research. And it just makes me feel really good that now I'm cooking with products that do not

contain these chemicals. And then on top of the safety of the pans, the ceramics, you know, naturally slick surface means that you only have to use minimal oil or butter for those slide-off-the-pan eggs and easy cleaning. That's always the worst part of cooking is the cleaning. And the ceramic surface really helps with that. Carraway's cookware set is a favorite for a reason. It can save you up to $190 versus buying the items individually. Plus, if you visit careawayhome.com slash unbiased, you can take an additional 10% off your next purchase. The deal is exclusive to my listeners. So visit carawayhome.com slash unbiased or just use code unbiased at checkout. Caraway, non-toxic cookware made modern. Welcome back. Let's talk about what

what's happening at the Supreme Court tomorrow because this is one of those cases that will come up a lot in the headlines and I want you to understand what is being argued. So the court is set to hear oral arguments tomorrow in two cases back to back. One of those cases is Little versus Hecox. The other is West Virginia versus BPJ. Both have to do with state bans on transgender athletes and both raise questions about sex discrimination and fairness in sports. Where the two cases differ, is when it comes to the legal framework that they're being argued under. So Little versus Hecox is primarily a constitutional case, specifically an equal protection issue, whereas West Virginia versus BPJ is primarily a statutory civil rights case,

specifically a Title IX issue. And that distinction will make more sense as we dive further into this. But because of that, I want to explain both cases separately, and then we'll bring them together at the end to talk about what questions the court has to answer. know how the court could potentially rule here. So Little versus Hecox involves Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act. This is a law that was passed in 2020. It prohibits transgender women and girls from competing on women's and girls sports teams at public schools and public colleges. Under the law, eligibility is determined based on sex at birth. Okay.

The plaintiff assigned in this case is Lindsay Heacock. a transgender woman who was a student at Boise State University. She challenged the law after being barred from trying out for the women's track and cross-country teams. And her challenge was based on an equal protection clause violation, which we'll get into more in a minute. But a federal district court ruled in her favor and blocked enforcement of the law as it applied to her, saying that she was likely to succeed on her claim that the law violated

the equal protection clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and upheld that decision. And from there, Idaho's governor Bradley Little, which is why the case is Little versus Hecox, appealed the case to the Supreme Court. And now here we are. As I've said, Little versus Hecox, which I will call Little from here on out, centers on whether state laws that restrict transgender students from participating in school sports violate the Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

there's also a question about federal civil rights laws, but the main question in this case revolves around the Equal Protection Clause, which comes from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and basically says that states cannot deny people equal protection under the law. So in other words, if the government is going to treat groups of people differently, it has to have a legally sufficient reason for doing so. And keep in mind that not every law that draws a distinction between groups of people is unconstitutional. Courts look at how the law classifies people and what rights are affected by the law, and then they apply different levels of scrutiny to that law, depending on the answers to those questions. So there are three levels of scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the highest, and it's applied when a law threatens a fundamental right or discriminates based on race, national origin, or religion.

The government has to show, if the court decides that strict scrutiny scrutiny applies. The court has to show a compelling interest and prove that it use the least restrictive way to achieve that interest. It is very hard for a law to pass strict scrutiny and only very specific laws successfully do. Intermediate scrutiny is less demanding than strict scrutiny and typically applies to laws that discriminate based on gender or sex. And this is the one that matters most in the two cases we're talking about today. Under this state, the government has to show that the law serves an important governmental interest and that the law is substantially related to achieving that interest. And then finally, there's rational basis review.

This is the lowest level of scrutiny. It's easiest for laws to withstand constitutional must are under rational basis review because the person challenging the law has to prove that the government has no legitimate interest in enacting the law or that there is no reasonable rational link between the government's interest and the challenged law. And usually the government will have some legitimate interest in enacting law, which is why laws almost always survive rational basis review. Now, one of the biggest disputes in both of these cases is which level of scrutiny should apply when states restrict transgender students participation in sports. And you might be thinking to yourself, well, you just said that intermediate scrutiny applies to laws that discriminate

based on gender or sex. And while that's true, the Supreme Court has yet to determine which level of scrutiny applies to transgender status specifically. And that's why there are so many eyes on these cases, specifically little, because people are thinking that this is going to be the case in which the Supreme Court finally tells us which, you know, which level of scrutiny applies to transgender status. In Little, the Ninth Circuit's analysis is important. So first, the court asked whether the law classifies people based on sex. And it found that it does because eligibility for a sports team depends on sex assigned at birth. That is the conclusion that the Ninth Circuit came to. Once the court reached that conclusion, it applied intermediate scrutiny. And the court also said the law discriminated

based on transgender status, which is treated as a form of sex discrimination because the law's purpose and effect were to exclude transgender women and girls based on gender identity. So under intermediate scrutiny, Idaho argued that the law served two main governmental interests, promoting fairness in women's sports and protecting athlete safety. And while the Ninth Circuit agreed that fairness is an important, governmental interest, it said that the state had failed to show that a blanket ban based solely on sex at birth was substantially related to achieving that goal. And because of that, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Idaho's Fairness and Women's Sports Act violated equal protection and must be struck down.

Now, Idaho went ahead and appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court and now we're here. But this is where things get complicated, specifically as it pertains to little, okay? After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Hecocks, the plaintiff, voluntarily dismissed her claims in the lower court. She basically told the justices she no longer intends to compete in women's sports in Idaho for a variety of reasons. Her father's death was one of those reasons. Her own sickness was one of those reasons. Unwanted public attention was also another reason.

So because she voluntarily dismissed the claims, it raises another very important question. that the Supreme Court has to answer first. Is this case now moot? Okay. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, can only decide live controversies. If the plaintiff no longer has a personal stake in the outcome, the case is generally considered moot and the court loses jurisdiction, and the court will dismiss the case. Now, there is an exception for cases that are capable of repetition, yet evading review. Okay, this is a doctrine. that the court has used in cases like Roe versus Wade, but the justices will have to ultimately decide whether that doctrine applies too little. And just so we're all on the same page with that,

for the doctrine to apply, two conditions have to be met. Number one, the issue has to be inherently short-lived. So think about things like pregnancy, elections, short-term government orders, etc. If the issue usually resolves itself before the normal court process can finish, that weighs in favor of applying the exception. And the second condition is that the same plaintiff must reasonably face the same issue again. So the court doesn't ask whether someone else might face the same issue in the future or whether the issue is politically or socially important. The court asks whether this specific plaintiff is likely to be subject to the same issue or action again. And keep in mind, both of those conditions have to be satisfied for this doctrine to apply.

If either one fails, the case is moot. So the court will have to look at both of those conditions and see whether they are both met. If they are, they can consider the merits of Little v. Hecox, despite Hecox dropping her claim. If they're not, the case is moot and the court will dismiss the case as such without rendering a decision. Let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, though, the justices decide that they are going to hear the merits of this case. the court is going to have to look at several questions here whether a law that bases eligibility on sex assigned at birth is a sex-based classification under the equal protection clause what level of scrutiny applies and whether Idaho's categorical ban or blanket ban is substantially

related to Idaho's interests of fairness and safety in women's sports. Idaho is arguing that sports have always been separated by sex and that that's allowed under the Constitution. Idaho also argues that on average male and females have biological differences that matter in competitive sports. So lawmakers decided that separating teams this way is the best way to keep women's sports fair and safe. And because this is a policy decision and not something courts are experts in, the state is saying basically judges shouldn't step in and second guess the rules that lawmakers you know, set. Hecox, on the other hand, argues that Idaho's law draws lines based on sex and transgender status, so it deserves closer scrutiny from the courts. And instead of looking at individual athletes, the law just bans everyone who is transgender, no matter their circumstances.

She argues that, you know, that's too broad because it assumes all transgender women have an unfair advantage, even when that might not be true for a specific person. And because of that, she says the law goes further than necessary and isn't carefully designed to achieve the state's goals. And when I say, by the way, I just want to make this clear, when I say Hickox argues, I just mean the plaintiff side of things. As we know, Hecox dropped her claims. So I just mean that the plaintiff's side of the argument, that that is what it is. It has since been taken over. It's not Hecox herself. But those are the arguments on both sides in Little versus Hecox. Now let's talk about West Virginia versus BPJ.

This case involves West Virginia's state law called Save Women's Sports Act. It passed in 2021, and like Idaho's law, it prohibits transgender women and girls from competing on girls and women's sports teams in public schools. BPJ is a transgender girl who began identifying as female in elementary school. And when she got to middle school, she wanted to join the girls' track and cross-country teams, but West Virginia's state law prohibited it. Her mom filed a lawsuit on her behalf, and initially the district court blocked the law and allowed her to compete, but then later ruled in favor of the state when it ended up considering the merits of the case. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and held that the law violates Title IX.

Now, Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs that receive federal funding. People often associate Title IX with expanding opportunities for women in sports because that was one of the main purposes of the law back when it was passed in the 70s. But it actually applies much more broadly. It applies to admissions, discipline, housing, access to educational programs, et cetera. And the Supreme Court has, this is separate from Title IX specifically, but has interpreted similar language. so on the basis of sex language in other federal laws to protect transgender individuals, like in the context of employment law. But the court has never directly ruled on whether Title IXs on the basis of sex language

protects transgender students specifically in the context of school athletics. And that is the main question in West Virginia versus BPJ. When the Fourth Circuit considered the merits of the West Virginia case, it said, B.PJ was treated differently from other girls because of sex-based considerations tied to her transgender status. The court said that allowing her to compete only on boys' teams was not a meaningful alternative and effectively denied her access to school athletics, which is prohibited under Title IX. And although the court ultimately resolved the case under Title IX, it also addressed equal protection. And like the Ninth Circuit in Little, it applied.

intermediate scrutiny. Under intermediate scrutiny, West Virginia, like Idaho, cited fairness and safety as its governmental interests. And the court accepted fairness as an important interest, but it said that West Virginia failed to show that excluding BPJ specifically advanced that goal. The court really emphasized the fact that BPJ had not yet gone through male puberty and was receiving medical treatment that resulted in physiological characteristics that were consistent with other girls her age. So the Fourth Circuit ultimately held that this categorical ban, this blanket ban, was not sufficiently tailored to West Virginia's fairness interest and therefore didn't pass intermediate scrutiny and was struck down. So in the West Virginia case,

the Supreme Court is going to look at whether Title IX's ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on transgender status and athletics, whether excluding transgender girls violates equal protection, what level of scrutiny applies, and whether blanket bans are legally justified? West Virginia, of course, argues just like these arguments are very similar to little, but West Virginia argues that sports have always been separated by sex, and Title IX allows for that. and the reason schools separate teams is because on average, boys and girls have different physical characteristics that matter when it comes to competitive sports. So West Virginia argues that it is reasonable for lawmakers to take biology into account when setting these rules and that the courts should not second guess that. West Virginia also argues that its law treats everyone the same.

So in their view, the rule isn't targeting one specific person. and it applies one eligibility standard to all students based on sex assigned at birth. And because of that, West Virginia says courts should give lawmakers a lot of leeway in the policy choices that the state makes. BPJ, however, argues she's being treated differently from other girls based on sex. She's allowed to attend school as a girl. But when it comes to sports, the state suddenly says that she doesn't count as a girl. And that, she argues, is discrimination under Title IX.

She also argues that the law makes broad assumptions instead of looking at individuals. In other words, the state assumes all transgender girls have an unfair athletic advantage without actually checking whether that's true in all cases. In her situation, she argues there's no evidence that she has any competitive advantage at all. So from her perspective, this isn't about fairness. It's about being excluded from girls' sports solely because she's transgender without any sort of individualized assessment.

So you'll notice the arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia versus BPJ are actually very, very similar. What's different about the two cases is how those arguments get evaluated from a legal perspective. Little is mainly about the Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, whereas the West Virginia case is mainly about Title IX, a federal law. So what can we expect from here? In the short term, the Supreme Court, of course, will hear arguments tomorrow and, both cases. From there, the court will analyze the arguments and have to first decide whether it'll even consider the merits of Little v. Hecox, right? Because it's either going to say this case is moot and dismiss it, or if they decide to hear the merits, they'll have to determine whether laws like

Idaho's law, which limits participation in women's and girls sports to only biological women and girls violates the equal protection clause. And that includes determining which level of constitutional scrutiny applies in this context, which, as I've said, is what most people have their eyes on. If they dismiss little as moot, they will only consider the merits of West Virginia versus BPJ. And again, in the West Virginia case, they have to determine whether Title IX prevents a state from determining eligibility for girls and boys' sports teams based on biological sex. and whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate girls and boys sports teams based on biological sex. So at a minimum, the court is expected to clarify what level of constitutional scrutiny applies to transgender status.

And as always, I will be following these arguments and I will be looking at how the justices are taking to these arguments. That way on Thursday, I can hopefully give you a better analysis of what we can expect when the justices do ultimately issue their ruling, which likely won't be until the summer. but we can we can talk on Thursday about how the justices were handling these issues. All right, let's do a few quick hitters. Federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell related to his congressional testimony earlier this year about the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed buildings. Powell testified that there were no over-the-top proposals included in the 2021 draft plans

that actually made it into the final proposal. Now, it's not clear whether the DOJ is looking into possible perjury. charges or something else, we don't really know much. Powell, though, says the investigation is part of the administration's push to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates. On Sunday, the president said he didn't know anything about this investigation into Powell, but said that Powell is, quote, certainly not very good at the Fed and not good at building buildings, end quote. Notably, this renovation project is completely funded by the Fed system through interest earned on government securities charged to financial institutions. It is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado is scheduled to meet President Trump on Thursday at the White House. Trump told Sean Hannity in an interview that he understands she's coming in this week and that he is looking forward to saying hello to her, but it's unclear what the two plan to discuss considering Trump told reporters earlier this week that Machado does not have enough support or respect in Venezuela to lead the country. Senator Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Hegeseth seeking to block the Pentagon's efforts to downgrade his retirement rank and pay. Kelly alleges the move equates to unconstitutional retaliation against him. And of course, the Pentagon's attempt to downgrade Kelly's retirement rank and pay came after

Kelly made a video with other senators urging slash reminding members of the military to, quote unquote refuse illegal orders. Kelly has asked a federal judge through this lawsuit to set aside Hegset's recent moves and block the enforcement of any punishment against him. And according to a new Gallup poll, 45% of U.S. adults now identify as political independence. The previous record high for independence was 43%, which was recorded in 2014, 2023, and 24. The new poll also found that equal shares of U.S. adults, 27% each identified as either Democrats or Republicans. And the 2025 findings are based on interviews with more than 13,000 U.S. adults throughout the year. Okay, for today's critical thinking segment, let's revisit the transgender athlete case or cases.

So first, I have a question for those of you who are inclined to support the bans. if lawmakers can rely on averages, where does that stop? So the states argue that on average, biological differences matter in sports, but should courts allow laws to treat all individuals as the average case, or should there be limits to account for individual facts or circumstances? For those of you who are inclined to oppose the bans, if individualized assessments are required, Who makes them? Is it the schools? Is it the doctors? Is it athletic associations? Is it something or someone else? How do you maintain consistency? And put another way, how do we avoid inconsistent outcomes where similar athletes are treated differently depending on resources or location? And then here's a question for everyone, regardless of where you stand. How should Title IX be interpreted? Because if we think about Congresses, intent in the 1970s, Congress most likely did not contemplate the issue that we are dealing with today.

So should courts interpret statutes based on original understanding? Should they interpret based on evolving meaning? Or should they interpret based on practical consequences? And whatever your answer is, why is that your answer? Now I want to leave you with some good news. So amid the protests in Minneapolis in the wake of the ice shooting. A new video shows a border patrol agent hugging a protester after the two of them have what seems like a very civilized discussion. So they're having a chat outside of an ice processing facility in Minneapolis. Forty seconds of that chat was caught on video. And the agent can be heard telling a woman, uh, the woman who was protesting. The agent said, I love you. I want to hug you while he was laughing at something that she had said. And the woman says, quote, I mean,

I would let you. You can hug me. I would embrace it. And quote. And the agent then takes a step forward and hugs the woman. And after the hug, the agent says, we have a heart. You know what I mean? And the conversation between the two of them carries on for another 40 seconds or so. But it's just a nice reminder that two people standing on opposite sides of one another, literally, can still treat each other with kindness and respect. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic next couple of days, and I will talk to you again on Thursday.