Latest / THE DAILY BRIEF / The outstanding Supreme Court cases you need to know about before its term ends

Transcript

The outstanding Supreme Court cases you need to know about before its term ends · THE DAILY BRIEF

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: It is decision time for the Supreme Court. With a
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: couple of weeks left in its term and seventeen opinions
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: to go, we will soon know where the Court stands
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: on Donald Trump's effort to expand presidential power, along with
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: other consequential cases. Can he fire Lisa Cook, a member
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: of the Independent Federal Reserve Board? Can he eliminate birthright citizenship?
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Will the Court sign off on ending humanitarian protections for
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Syrian and Haitian immigrants? Limit voting by mail at the
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: state level? Well, the next opinions are coming Tuesday and Thursday.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: And joining me here in the studio, we're ofughly glad
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: to welcome Leah Littman, co host of the Strict Scrutiny
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: podcast and law professor at the University of Michigan. She's
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: also author of Lawless, How the Supreme Court Runs on
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: Conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad Vibes, which came out
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: in paperback on Tuesday. Well done you, thanks for being
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: here so many of these decisions, Lee, as you know,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: they will test the Court on where it stands relative
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: to Trump and his attempts to expand presidential power. What
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: are you going to be looking out for.
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: I think one of the big cases is the case
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: involving independent agencies, because in addition to trying to fire
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: Lisa Cook, who's the governor of the Federal Reserve for
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump has fired the heads of several multi member
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: commissions at the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies. These
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: are agencies that have historically been independent. And if the
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: court gives him the power to fire the people who
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: had these agencies that regulate big corporations and also hand
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: out government contracts, that's a potential recipe for him to
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: engage in even more grift along the lines of the
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: no Big contract that failed to purify the waters in
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: the reflectionoryol Copuliah.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: So in a recent article, you suggest not to celebrate
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: too much if the court rules against lifting birthright citizenship.
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: Why so, I think the court is going to say
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: that this executive order denying birthright citizenship to some people
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: who were born in the United States is unconstitutional, and
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: they'll be telling the president you can't nullify the fourteenth Amendment.
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: But the unfortunate reality is they have allowed states to
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: nullify other parts of the fourteenth Amendment, specifically when they
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: allowed Alabama to move forward with maps that lower courts
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: concluded intentionally discriminated against black voters. Even before the decisions
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: in validating the Voting Rights Act and nullifying that statute,
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: they said states couldn't enforce another part of the fourteenth
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: Amendment against Donald Trump and disqualify him for running for
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: office because he participated in the January sixth stuff, the
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: steel movement. So they've already done a lot to kind
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: of whittle down the reconstruction amendments.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: So in terms of voting, the Supreme Court is set
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: to rule on a challenge and this is to the
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Mississippi law allowing for the late counting of ballots. So
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: how does this decision potentially impact the midterms? Leah? And
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: would blocking late ballot counting? Would that, I guess, erode
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: trust in the system or would or would it preserve
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: trust in the system or would it create a risk
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: to voting rights? What what would be the reaction to that?
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: I think it's unclear. I think if the Supreme Court
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: says federal laws prohibits states from counting ballots received after
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: election day, that would be hugely consequential because almost half
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: the states, slightly more than half of the states allow
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: absentee ballots received after election day to be counted. So
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: if the Court actually nullified those laws and the lead
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: up to the mid terms, when many states have already
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: begun to kind of implement the wind up to the election,
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: that could be hugely destabilizing. And my guess is that
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: would undermine confidence in the system as voters are confused,
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: state election officials are confused, and more.
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: Do you expect the Supreme Court to see it that way?
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: I don't know, honestly. At the oral argument, it sounded
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: like several of the Republican appointees wanted to find a
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: way to say states couldn't count ballots received after election day.
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: It's unclear if there will be five votes for that proposition,
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: but my guess is at least a few of the
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: justices will indeed vote that way.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: If the court's rule against the present cidents attempted power grabs,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: do you see that as an act of judicial courage
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: or do you interpret it as the law as it
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: was intended and they see it that way.
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: I think it probably depends a little bit what case
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: we're talking about, you know, on the Terroiffts decision, for example,
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: I think they're ruling against the president was in some
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: respects helpful to the Republican party, given how unpopular the
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: tariffs are and they raise costs. I also think that
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: narrowing the president's power in that case was a way
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: for the Republican appointees to say presidents can't unilaterally impose
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: what are effectively taxes. So I think it probably depends
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: what set of cases or case we're talking about, if
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: and when the Court rules against the administration, as to
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: what complex of considerations might be at play.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: We do know this week that the government rather Court
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: ruled that the government cannot criminally prosecute someone from possessing
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: a firearm because he smoked marijuana. You know, a few
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: times it was a unanimous decision. However, to two of
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: the free liberal judges are now questioning the Conservative's approach
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: to deciding Second Amendment cases. So you had Katanji Brown
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Jackson who called the historical tradition test quote unworkable. Do
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: you expect the Court to change how it decides on
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: rights cases.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: I don't think the Court is going to pull back
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: from the history and tradition approach. This is something they
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: have embraced in the context of abortion rights, un enumerated rights,
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: the Second Amendment, in other areas of law. I do
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: think that this Second Amendment decision was a particularly pointed
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: example about how silly the approach was, given that Justice
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: Gorsuch's majority opinion effectively said, there is a rich history
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: and tradition of Americans getting hammered, and therefore the law
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: doesn't allow the federal government to actually disarm people just
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: because they use a lawful controlled substances.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: You know, I'm going to end the conversation on that,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: because that was a good one. Rarely do we get
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: to laugh like this heartily when it comes to the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: legal challenges in this country. Leel it and thank you
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: so much, and again congrats on the book having gone paperback.