UNBIASED - Senate Kills Impeachment Articles, Speaker Johnson Releases Text of Foreign Aid Bills, Supreme Court Decides Sex Discrimination Case, AZ House Fails to Repeal Abortion Ban, and More.

Episode Date: April 17, 2024

1. Senate Kills Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Secretary Mayorkas (0:40)2. SCOTUS Releases Opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (3:55)3. Speaker Johnson Releases Text of Foreign Aid Bills Over Republican Objection (10:58)4. Quick Hitters: Alaska Airlines Planes Grounded, Senate Investigative Committee Hears Boeing Testimony, Arizona House Fails to Repeal 1913 Abortion Ban (13:22)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!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

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Wednesday, April 17th, and this is your daily news rundown. Of course, and as always, if you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides, you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen, share the show with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit that thumbs up button, subscribe to the channel if you're not already. All of those things are fantastic ways to help me out, so thank you so much. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. We're starting with an update from yesterday's episode in that the Senate voted to kill the

first article of impeachment against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas this afternoon. So there is still one article pending as of now, but that very well could change very shortly. As I mentioned yesterday, the House formally delivered these articles of impeachment to the Senate, which marked the process of, you know, the Senate deciding what to do with them. And as I also mentioned yesterday, this likely will not make it to a trial. And it's looking even more like that now. But here's what's happened so far today. And before actually I get into what's happened, I do just want to mention that because

this is such a fast-moving process once it gets going, I can almost guarantee you that by the time you listen to this episode, there will be more updates. So this is what we know as of the time I'm recording, which is 3.15 Eastern Time. So first, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer offered a deal to Senate Republicans who do want to see this go to trial. And the deal basically would have allowed a certain amount of time for floor debate before an eventual vote to dismiss. Here's why the deal was proposed in the first place. Without this agreement, without Republicans agreeing to this agreement or this offer, senators can't make speeches on the Senate floor without unanimous consent,

which is, it's just not going to happen here. So their only shot at speaking on the floor was agreeing to the offer. But at the same time, Schumer and others want a dismissal. So Schumer said, I'll give you time to say your piece, but ultimately we're going to vote to dismiss. And Republicans rejected this because, again, they want this case to go to trial. They don't want this case dismissed before a trial takes place. So once that offer was rejected, Schumer then set forth a motion to dismiss the first impeachment article on the basis that it does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or a misdemeanor, which as we know is required by the Constitution for an impeachment and conviction. But before Schumer's motion to kill or motion to

dismiss was voted on, Senator Ted Cruz moved to debate the articles in a closed session. That vote failed along party lines 49 to 51. Then Senator John Kennedy moved to adjourn until April 30th. That also failed along party lines. And then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell moved to throw out Schumer's motion to kill. This also failed. So Schumer's motion to kill goes to a vote, and it passed 51 to 48 to 1. The one vote of present came from Republican Representative Lisa Murkowski. And so what this means is that that first article is now done. motion to kill the second article as well. So if that motion also passes, it means that the Senate will not hold a trial. The impeachment charge from the House still stands. Technically, he is still impeached, but he will not be convicted by the Senate. Moving on, our second story for the day, the Supreme Court released their final two opinions of the week today. One of them less

interesting than the other, so let's talk about the more interesting one of the two. Neither of them are exceptionally like, wow, definitely, you know, need to know this. It's not anything super controversial, but still, the second one is interesting to talk about. However, I do also have the other opinion, which I'm not going to go over, linked in the sources section, so if you do want to catch that one, you can catch it there. The case is called McIntosh v. United States, and it has to do with the federal rules of criminal procedure. It was a unanimous decision, but again, if you want to read that, go ahead and read it there. The case I do want to talk about is Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. And this case posed the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in job transfers without a separate court determination that the decision

to transfer caused a significant damage. Now, we're going to break that down a little bit more because the question is a little more complex than it needs to be, but the court unanimously held that a separate determination of significant damage is not necessary. So in 2017, a former police officer in St. Louis, Muldrow in this case, was transferred from the department's specialized intelligence division to somewhere elsewhere in the department. She had worked for the specialized intelligence division since 2008, and by virtue of her position, she was also deputized as a task force officer with the FBI, which granted her certain privileges, FBI credentials, an unmarked car that she could take home, as well as the ability to pursue investigations outside of just

St. Louis. In 2017, though, the intelligence division got a new commander, and that commander asked the department to transfer Muldrow out of the unit because he wanted to replace her with a male officer. He said that he felt a male officer was better fit for the dangerous nature of the job. So when Muldrow was ultimately transferred, she sued under Title VII, and Title VII prevents discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, all of those things. The facts of the transfer are as follows. Her pay remained the same. Her rank remained the same. However, she lost her FBI credentials. Her responsibilities changed. She no longer had a take-home car. She would now work occasional weekend shifts, which was different than her schedule previously. So she sues under Title VII. The district court ruled in favor of the department, and the court there held that Muldrow needed to show that her transfer affected a significant change in working conditions producing material employment disadvantage. The court found that because her salary and rank remained the same, because the networking opportunities

previously available to her were immaterial, because there was no significant alteration to her job responsibilities, and because the loss of the take-home car and the change in schedule were also not significant enough, Muldrow had not achieved this heightened standard required to prevail under Title VII. Muldrow appeals, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, so Muldrow went to the Supreme Court. Now, Justice Kagan wrote the opinion for the court, and I can summarize it into one line. It says, quote, although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test. Title VII's text nowhere establishes that high bar, end quote. Now, as I said, this was a unanimous decision.

There were no dissents. But Justice Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito concurred, meaning that they agree with the court's ultimate decision, but they would have taken a different approach or they had a different view on things. So Justice Kavanaugh specifically doesn't agree with this additional some harm requirement. He says that discrimination in and of itself is the harm. And naturally, a transfer changes either the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of a job. Therefore, a transfer based on sex automatically satisfies what Title VII prohibits. There's no need to show any amount of additional

harm. Kavanaugh concludes his concurrence, though, by writing this. He says, quote, All of that said, the court's new some harm requirement appears to be a relatively low bar. Therefore, anyone who has been transferred because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin should easily be able to show some additional harm. And he lays out a ton of examples. He says, Whether in money, time, satisfaction, schedule, convenience, commuting costs or commuting And he lays out a ton of examples. He says, He says, so even though I respectfully disagree with the court's new some harm requirement, I expect that the court's approach and my preferred approach will land in the same place

and lead to the same result in 99 out of 100 discriminatory transfer cases, if not in all 100. End quote. Justice Alito concurred for a similar reason, and while he agrees with the ultimate ruling from the court, he says the court's new some harm requirement makes no sense. He writes, quote, I do not join the court's unhelpful opinion. For decades, dozens of lower court judges have held that not every unwanted employment experience affects an employee's terms or conditions of employment. Now, after briefing and argument, the guidance is as follows. Title VII plaintiffs must show that the event they challenge constituted a harm or injury, but the event need not be significant or substantial.

I have no idea what this means. I see little, if any, substantive difference between the terminology the court approves and the terminology it doesn't like, end quote. And finally, Justice Thomas concurred for the same reason as Alito, but also mentioned that he feels the majority opinion misinterpreted the appellate court's decision. He says he did not read the Eighth Circuit's opinion to have imposed a heightened harm requirement in the form of a significance test. Instead, he says he read the opinion to read as the precedent has always stood, which is that a Title VII plaintiff must have suffered more than trifling harm. So he says even though he agrees with the majority opinion, the standard is the same as it's always been. So that was the court's decision, and now you know, if you get transferred to a new job or fired from a job on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin, you have to show some harm, which, if Kavanaugh's concurrence holds any weight,

that can mean pretty much anything, right? Moving on, Speaker Johnson posted the text of three separate bills that will be voted on on Saturday. The release came amid some pushback from some Republicans who do not want foreign aid bills voted on until something is done about the border. And this is a debate we have seen play out for months, right? So in his statement, Johnson said, quote, after significant member feedback and discussion, the House Rules Committee will be posting soon today the text of three bills that will fund America's national security interests and allies in Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and Ukraine, including a loan structure for aid and enhanced strategy and accountability. These will be brought to the floor under a structured

rule that will allow for an amendment process alongside a fourth bill that includes the repo act, TikTok bill, sanctions, and other measures to confront Russia, China, and Iran. The rules committee will also be posting text on a border security bill that includes the core components of HR2. And HR2 is the border security bill that was passed last year. He continues on and says text of the first three bills will be posted shortly, while the fourth bill under the same rule will be posted later today. The border security bill will also be posted later today. End quote. So what we know from the release of the text of the foreign aid bills is this. The bills seek to provide more than $26 billion to Israel, $60.8 billion to Ukraine, and $8 billion in Indo-Pacific assistance. As of this

moment in time, the moment I'm recording, the text of the border bill has not yet been released, so I don't have much to speak on, you know, as far as that goes. Now, because Speaker Johnson is moving these bills through the regular process, they will have to pass the rules committee first and then a procedural vote before it even makes it to the House floor for a vote. What's interesting is that typically the majority party is solely responsible for passing rules, which in this case is obviously the Republican Party. But these foreign aid packages have become such a divisive thing that we may see some Democrats on the rules panel actually come to Johnson's rescue in order to sort of move them along past the rules committee and onto the procedural vote. So we'll see how this all plays out in the coming days, but that is where we're at now. I want to finish this episode

with some quick hitters, which are just some very short stories that I feel you should know, but don't necessarily need a ton of time. Shortly before 8 a.m. Pacific time this morning, the FAA issued a nationwide ground stop advisory for all Alaska Airlines aircraft following an upgrade to the airline system. A statement from Alaska Airlines that said, quote, This morning we experienced an issue while performing an upgrade to our system that calculates our weight and balance. We're working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, end quote. In some other airline news, a Boeing whistleblower, members of an expert panel, and a family member of a victim

of a Boeing crash testified before the Senate Commerce Committee today about safety concerns. The whistleblower specifically told members of the investigative subcommittee that Boeing is putting out defective airplanes. And finally, the Arizona House of Representatives failed for a second time to pass a bill that would repeal the century-old abortion ban that we've been talking so much about lately. So, as you probably know, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled recently that this old abortion ban could take effect, and following that, Arizona's legislature tried to repeal it. However, earlier today, in a very close vote, lawmakers ultimately voted not to bring it up for debate on the House floor. This

vote was evenly split, and it was ultimately the House chair that made the tie-breaking decision not to debate the bill. So Arizona's House of Representatives can try to repeal the law again if they so wish, but today was not the day. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a wonderful night and I will talk to you tomorrow.