What A Day - A Week of Big Cases At SCOTUS

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

It's a busy week at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the justices heard oral arguments in yet another legal attack on Obamacare, this time over requirements that insurers cover some preventative care services at no cost to patients. Today, they'll weigh a parental rights case over LGBTQ-themed children's books in public schools. And tomorrow, they'll hear a challenge to California's ability to set stricter emission standards for new cars. All the while, the court is facing serious questions over whether it's prepared to stand up to the Trump administration's assault on rule of the law. Leah Litman, co-host of Crooked's legal podcast 'Strict Scrutiny,' tells us what we need to know about this week's big cases and the big-picture debate over the court's ability to protect our rights.And in headlines: The Catholic Church began the search for a new leader after Pope Francis' death early Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly shared military plans on a second private Signal chat, and U.S. stocks slumped again amid Trump's repeated attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.Show Notes:Check out Strict Scrutiny – crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Tuesday, April 22nd. Happy Earth Day. I'm Erin Ryan in for Jane Costin and this is What A Day, the show that's got a lot of questions about Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's purse being stolen. One, what kind of purse? Two, why was she carrying $3,000 cash for Easter presents? Three, where was her security? Four, did the person who stole it know it was Christine

Ohm's purse or did they think she was just like a random lady? On today's show, Catholics around the world mourn the death of Pope Francis, who passed away on Monday at the age of 88 after a prolonged illness and a brief meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance. The value of the dollar dips and the American stock market takes a dive precipitous enough to make investors seasick. Maybe a guy who bankrupted a casino wasn't the best choice to lead us away from recession. But first, and speaking of throwing up, it's a busy week at the US Supreme Court. On Monday the justices heard oral arguments in yet another legal attack on Obamacare,

this time over requirements that insurers cover some preventative care services at no cost to patients. Today, they'll weigh a parental rights case over LGBTQ-themed children's books in public schools. And tomorrow, they'll hear a challenge to California's ability to set stricter emission standards for new cars. All the while, the court is facing serious questions over whether it's prepared to stand up to the Trump administration's assault on the rule of law. Leah Litman, co-host of Crooked's legal podcast, Strict Scrutiny, tells us what we need to know about this week's big cases and the big-picture debate over the court's ability to protect our rights. Pass the drama, Mean. Leah, as always, welcome back to What A Day. Thanks for having me. So let's start

with the case that the justices heard Monday. This was a challenge to Obamacare and its requirement that insurance cover some preventative care services at no cost. Can you tell us more about the case and what the justices were weighing? So the case arises from a challenge to the Preventative Services Task Force, which is this group that the ACA establishes to decide what preventative care services insurance companies have to offer. And the challengers are a group of employers who object to the task force determination that insurers have to cover prep or pre-exposure

prophylaxis drugs. These are religious employers and they say, of course, they do not want to support homosexual behavior. But their challenge here is actually to the entirety of the task force. They say that the task force members have to go through the Senate confirmation process rather than be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is how they are appointed right now. And so if they are correct, then that would basically disable the task force from functioning

until there is Senate confirmation and presidential appointment. And that would obviously be catastrophic for preventative care services coverage in the United States. It's interesting. They're going after HIV AIDS drugs now instead of the usual gambit, which is to go after abortion or birth control services. Oh, don't worry. They object to those two.

It's just they have thus far managed to successfully hollow out the ACA's requirement that employers actually cover contraception. And I think also, you know, this case was filed during the Biden administration. And with the advent of the Trump administration, I don't think anyone thinks those guys are actually going to require insurance companies to cover contraception. Sure, sure.

So the case is a little bit wonky, but based on oral arguments, most court watchers say the justices seemed inclined to uphold the Obamacare requirements and pointed to two justices in particular, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, as the likely deciding votes. Why? Why? I think that's a difficult question to answer. My best guess from a realpolitik perspective is those justices understand that basically dismantling Obamacare is not in the Republican Party's interest. And they turned away the most recent wholesale challenge to Obamacare the last time it was up at the Supreme Court.

That was when the first Trump administration tried to dismantle the entirety of Obamacare. Now they seem to have changed their tune and decided actually we don't want to be the guys who take away everyone's healthcare. And so I think that the Republican appointees are like, yeah, that's a good idea, we're kind of with you there. We don't want people to be blaming the Supreme Court for taking away their health care.

So today the court is hearing a case about children's books with LGBTQ themes and the rights of parents with kids in public schools. Can you tell us more about that case that the justices are hearing? So this case is also really wild. It's a challenge to a public school's decision to incorporate LGBTQ plus reading material into the school's curriculum. The school underwent a process in which it decided in consultation with parents and other groups that it wanted to expand its reading materials,

along lines of racial, ethnic, religious diversity, as well as sexual orientation or gender identity. And this group of parents say they have religious objections to their kids being exposed to LGBTQ plus inclusive content in schools, like the horror of their child being read the book Pride Puppy. And so they say they need to be able to opt out their kids of any instruction related to these reading materials. And that argument, if successful, would basically give parents the right to control what is taught in public schools,

since it is totally inadministrable to give every parent the right to opt out of any aspect of curriculum. You can't run a public school like that by offering every child a bespoke curricular option that they can just select from. Yeah, perhaps those parents should be offered shame puppy in place of pride puppy. Next week, the court is hearing another big religious freedom case out of Oklahoma about

whether states can allow religious public schools. Between these cases, how might the court reshape traditional separations of church and state this term? So the case you actually just alluded to is even crazier than that. It's not so much can states provide for religious public charter schools, it's must states provide for religious public charter schools. Because the state there wanted to charter secular public schools, and then this religious group came along and said, you need to charter a religious public charter school as well

and provide state support to us. And the question the court is answering is, is it discrimination to decline for the state to open a religious public charter school? Which by the way, would obviously be unconstitutional, and yet the Supreme Court is poised to say the opposite. So, I mean, these cases, all three of the ones we've been talking about are just part of this massive trend whereby the court demands increasing public support for religion based on the idea that religious conservatives are this aggrieved

minority who are entitled to judicial protection and all of these other things that no one else gets, right? Like you can't teach LGBTQ plus content in schools, but you know what? Religious conservatives get their own public charter school. I also want to touch briefly on what happened over the weekend, one of many things that happened over the weekend. The court issued a very late-night emergency stay, barring the Trump administration from sending more alleged Venezuelan gang members to a super prison in El Salvador. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. What did you make of the court's decision?

So I thought the court's decision was quite encouraging in that they seemed to be concerned, rightfully so, that the administration actually was not heeding the rules that required them to afford individuals who were about to be summarily expelled with the opportunity to challenge their pending expulsion to this El Salvador mega prison. So that was encouraging, but I think it's also important to note this was a temporary measure. And we are still awaiting the Supreme Court's more final determination

about whether to prohibit these expulsions on a more permanent basis going forward. So it's encouraging, but we're not kind of out of the woods just yet. There are major questions about whether the courts, and specifically this Supreme Court, are really up to standing up to this administration and protecting our rights. yet. There are major questions about whether the courts and specifically this Supreme Court are really up to standing up to this administration and protecting our rights. How do you see this playing out? You know, I honestly don't know. What I would like to happen is the court to basically admit its mistake and acknowledge that the court needed to halt these expulsions on a nationwide needed to halt these expulsions on a nationwide general basis rather than requiring every individual to challenge

their individual detentions or the detentions and removals of those persons in a particular state or in a particular district. I mean, part of the emergency in this case arose because some plaintiffs had successfully convinced some courts that they couldn't be summarily expelled to El Salvador. So what did the government do?

It just moved individuals from those jurisdictions to detention facilities in other jurisdictions and then tried to expel them from there. So they need to put a stop to this kind of immediately and across the board. I honestly, I don't know what I expect them to do. What they have done in the cases to date has not been particularly encouraging to me,

but maybe they have recognized the error of their ways and that these shitheads in the Trump administration are just lying to them. Maybe. Hopefully. Maybe, right? Yeah. Leah, thank you so much for joining us as always.

Thanks for having me. If you enjoyed my conversation with Leah Littman, make sure to check out her legal pod, Strict Scrutiny. Each week, she and her co-hosts Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw break down SCOTUS cases with in-depth, accessible, and irreverent analysis. So whether you're an avid court watcher or just trying to stay up to date on which of our laws the president still hasn't broken, Strict Sc strict scrutiny has you covered. New episodes out every Monday. Tune in wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube.

We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. What a day is brought to you by Zebiotics Pre-Alcohol. I have to tell you about this game-changing product I use before a night out with drinks. It's called Pre-Alcohol. Zebiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.

It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. I gotta say Zebiotic's pre-alcoholic probiotic was a the life of the party at the Crooked Media holiday party and it made it so

that everyone was able to reassemble at a different party the following night. Everybody looked great. Spring is here, which means more opportunities to celebrate warmer weather. Before drinks on the patio, that tropical vacation, or your best friend's wedding, don't forget your Z-Biotics pre-alcohol. Drink one before drinking and wake up feeling great the next day.

Go to zbiotics.com slash wad to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use wad at checkout. Z-Biotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash WOD and use the code WOD at checkout for 15% off. Here's what else we're following today. Headlines. Have spoken to the president and we are going to continue fighting on the same page all the way.

In an exclusive story on Monday, NPR reported that the White House is looking for a new defense secretary after news broke that Pete Hegseth shared sensitive military information in another unsecured group chat on Signal. The outlet cited an anonymous U.S. official as its source. This is not to be confused with the Signal chat that made headlines last month, the one where Hegseth and other defense officials were discussing the Pentagon's plans to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen without realizing that they accidentally added the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic to the chat. The New York Times reported Sunday that Hegseth was sharing those same plans in a second Signal

group chat that included his wife, his brother, and his personal lawyer. Hegseth rushed to call the story Fake News Monday, speaking to reporters at the White House Easter egg roll. See, this is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. Not going to work with me. If you're listening, I recommend you head to our YouTube channel because you gotta see him big mad in the context of children scouring the White House lawn

for Easter eggs and a man in a giant Easter bunny costume. Also at the Easter egg roll, President Trump told reporters that Hegseth is doing a quote, great job. He is doing a great job. Why do you think I'm doing a great job? Because he's doing a great job. Thank you. Ask the ho. Because he's doing a great job. Thank you.

Ask the Hooties how he's doing. The way he pronounces that word makes me think he's referring to Hootie and the Blowfish. But I digress. But not everyone agrees. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, was the first Republican in the chamber to publicly question Hegg's ability to lead the Pentagon amid signal gate, the sequel. He told Politico, quote, I like him on Fox, but does he have the experience to lead one of the largest organizations in the world?

Sir, as a question that your colleagues in the Senate should have already asked themselves. Pope Francis passed away Easter Monday. He was 88 years old. The Vatican said he died from a stroke and heart failure. Earlier this year, the late Pontiff spent weeks in the hospital due to a series of health issues, including double pneumonia. Cardinal Kevin Ferrell, the church's chamberlain, announced the news from Francis, quote, taught us to live the values of the gospel with faithfulness, courage, and universal love, especially for the poorest and most marginalized. Francis, the first Latin American pope, leaves behind a legacy of politics more progressive

than his predecessors. The late Pontiff was known for his promotion of economic and environmental justice. A son of immigrants, he was also a staunch advocate for the rights of migrants worldwide. Pope Francis also called on the church to embrace LGBTQ plus people despite its anti-LGBTQ plus stance. Shortly after he was elected pope in 2013, he famously said, who am I to judge when asked what he thought about allowing gay men to be priests? Funeral proceedings were not scheduled at the time of this recording. The occasion will span several days. Cardinal Farrell will lead the church until the Vatican elects the next pope

through a process called the Conclave. You may have heard of it from a certain Oscar-nominated movie that's coincidentally set to return to streaming via Amazon Prime Video today. Stocks tanked across the board Monday. The S&P, the Dow, and NASDAQ dropped more than 2%. Oh, and did I mention the value of the US dollar and government bonds are also on the decline? Is this what it means to make America great again?

The Wall Street tumble comes amid mounting fears over the fallout from President Trump's erratic tariffs and escalating trade war. So naturally, Trump continued his attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell because none of this could possibly be the president's fault. In true presidential fashion, Trump posted on Truth Social Monday the economy was at risk of slowing down. Quote, unless Mr. Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates now.

That's his nickname for Powell, by the way. Mr. Too Late. Doesn't have quite the same ring as Lion Ted and Little Marco. He's really losing his edge there. Trump's threats started last week after Powell said the president's tariffs are likely to cause higher inflation and slower economic growth. Speaking in Chicago Wednesday, Powell hinted that the Fed would hold interest rates steady, saying it's well-positioned to wait for greater clarity on any adjustments

as the tariffs play out. Where we are now, again to your question, is the administration is, as I mentioned in my remarks, is implementing significant policy changes and particularly trade now is the focus. And the effects of that are likely to move us away from our goals. Trump hated that. He criticized Powell for not cutting interest rates and insisted he could fire him. Fact check, false.

He actually can't fire Powell. The Fed is an independent agency, and its board members can only be forced out for cause. Doesn't mean Trump won't try. As a reminder, Trump appointed Powell during his first term in office. The Education Department said Monday it's going to resume collections on defaulted federal student loans. The department has not collected defaulted loans since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. It says more than 5 million borrowers have not made a monthly payment in the last year or so.

Starting May 5th, they'll be subject to involuntary collection. So how does this work? Well, the Treasury Department can withhold some government payouts, like tax refunds or federal salaries, to people who owe the government money, like student loan borrowers. Later this summer, the Ed Department says it will also start garnishing the wages of people in default following a 30-day notice. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the re-up of the student loan program means, quote, helping borrowers return to repayment both for the sake of their own financial health

and our nation's economic outlook. Uh, can we start with addressing the tariffs? The department says less than half of borrowers are current on their student loans. And that's the news. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, don't hit on the virtual AI employee you just hired, and if you do hit on her, definitely don't post about it and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about

FOMO-y fights, that's an acrostic that means fear of missing out on Pete Hegseth adding you to signal. Like me, what A Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Erin Ryan and what kind of Easter present needs to be purchased with $3,000 cash, Christy? What A Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded in a mix by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Raven Yamamoto and Emily Four. Our producer is Michelle Alloy. We had production help today from Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters, and

Julia Clare. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our executive producer is Adrienne Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Giliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. In the fall of 1986, Ronald Reagan found himself at the center of a massive scandal that looked like it might bring down his presidency. Did you make a mistake in sending arms to Tehran, sir? No. It became known as the Iran-Contra affair.

And I'm not taking any more questions. In just a second, I'm going to ask Attorney General... I'm Leon Neyvok, co-creator of Slow Burn. In my podcast, Fiasco Iran Contra, you'll hear all the unbelievable details of a scandal that captivated the nation nearly 40 years ago, but which few of us still remember today. The things that happened were so bizarre and insane, I can't begin to tell you. Please do. To hear the whole story, listen to Fiasco, Iran Contra, wherever you get your podcasts.