Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm John Fabro. I'm John Loveett. And I'm Kate Shaw. On today's show, Joe Biden makes a big move on immigration that will create a pathway to citizenship for half a million undocumented immigrants. The president also takes on the Supreme Court's right-wing majority, which just basically ruled that machine guns aren't really machine guns. And a new resistance movement is preparing to fight Maga's Project 2025 in the courts
if Trump wins a second term. Does that sound like a lot of legal news? Well, who better to hatch it out with? And Crooked's very own Kate Shaw, law professor at Penn, and even more impressively, co-host of Strix Grootney. Kate, welcome. Thank you so much for having me. And in your right, the Crooked tenure process is a lot tougher than the Thin One. So I did make it through, but just mostly. There's a few ideologers. It's great. It's a great, awesome process for our tenure
process. Yeah, that's right. And so yeah, we actually say that we're in New York, which is why we're here with Kate in person. And I actually have a question for you guys, which is why exactly are you in New York? What a beautiful, what a beautiful seamless transition to our plug. Thank you, Kate, for being part of this. The three of us are on Colbert tonight. Not the three of us with. Oh, no, no, no, no.
A different three. Tommy is recording pods of the world somewhere, also in these serious studios somewhere, but we'll be on Colbert tonight and we're here to launch our book. It's Tuesday afternoon. So we're on Colbert this evening. Oh, we're on Colbert tonight. Wait, no, last night, last night, last night, we're on Colbert last night. You said this evening, we're on Colbert last night. We can tell the people that we're actually when
we're recording this. Would you believe that we're some of the most successful people at this? And we're also here to launch our book, Democracy or Else, which you can buy at Cricket.com slash book. And if you don't, is that right? Book or if book doesn't also redirect, what are we even doing here? I feel like this promo is going great. John Tommy and I wrote a book. I kind of think we should leave as much of this crap in. Maybe not.
So Democracy or Else, it comes out this week. No, it's coming out next week. Oh, and we worked on it so hard. And it's good. Kate, it is, it is probably a lot shorter than almost any legal opinion you have read. That's great. Short, punchy, hopeful, practical, right? Aren't these are the things I think your book is going to be? It is a, it is a, it is a how to guide. Yes. If you want to get involved in this election in hopefully
future elections without losing your mind, that's it. And we got some tips. We got some advice from some really smart people. There's some jokes. There's some illustrations. This is a public service, you guys. Seriously. Yeah. And all the profits from the book, they go to Votesave America and organizations protecting democracy on the ground. So sporting the book is supporting a good cause. And love it. You know that when we are on Colbert tonight,
you cannot do more than one take of this book promo. Right, right. Well, you know what? They do trim it down a little bit. They do tighten it up. They do tighten it up. You can take another shot at it. They don't love it. They don't advertise it. But you can do it. This is why we practice here. Okay. Big news today. President Biden is announcing that his administration will offer a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented spouses
of American citizens who've been in the United States for at least 10 years. The policy will give about 500,000 immigrants legal status, protection from deportation and the ability to work here legally. As of right now, undocumented immigrants can apply for citizenship if you're married to a citizen. But you usually have to leave the country for 10 years to do it. Biden's new action will also help about 50,000 undocumented stepchildren of those undocumented
immigrants who were married to American citizens. He's also expected to announce a separate action on work permits for dreamers. The White House announcement comes right around the 12th anniversary of President Obama taking action to protect the children of undocumented immigrants, the program known as DACA, and the Biden campaign used the occasion to set up the immigration contrast with Trump in a new ad.
We did family separation. A lot of people didn't come. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. When you say to a family that if you come, we're going to break you up. They don't come. They're destroying our country. They're destroying the guts of our country. The Biden administration unveiling a task force Tuesday to locate and reunite families who were separated at the border under the Trump administration's zero tolerance
policy. They got separated from their parents, violates every notion of who we are as a nation. So this is a big deal. It's happening a few weeks after Biden's new policy that closes the border to asylum seekers when crossings get too high, which is now also being challenged and courted by the ACLU and other groups. What do you make overall of the policy and the politics here?
So one fact that jumped out at me, according to the administration, the majority of people who will be impacted are Mexican nationals who have lived in the United States for an
average of 23 years, 23 years. These are people who have been given this abominable choice, which is to stay in the country that they know where their children and and husbands and wives are who are often citizens themselves or leave for 10 years to become legal, which means they stay and they're at risk of being taken advantage of by landlords and by employers. They're afraid to go to the police to report a crime, afraid that they could be separated
from their families at any moment. And what I appreciate about Joe Biden, I know, look, we all spent a lot of time worrying about Joe Biden. But I really appreciate about Joe Biden and the way that he has run his administration is that even when he's being criticized from the right for being soft and immigration, he's not afraid to take a step like this because
he believes in the policy and the politics. And also what I appreciate is that he isn't afraid to take steps on border security, even though he knows he will face criticism from advocates because he also believes in the policy and the politics there. So what is you doing the right thing policy wise is always good politics.
You know, sometimes it is. Sometimes it is. So 77% of Americans in a mon with poll said that the executive actions on border security that President Biden took were right or didn't go far enough. Most said didn't go far enough. But that's 77% thinks it's right or or doesn't go far enough. Only 17% said that he went too far. Americans also in a bunch of polls, they prefer Republicans on border security and they believe Trump will do a better job
on the border than Joe Biden will. So I see advocates saying that Biden is sort of buying into a Republican narrative on border security. But and it's true that Republicans are demagoguing the issue and exaggerating and lying and fear mongering. But it's also democratic mayors and governors who are calling for greater border security. And the thing the reason I think it's so important to highlight that is because border security has risen to be
one of the top issues on voters minds. And it is a view that is not just held among mega Republicans and Axios Ibsos poll found 64% of Latino. So they support giving the president the authority to shut us borders. 38% support sending all undocumented immigrants in the US back to their country of origin. And these numbers are all going up. But at the same time in poll after poll Americans more broadly continue to have an impulse towards
compassion. They support a path to citizenship. They want America to be a refuge for people
seeking a better life. And so what it says to me is that the two democratic positions can't be too far or not far enough on border security because the only way we will get to the more compassionate and generous and welcoming and sane and humane immigration system that we all believe we need to have is if we can prove that we can also secure the border they're not separate a secure border is not a contradiction to a progressive immigration
system. They have to go together. And that to me is what I took away from the fact that Joe Biden was willing to do this. What two weeks after taking the steps you took on the border. I also think that you know we talked to some immigration advocates and some have a problem with the the border move that Biden made a couple weeks ago. But some have said to me,
look, I understand why he's focusing on border security. The challenge is we've conflated the debate about the border with the debate about immigration and a lot of Latino voters and activists and advocates in that space don't see them as the same debate. And we haven't been having a debate about immigration policy inside the United States or what to do about the 10 12 million 15 million undocumented immigrants in this country. And the polls don't
really capture this unless you take a poll that's only about immigration. But people feel very differently about new migrants crossing the border and what's happening at the border and what's happening now in a lot of American cities. Then they do about undocumented immigrants who have been here who have families here who have been working here for years. Some of the very same people that Biden is helping right now. And I think as you saw
from that ad as you heard in that ad that the Biden campaign is running. I think also on the political side, it is a better contrast for them to say, okay, here's Donald Trump who wants mass deportation forces in every city in America to expel 10 million undocumented immigrants who've been here working and living for years and years. And by the way, you know he's going to do that because this is the guy who separated families at the border.
And here's Joe Biden who he's going to make sure that all of these undocumented immigrants who are married to American citizens who have children here who've been working here, who've built lives here. This is the only country they know. They can stay here as opposed to going back to the country of origin that isn't even their country anymore for 10 years
before they come back. And I think that just politically is a much better contrast. And it gets to that place that you were speaking about with that it's just more compassionate. Of course, like we know how this has gone from the Obama years. We had similar fights.
The Republicans weren't as as Trumpy back then. But Kate, it took it took years for our old boss to announce the DACA program partly because I think the Obama administration was trying to craft the policy in a way that would withstand legal challenges 12 years later. DACA is still tied up in the courts. Do you think this new Biden policy will fare any better? Well, a couple of things about the new policy. So it's a really important new policy that's
going to affect a lot of people, but it's also very grounded in existing law. Right. So these spouses can already get a path they have a path to a green card and citizenship. We just have to leave the country to avail themselves of it. So I think that that's what's important is that this is a process that exists. This is a modification to it that lets people stay while they adjust as opposed to having to leave to adjust. So I think that
actually helps the legal argument in defense of this policy. The other thing to say is there was a similar change made some years ago with respect to spouses of members of the military. So an undocumented spouse of a military member can already do what this new proposal will achieve, which is to say adjust while staying as opposed to leaving for up to 10 years to their home country. It's a very popular policy. I think something like 20,000 undocumented
military spouses have taken advantage of it. And it wasn't challenged. Well, Congress actually reaffirmed the authority of the Homeland Security Secretary to do this. It's called parole in place with respect to these military spouses. And that's bipartisan. So that's not as to this particular group. But I do think it's a, you know, there's at least some, you know, this will be used in litigation to sort of shore up the administration's
position that this isn't like taking Congress's progative. This is something Congress actually wants the executive branch to have the power to do. So I think that again, it's grounded in existing law. There's lots of good, you know, supporting evidence of its legality. But like, of course, it's going to be challenged because everything that a Democratic president
ever does on immigration will be challenged from one direction or another. Of course, we should say the new border policy is being challenged as you said, John, by the ACLU and others. But, you know, I do expect there'll be a challenge here. And we don't yet know what the policy looks like as we're recording this episode. But if it's done like DACA, a
Secretary memo, it'll likely be challenged as exceeding the executive's authority. And maybe because it didn't go through notice and comment rulemaking, it's going to be announced as a policy that'll go directly into effect. And those are challenges that had some success over the last dozen years. You know, the DACA path has been a really winding one. It was,
you know, it was challenged. And then the Trump administration tried to rescind DACA. The Supreme Court said they couldn't rescind DACA Biden then redid DACA as a notice and comment rule. And it's again tied up now in front of the Fifth Circuit. But it's critically been in place all this time. So DACA has been an effect. People have had dreamers have had that status. Doppe by contrast, the parents of Americans, a related policy from 2014, was challenged
and actually never went into effect. So as between those two, I think this new policy probably looks more like DACA. It does actually go into effect. It's ultimately go fade. I don't totally know, but it does seem sound to me at least in terms of what we know so far. So on DACA, so if you currently enjoy the protections of DACA, if you are a child of an undocumented immigrant, does that mean you can continue to, I know you have to renew for those protections,
are you allowed to keep renewing now that it's tied up in the court? So yes. So the policy has again, it's been the renewal process has been paused and then the pause lifted. So yes, right now there are, I think, you know, it was at the high point, half a million. I think it's a little lower than that. People who dreamers who have the DACA status, but a lot have, you know, married Americans and gotten citizenship that way and, you know, gotten other, taken
other paths or left for other reasons. So the number has sort of gone up and down. But it is currently, you know, a status that is in effect and people can continue to apply for it. But again, it's pending before the Fifth Circuit right now. There was like a brief filed, I think today or yesterday, by actually the Biden administration saying, because of the myth of Pristone case, I don't know if we're going to talk about that.
But you know, that basically said those doctors didn't have standing that case, this case should be tossed on standing grounds. So anyway, it's a very live legal dispute still. All these dozen years later. Do you think you mentioned Biden's executive action at the border being challenged? Do you think that will survive legal challenges? And from a legal perspective, I was wondering, how is it different than what Trump did,
which did get struck down? Yeah. Well, the advocate say it's basically the same, right? Yeah. So that there is, you know, a right to crossover and, you know, seek a refugee or asylum status and that this policy is inconsistent with that and inconsistent with a statute. So I think they see you and the others who have sued say it's basically the same and it should suffer the same fate. It's not exactly the same. It, you know, there's a trigger.
It goes into effect if there's a certain number of border crossings as opposed to kind of a blanket, kind of prohibition on crossing over. So I think it's structured a bit differently. But, Would that be the administration's argument, do you think, that because there's a trigger in place that we are still allowing asylum seekers to seek asylum just, you know, not all the
time. Not all the time. Yeah. Maybe I'm sounds tough. It does sound tough. Yeah. But, you know, the like, you know, Republicans went wild on DACA because they viewed it as a kind of legislating and then there's all this fighting over on the, from the other direction that the law makes certain requirements of what the administration has to do. And this is a violation of that. And it really does all boil down to like, this is not how we're supposed to be running our
immigration system. It is not supposed to be run by a series of kind of gray area executive actions from the right or from the left that sometimes maybe survived judicial scrutiny because in one way or another, like whatever stands up or whatever doesn't. Like, this is various administrations trying their best to legislate with executive power because they are so bound up in Congress's failure. I mean, it is the collective failure to actually
be honest about this problem. And like, this is why I was, I was just was catching up on the news. And just having space from it, seeing these fights over whether or not Joe Biden is going too far on the border and whether or not he's like living up to our values. I am, there are valid criticisms of Joe Biden's policies on the border. But you just look at how the politics have constricted already because of the chaos at the border that the possibility of a path to citizenship was so
off the table, the bipartisan negotiations didn't get anywhere near that. A bipartisan bill that
Joe Biden and a bunch of Democrats are willing to get behind. If we want to get to a place where we are going to actually address the fact that there are tens of millions of people living in a kind of gray zone because our economy is built on basically a working cast that has no legal recourse and that can be underpaid to build homes and work in restaurants and and do lawn care and do transportation and all the other industries that agriculture that are on the backs of people
that have no rights here. Like the idea that Democrats aren't getting behind border securities is very frustrating to me because I just I don't see a way to the more compassionate humane system unless we as Democrats can prove that we understand that a secure border and a better immigration system are not in opposite. Yeah. You just mentioned like the mess in Congress, the one group of people we haven't talked about are congressional Republicans,
right? And like as Democrats are fighting each other about like whether Biden's too tough or too soft or doing this or what can survive legal challenges or why hasn't I you know I saw some people after the the border issue was announced. I think Julian Castro said you know this was Biden
didn't make this a priority. I said well you know Biden could have walked into the White House and said my number one priority is to pass immigration reform and to pass a pathway to citizenship and that's what I'm going to focus on for my first hundred days and he would have gotten absolutely nowhere because we have Republicans in the Congress who do not even want to entertain the idea of possibly granting anyone citizenship or a path to citizenship or legal status the dreamers anyone.
We were just talking on Tuesday show about how Marco Rubio might not be Trump's VP because the last time they tried comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, Marco Rubio dared on the Republican side to say okay maybe there'll be some kind of pathway and everyone is like absolutely not and then they they haven't turned back since they just they won't do it. McCain and but I mean like we've gone through this cycle at least in the Bush administration you had Bush McCain people who are willing
to entertain pathways to citizenship. This Republican party is preparing if Donald Trump becomes president to like launch a deportation force the size of which this country has never seen that uses the US military to go into people's homes their offices rip people apart from their families and send them back to countries where some of them haven't been for years and some of them have
never been. Yeah, that O304, O5 effort when McCain was sort of in the lead that was the last kind of best chance like there was actually kind of hope for bipartisan comprehensive reform and it's been 20 years and there's been nothing that's even come close. Yeah, it's really sad. I mean we have a debate coming up next week. Love it. How would you how would you prep the president to talk about immigration in next week's debate because it will it will surely come up. Yeah, no I may think what
you said is right. So first of all I think like I think embracing the criticism from both sides you know he's gotten heat from both sides he believes you can secure the border he believes you can do it while keeping families together and being in a beacon of hope for people there's bipartisan support for it and he knows it because he had to deal the Donald Trump killed because he wants chaos that that's the choice in the election you can have a secure border while holding your values or
you can want chaos and families ripped apart like the last time he was in office. Yeah, and I also think you know that the time story about this quoted Catherine Cortez Masto who's the senator from Nevada she just wrote a piece advocating that that president Biden take the exact action he took
today she was telling the story about one of her constituents she was married she wanted to get a job she lives in Nevada and they have a kid and as she's applying for the job they wanted to do a background check and so they ask her for her husband social security number and she realizes she
cannot give her husband's social security number because her husband is undocumented and she is not she's an American citizen and if she gives a social security number they will possibly deport him and so the only option she has is to not take the job or divorce her husband and so they divorce
because of this and I think like Biden telling a story like that and being like so I want that husband to be able to stay with the family and keep the family together because they have been here for a decade working and living and building a family Donald Trump not only wants the divorce to
happen or the wife not to get a job he wants to have a federal agent knock on that family's door and deport that husband and rip the husband away from the family and that's the difference in the election yeah so the number 500,000 is the individual undocumented spouses right when you add in their
spouses their kids their communities their workplaces their you know schools of their it's it's it's just like we're talking about people in the millions impacted and it does have both significant impact but real kind of like family values kind of essence that it feels like really good politics
and particularly I think in states like Nevada and Arizona where you have a lot of probably mixed status families where you know the politics could matter a lot more than a hundred thousand mixed status households in Arizona another more than a hundred thousand in Nevada in Georgia all three
three yeah yeah the the you know Donald Trump wants us talking about and thinking about chaos of the border and he wants you to associate immigration and immigrants with criminals and terrorists but when when most people especially when they're asked about when they're asked about on polls when they
when in their daily experience they're talking about neighbors they're talking about friends they're talking about colleagues they're talking about people in their communities and I think reminding people of that I think is it remains powerful no matter what fearmongering they do okay now for
some nightmare fuel you might see some some poll denialists on Twitter but in real life the anti-trempt coalition is hoping for the best but preparing for the worst the New York Times has a big story about resistance 2.0 quote a sprawling network of democratic officials progressive activists
watched our groups and ex-replikans who are already preparing to challenge some of Trump's most extreme second term proposals in court and use every other tool available to fight back one group protect democracy which is led by our friend and White House colleague Ian Basson is putting together
a strategy to fight back against mass deportations that we were just talking about and the gutting of the civil service replacing all of the non-political federal employees 2 million in the government with Maga Loyalists the ACLU is also preparing to fight further attempts to criminalize abortion
and the possibility that Trump will order the military to use force against protesters they've also reportedly hired an auditor to make sure they're not vulnerable to Trump weaponizing the IRS against them put that on the do list and everybody listen to this you've donated Joe Biden
in a way that's online I had access that's one step we all can take and five democratic governors including Jayansley of Washington have started stockpiling abortion medication dark so Kate I had heard rumblings about this from other democratic officials and governors and my first reaction was
like what are the chances of success here given the powers that any president has and the current right wing majority on the Supreme Court and just the right word tilt of the judiciary in general just in terms in the general prospects for resistance 2.0 yeah I mean I let me channel our
friend Ian Basson for a minute and just say if we're talking about safeguarding the health and resilience of the democracy and the body politic like keeping cancer out it is really the goal as opposed to mitigation measures so I think that he would say that if you're here and so I'm
just channeling him so that is I think for all these groups still the priority is making sure there is not an anti-democratic autocrat in a position to actually make all of this real but contingency planning is a good idea and I think things like stockpiling Mifapristone is actually
really wise I don't know how quickly it expires honestly but I think that that that stockpiling is a very very good idea in terms of the longer term sort of strategic planning I think that the article that you referenced suggested that a lot on the left were you know caught really
off guard obviously when Donald Trump first took the White House and no one wants to make that mistake again and so I think that thinking carefully about legal strategy about litigation responses and other kind of sites of resistance at the state level and in you know the grassroots all of
that is really really important but it's sort of second order it should not sort of consume the conversation when the first order task is making sure it doesn't happen in the first place I I already have nightmares about this and I don't know sort of the legal like parameters here
because I mean I interviewed Liz Cheney on Paz de America and she was like I'm not worried about like a right wing Supreme Court majority she goes I'm just worried that Donald Trump will say why would I listen to the court why would I listen to any of the courts who's gonna make who's
gonna with whose army right right and so I worry about that I also worry about there's a number of proposals that would involve Donald Trump you know the insurrection act calling up the military right to act as a deportation force to use the military to put protests down to use the military
to go fight crime or the national guard to go fight crime to federalize the national guard in red states to have them go into blue states if the governors are in the blue states are not willing to federalize their national guard to solve whatever problem Donald Trump wants to solve like how much
pop it seems from my reading that the president has quite a bit of power to do that but I don't know what you think about the legal I mean part of the promise there's no Supreme Court case that says you can't do X when no president would ever have dreamed to do X right so a lot of these things
I think are legally really suspect but there is not like a clear statement from the Supreme Court to that effect again because it's just not come up so I think there's a range I think that when it you know and you're right to be nervous about I think both the Supreme Court blessing some of
you know kind of the largest types of overreach but also if it doesn't just being disfigured it right like that I think that there were a few checks in you know in Trump's term that were important ones and the Supreme Court was occasionally a big check like DACA rescission and the census citizenship question and even though the travel ban was ultimately upheld the lower courts required the administration to read draft that until you know the third one managed to pass muster so that's
one real side of pushback obviously the civil service like the bureaucracy was a real side of pushback and honestly the incompetence of a lot of the Trump support and that's right was was a side of kind of pushback or you know an important check I would say and I think that it's it's right to be
worried that all of those look potentially really different if the guiding of the civil services on the table if there is a more competent group of loyalists in place and you now have a Supreme Court with a different a six three as opposed to a five four conservative majority and the old five
four majority John Roberts occasionally joined the Democrats in the cases that I just mentioned and so so I think things do look really different I mean I honestly think we'll know more when we get the immunity decision from the Supreme Court I will have a I think more of a sense this this
this court has currently constituted hasn't had a big case quite like this about presidential power and presidential protections you know and I think there's the longer you know the delay takes on the more nervous I get not about the trial which is really important of course but also just about
what the court is going to say about how subject to law the president and an ex president is and it seems like if it says the president isn't really subject to ordinary legal checks it could be just really emboldening of you know kind of the most aggressive effort so things like yeah reclassifying
huge swaths of the federal government as political appointees rather than civil servants I mean there isn't a case that says you can't do that I think everything in statutes passed by Congress and related decisions by the Supreme Court suggest that you can't the the statutory authority the
president would invoke is never meant to be used this way and there's a strong principle of nonpartisan service you know beyond just the very top ashlands of the executive branch that has endured since the late 19th century so all these things make me think it would be unlawful for him to try but I'm not at all 100% confident that he would fail in the Supreme Court and I think you're right to worry that even if he did fail in the Supreme Court he might just you know sort of cross the
Rubicon of outright defiance love it how helpful do you think it is to be talking about the strategy so on one hand you can make the case like you don't want to make a Trump victory seem inevitable on the other you know it might help wake up some voters who aren't yet paying attention to the threat
of a second Trump term which seems to be one of the bigger challenges of the Biden campaign right now they are having particular trouble with voters who are not paying close attention and consuming a lot of news so I don't know what do you think yeah well I just I like I think about that subset of
people who are not paying that close attention and just think well well Trump obviously can't win again he was he was he did an insurrection he's been convicted and he's so terrible America wouldn't do that again kind of people that as much as as much as they lived from 2016 to to 2024 they have
sort of amnesia about how it felt before the election in 2016 my takeaway from reading this story is like I and I agree with everything you said Kate that that every person who is a part of this effort begins by saying the most important thing is stopping Trump from winning but we want to be
prepared just in case fine but I do feel like the realism and understanding of the kind of like clear difference between what happens if Joe Biden wins and what happens if Donald Trump wins I feel like the understanding of how stark that choices seems much clear in the ways people are
approaching this then in the way a lot of people are speaking publicly about the election and their willingness to be a full-throated advocate for Joe Biden at this moment including Democrats like yes like there should be a myth of pristone vault I was this is stupid but you
know there's a seed vault in svalbard yeah it's a great New Yorker article about it right so this would be like the anti-seed vault but the and so I think that's great yeah there's not that many varietals right it's a cheerlead you know but you know that's a clickable title
but but you know like part you know there are many different kinds of advocates that are part of this movement that I think are I think we have to collectively figure out a way to describe this threat in a way that is clear to people and I think part of that yes is about talking about
how how bad Trump is but I think part of it is understanding that like man we have we have we have the we've got four and a half months now whatever it is to get Joe Biden over the finish line and like there'll be time for all the kind of intro democratic like the intro democratic
fighting time is now done like it's just it's over it can't be that we're fighting on television about about worrying about Joe Biden and then behind the scenes where fucking building trenches to store abortion pills like it just simply cannot be that except if the trenches motivate people
right sure but like if you're somebody like I just trying to understand the person out there who is gonna hear about the fucking MIFA pristone vault and that's gonna be the thing that gets them out of their house it's pretty much it's a bank shot look I do it's like it's a good point
and I and sometimes I actually think that like you know for all the criticism sometimes Joe Biden and his campaign as administration you know we can you can fault them for talking about democracy and democracy the word being sort of esoteric and hard and you know more of a theoretical abstract
concept than something's real but I do think there needs to be a sense of urgency around like all of the rhetoric coming from all the Democrats right because if if you're a democratic official and you're acting like you know this is just here's the choice and there's this guy and this guy and
but like it's not going to feel to people as urgent as this article clearly lays out that like a lot of people are preparing for something that seems quite scary and you know it's tough because you always want to calibrate it right like you don't uh we oh I always think about this when
we're talking on this podcast like I don't want to unnecessarily alarm people but I also don't want to be like oh that's fine you're just just vote show up and vote you'll be good yeah but like I yes it is it is I was thinking about that too and and and like I because I remember before there
was there was these there was what was that there was like an Atlantic piece that sent everyone into it yes and you know what Barton Delman he's now part of this group and and he left the Atlantic and he was like I'm get I'm going in the trenches I'm digging the I'm digging the miffa press doing
train right no and I know it's in Seattle but the trench protects the bill they're not stunning the drugs aren't in the trench right yeah they have to be in the vault that's that's just around the vaults the things clear just foundation work okay just found
they're everyone's yeah Jay Inslee is in the vault yeah no he's got a hard hat he's cutting the ribbon but no but I think I think like I guess what I'm I guess I'm trying to say is like I completely like I'm glad that there are people doing this thinking I'm glad that people are
taking this threat seriously I'm glad people are making the decisions you would make if Joe Biden was behind by one point in a bunch of swing states because he is that's exactly right I'm more thinking like okay how do we make this feel as real to the people doing this preparation as to all
the people we need to bring on board and because look Joe Biden has given big speeches about democracy I think they're important I think it's his motivation I think like we should embrace like Joe Biden should speak authentically about why he's running for president but but I do think it's
like how do we make real for people the threat of schedule F right how do we make real the Comstock Act how do we like convey this and I think part of it is like finding a space between the kind of broad abstract like high-dudgeon like Donald Trump is a dictator Donald Donald Trump is
gonna is is an authoritarian bully like kind of like broad language that I think is just honestly noise to people as true as it is without underplaying the threat and I think part of that is just it is just sort of this is what the 2025 this is what his policy people policies are this is what he's
proposed how does that sound to you like these these these policies are dangerous and scary when they're described without any spin on the ball with like without sweetener well it's one of the reasons I'm like so glad Kate is here to talk about this story because I just recently saw some
polling where they presented voters with project 2025 proposals some of Donald Trump's campaign proposals and you know the first order problem is a lot of people haven't heard of them right so then but then there's a second order problem which is you present voters with these policies they
don't like them they're very opposed to them even the undecided voters even like software public and voters but they don't think that it could actually happen and when you ask them why the the first thing they say is or most of them say Democrats will stop it from happening in Congress
Democrats and Congress and the second thing they say is the courts will stop it from happening so I do wonder how we I think there's another we have to connect one more dot for people which is like and and it's not just Trump spouting off bullshit or Democrats you know crying wolf here
this is how he will have the power to get it done you talked about Kate like some of the proposals that you know the courts should rule against but might not what are you most scared of in terms of the Trump proposals that you think he really will be able to get done and will pass legal master
so both his proposals and some of the project 2025 stuff if I can sort of take them together I mean one you know with Mepha Pristone to stay on the topic project 2025 it's it's you know like 900 page fever dream like has a couple of really scary I mean has many many really scary things in it
but it actually suggests having the FDA to revoke the approval of Mepha Pristone so rendered an unauthorized drug entirely like that's in there and reviving enforcement which you just mentioned on the of the Comstock Act which is this 1873 right like Victorian anti-vice law that
could be used to basically criminalize sending through the males anything that could be used in an abortion so not just pills but also potentially surgical equipment like it could sweep more broadly than just medication abortion certain forms of contraception there was an amendment that
took like regular birth control pills out from the Comstock Act but IUDs things like that those could also very much be targeted so that stuff is really scary and you know will the court stop it I mean on Comstock I think there's lots of ways that enforcement of Comstock I think is both inconsistent
with maybe the first amendment and conceptions of liberty that are pretty well settled although dobs unsettle a lot of them so you know I think Comstock is obviously unconstitutional in a pre-dobs world I'm not sure post-dobs it obviously is and in terms of like directing the FDA to
revisit the Mepha Pristone approval you know the president doesn't typically just give directions to agencies like that and there's their statutes it say the FDA is supposed to review drugs for safety and efficacy but courts just again back to my answer I gave to earlier courts just have not
been confronted with a question of an agency saying we did what we did because the president told us to and project 2025 and a lot of the Trump teams rhetoric right now is all about vindicating democracy it's really pretty perverse but what they might say to the courts is we promise to do
all of this and then we did it and so democracy has been sort of successful and for a court to undo all of that would be fundamentally anti-democratic and so if they're kind of like gray areas in the law the court should resolve those in favor of you know like a democracy principle and let
you know let these actions stand even if they're inconsistent with science and you know best practices and things like that so I think I just come back to an answer I gave before which is that a lot of it is unsettled and I think there's a very good chance that some of it could be upheld
and I think that you know immigration is also a place where so to pivot for a minute to immigration a place where the executive has a lot of delegated authority from Congress and so that's a place where and where courts are not typically as you know likely to second guess discretionary judgments made by the president and the insurrection act is famously sort of vague and susceptible to abuse and manipulation it hasn't as written but it just hasn't been used
much and so courts just haven't been in a position of much. Yeah you want you want a law that allows the president to call up the military and use it against American citizens to be as vague as possible. Yeah that's optimal but it's all like to to worry just just what you were describing earlier just all of these laws were written in a way that that presumed a certain level of like democratic and republican small r small d fieldy might pens being able to overturn the election
of course not's not there but they found it there right that the if you in the in the 2025 document they talk about basically using that they can they can they can ban pornography and define pornography to basically include anything that makes reference to transgender people right that is an abuse of any of the law in any way that you could could read it but not if some republican uh not of some mega appointed Trump goon who had got their fucking lost law degree in the mail two
weeks before being nominated decides that it's okay. You mean I mean can. She's not and she's not the only one there's a few people in that graduating class the raisin brand 2000 and 21 class a lot. Future justice. Justice. Justice. Oh Jesus. That's terrible. Yeah. That's so. That's so. We should have what was the name of the Bush appointee that got with drawn Harriet Myers. Yeah we should have let Harriet Myers through Harriet. You should have gotten through. That was a mistake.
We blew that one. Well that was that was there. We did. We should have got behind it. We should have offered her. Don't say that to that. That'll be Biden's next. Anyway project 2025 is bad. Go tell your friends about it spread the word project 2025. It's not great and that's it. It's not great. Check it out. Yeah. It's pretty scary. Uh and the courts, you know you cannot count on the courts and you cannot count on even if Democrats control Congress right because part of this I mean
a lot of it's unilateral executive stuff. Yeah. Well part of what you're referencing is that they believe in this you know a unitary executive theory right which is the idea that all powers invested in the executive branch with the president right and so the entire federal government
everything that's not Congress and the courts every federal agency even if it's independent like the Department of Justice or the FTC or the FCC or any of these that this theory is no no no they all work for the president and so Congress doesn't get to check them and the courts don't get to check them. It's the the checks that they have on the president are there only checks and otherwise the
president has all power. Yeah and again like that's really it's wildly inconsistent with our kind of constitutional tradition that DOJ has enjoyed a degree of independence since it's existed but there just isn't you know there isn't a Supreme Court decision that says that there isn't even
anything explicit in the statute it's really the norms and customs and practices of the Department of Justice and the four barons of presidents who have respected this idea of an independent chief prosecutor and you know obviously none of that is secure under you know project 2025
slash Trump administration and so weaponizing DOJ as Trump has explicitly promised to do to go after political adversaries is something that you know would be challenged and and and would the challenge would rely on again an underspecified constitutional principle that I think is a very
real one but this really formalistic group of justice is that is willing to just sort of read the words of the Constitution and only some of them like article two of the one that empowers the president is in some ways the most important one and there's a few others second amendment the
religion clauses of the first amendment there's like you know there's a list of of preferred provisions but I'm not sure there's anything that this court would see as allowing it to second gas of presidential effort to to seize complete control of the justice department very cool all right
two quick things before we go to break um if you would like to hear Kate provide more brilliant legal analysis with two people who are much smarter yeah me and love it listen to strict scrutiny if you're not already which you're crazy if you're not uh you can listen with to Kate and Melissa
Murray and Lee litman uh I know you guys just did a show at Tribeca it was a great show thank you uh and you have a sold out show coming up Saturday and DC we do any any sneak preview you can offer there um I think I'm forbidden from providing any sneak preview but we have some very exciting
guests that's I think all I can say wow and went that will be on Saturday Saturday 22nd and then in your ear holes the morning of Monday the 24th outstanding all right everyone subscribe to strict scrutiny uh also Los Angeles listeners this Sunday June 23rd joined votes of
America in over 20 of your favorite bakers at bake save America what a segue I didn't know about this a bake sale and fundraiser for VSAs work to mobilize voters and secure progressive wins in November enjoy treats from all time Bob and grandma's all day baby and more but that that's cool yeah
that's very cool of course they do it out of fucking town I know what the hell uh no I'll be uh no flying back here it's going down from 11 am to 2 pm at motoring coffee on a limpi every ticket gets you entry two pastries and knowledge that your dollars are funding votes a ve merica's work
and VIP ticket holders will get a pastry from every baker limited edition merch and our new book do you know what it's called it's called democracy or else there we go defending democracy has never tasted so good head to vote save America dot com slash bake to get two pastries in your hand in a book
in your mouth uh you're taking to do it yeah this message has been paid for by votes a ve America you can learn more at vote save America dot com and this ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidates committee so speaking of the legal stakes in this election uh at a big
fundraiser in Los Angeles over the weekend with Barack Obama and Jimmy Kimmel Joe Biden had the audacity to criticize Kate's dear friends on the Supreme Court probably because love at Tommy and I were there egging him on uh let's listen so um it's been almost two years since uh the largely
trump appointed justices in the Supreme Court overturn rovers is weighed and I think we are all wondering what can we do about this elect me again now tell you why no i'm not just saying the next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees two more two more
he's already appointed to that have been very negative in terms of the rights of individuals the idea that if he's reelected he's going to appoint two more fine flags upside down but by the way not on my watch not on my watch yeah so the point was good the broad strokes argument I respect
we were there into our last segment uh he also president Biden towards the end of the night just interjected and very loudly institutions matter he's which I immediately texted so he love and I was like uh let's look for another slogan but I agree with him in principle
he's he somebody shouted gay rights from the audience yeah and then and Joe Biden went not on my watch but I think he meant no no no no because someone no what happened is someone we saw cut this for us thank you so because it wait that went on for two minutes and it was
Jimmy speaking and Obama speaking so we just got the good stuff from Biden but what happened is someone yelled gay rights and then Obama said because you couldn't really hear them but Obama could hear them and he said oh that he's talking about maybe maybe they'd undo same sex marriage
and then Biden said not on my watch because to me in the room I didn't catch that because for me it sounded like someone said gay rights and Biden went not on my watch I knew he meant more like not what Trump would do on my watch you get it yeah you get it yeah Julie Roberts was there
briefly like five minutes reflating you can't put it on the invite never show with a very top or five seconds she's like see you later I'll go on a fucking I'm not back to man of okany with me Kate was was Biden's critique of the Supreme Court more or less appropriate than when Obama
destroyed the constitution by respectfully criticizing the citizens united decision in front of the justice is during the state of the union I love imagining Samolito's poker face if he had actually been in the front row of that fundraiser
what kind of what kind of flag you know in retrospect we all should have known a little bit more about what kind guy that was Samolito right like because he's shaking his hand no he could barely contain himself control himself in that state of the union and none of this really should be
that surprising were you in the council's office at the time that was because I remember for all that whole controversy by the way for those who don't remember this is a big but Barack Obama during the state of union criticized citizens united and Samolito was shaking his head in the front
mouth is not true and it was this big controversy that followed for the next couple days several new cycles where believe it or not it wasn't like it is today where everyone's like yeah obviously Samolito is like you know a flying flags upside down and doing crazy shit it's like what did
President Obama do to civility in our institutions by bringing up a decision he did that new cycle so much like Samolito was the villain of that and somehow the press decided that Barack Obama was the villain and we work like I remember in preparing the speech and we reign up like you guys in
council's office and we stand by we really thought like we don't want to go too far here so what can we say that criticizes a decision without really criticizing the court like in retrospect we were too careful but it's like it's so funny it was a baffling controversy it was a bad even at the
time I was like I didn't even he's he was furious he said he wasn't ever he's never has he been back he said he wouldn't go back and then I know if he ever came back I'm not sure he's been back you might be right I think that he said that I was wrong to even be there put that on the Obama
accomplishments yeah yeah Samolito got a get home a get home to Betsy Ross I don't know I thought Joe Biden sounded like he was listening to Dan Fyfer's message box there I thought that was good yeah yeah Dan wants everyone talk about the Supreme Court uh
uh yeah maybe Dan is reading message box maybe people around I'm sorry Dan is reading message box maybe Joe Biden maybe Joe Biden's reading reading message box I do think they're talking about the the Supreme Court from Biden as part of the stakes like I know you know we've we've talked we've
asked about this to smart polling people and they'll tell you well you know you start talking about institutions and processes and like voters sort of their eyes glaze over but I do think like talking about the consequences of a you know a second-time Trump term and what the court looks like
there and what the court looks like under Biden particularly when the court under Trump is not just the court under four more years of Trump uh but potentially a couple decades yeah right I mean because he when he was in the White House he understood the imperative of appointing ultra
conservative and super young judges in the lower federal courts and I think his three appointments to the Supreme Court Trump's were you know very very conservative but still not as conservative as clearance Thomas and Samolito in in certain respects so I think that if he has a chance to make
more appointments Donald Trump does it will be very very young you know Aline Cannon Matthew Kazmarik that kind of profile of arch conservative and you know willing to be quite lawless jurists and because you know in some ways like Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh have occasionally
joined the Democrats I don't see future Trump appointee being sort of in that kind of category I do think it's interesting Biden starting to criticize the court and justices on it I think that feels like a development doesn't it this does not come naturally to him well you know there's
this whole fucking debate after the fundraiser about like you know this deceptively edited video from from the New York Posted of like does did Biden freeze as he was walking off stage and you know really he really he just stopped from and he was waving and he and he looked in the crowd and he
just saw love it and you notice he was back from survivor so just put him off my shirt understandable but what really and then you know liberals fought about that and the Biden campaign got mad about but I thought that was the news out of that event and you know the Biden campaign tweeted that
that clip so they they were clearly happy with the answer yeah it's he's you know obviously a creature of the Senate and of the Senate Judiciary Committee and I think has had this long standing respect for the court as an institution and a lot of people have I think you know myself included
but I do think that at a certain point like reality has to step in and it's not an institution that is performing consistent with the basic obligations of a court in a democracy in consistent with a limited role vis-à-vis the Congress and the president it's just it just isn't and so I don't
I think that Biden may be realizing that it's important to talk differently about the court then courts of your if the court is not going to act like like a like a court at all honestly and so I really hope that that's a shift that we're going to see going forward I hope so yeah I create
I also think part of this is dogs but part of this is also just the rampant corruption on the Supreme Court that I think is an affable to people and I do wonder right like you know people who understand the stakes around the Supreme Court are probably people that are already part of our
coalition so it's about reaching people and making them understand the stakes for the Supreme Court especially when there is polling that shows well dogs happened on Joe Biden's watch right like like abortion went away when Joe Biden was president like and the question is do you view that
something to get around or is that this issue important enough and big enough where you actually want to try to do the work to educate the millions and millions of people who need to come to understand the stakes of the Supreme Court in a way that they currently don't yeah well just
just talk about some of those upcoming rulings and the stakes and the consequences wanted to ask you about a few of the recent big decisions and the big decisions still to come we talked about if the press don't quite a bit the vault but they also the Supreme Court on Friday
I know you guys did a bonus episode on this they overturned the Trump administration's regulatory ban on bump stocks put in place after the Las Vegas shooting your take on the decision there it's pretty shocking decision so for you know 100 years machine guns have been banned under federal
law and there's also provision that says that an accessory that converts a semi-automatic gun to machine gun is also banned and Clarence Thomas for a six three majority in this hyper technical reading of the phrase single function of the trigger decides that because what a bump stock does
is it internally does actually have a trigger moving many many times so it's you know they can shoot these you know rifles equipped with bump stocks can shoot up to 800 rounds a minute but it's not according to Justice Thomas a single function of the trigger if you look inside the gun
and he illustrates this with like six kind of whimsical diagrams and a gif like it is a truly deranged document like that's the opinion and I mean again they're like weirdly playful the images of the inside of a gun it's sort of hard to describe but he's obviously luxurrating
in this kind of like you know internal investigation of the mechanics of a bump stock and comes up with like well it's not really a single function because a lot is happening inside so it's not actually able to be prohibited under the statute and so the ATF under the Trump administration
which issued this regulation banning bump stocks that regulation falls and the you know 500,000 bump stocks clearly that are already out there are again fully legal and I mean that is just like it's both a terrible opinion when it comes to reading a statute and understanding what a statute
is trying to do and interpreting consistent with that but obviously it has you know enormous on the ground consequences in terms of reintroducing again hundreds of thousands of these wildly lethal accessories into the broader population and we saw what one of these things didn't Las Vegas
and they could happen again and you know just to like close the loop for people here senator Schumer said all right I'm going to bring this up and because basically I think Alito said in a covering opinion like Congress wants to ban these Congress can do it so Schumer says he's going
to bring it up and Lindsey Graham said I'll block it no matter what even though again this was something that the Trump administration did and then Republicans in the Trump administration supported this when it happened and the NRA supported it this was an NRA was okay with this regulation although
there's some speculation well maybe they were okay with the regulation because they thought it be easier to undo down the road than a then a statutory change but regardless this is Thomas way way right of the Trump administration and the NRA in this case and now the Republicans in the
Senate have taken their cue from Thomas and now they're refusing to do this and so when people hear about the decision and get upset that the Supreme Court did this thing on bump stocks and Joe Biden couldn't fix it and the Democrats couldn't fix it it's because Republicans have the votes to
block it and they have a Supreme Court that decided to do this and so it's like those are the stakes of the election right there can you talk about the decision in Vidal versus Elster because it was a little bit under the radar but I heard you had some some larger concerns about it I do
so it's like this quirky little case this guy Steve Elster tried to get a trademark for the phrase Trump too small after the sick memorable Marco Rubio Donald Trump like debate exchange that Trump's hand size you guys remember this yeah that's so much about hand size right right
explicitly in you endo that's what we're talking about there talk about in you endo right this is like this is like a this is like a Lincoln project tweet come to life you yeah you walk around the tweet three times while saying a Hebrew prayer it becomes a kind of
a monster that's about a goal a goal them for Rita fellow fellow fellow tribe member back there anyway Kate go on so this Elster tries to get a trademark on the phrase Trump too small and is turned down by the trademark office because there's a prohibition in federal law on getting
a trademark with somebody else's name without their consent and obviously Trump does not consent to the Trump too small shirts so so he brings the first amendment challenge and says well you know the first amendment protects my right to make you know get a trademark on this phrase and
the Supreme Court had actually struck down other trademark laws that had these provisions that prevented registration of like scandalous marks or immoral marks or derogatory marks so actually there have been you know successful challenges along these lines in recent years but this guy this
t-shirt you know a registrant is unsuccessful the court rules against him unanimously but I think what's really distressing about this opinion it's like the court has so many cases it's deciding right now it's really hard to kind of keep track of all of them but there are very scary
like embedded suggestions and a lot of these opinions and this is one of them there's a suggestion in this opinion that when you're deciding whether you know a law this is a trademark law but in general survives a first amendment challenge you have to look to history and tradition so what have we done historically with like common law treatment of trademarks and whether you could use people's names without their agreement and the decision at least for the plurality of the court is that history
and tradition tells us that yeah that no you you don't have a right to basically use somebody's name in this way but history and tradition is not how we have typically assessed the first amendment right like we've until the 1960s there weren't really heightened protections for media if you
want to bring a defamation claim so that's the New York Times versus Sullivan case early American history is not at all protective of first amendment rights like you know the alien institution acts are these very early statutes right that allow that criminalized political speech
and those were understood as consistent with the first amendment so I just think there is there's potentially a really ominous set of notes in this opinion about how you know both dobs which you talked about in brewing this big gun case from 2022 are both about how important
history and tradition are in deciding what the constitution means and this else or case suggest to me the court is going to use that method across maybe everybody of law and our history and tradition is pretty dodgy in a lot of ways and if that's what answers the question of what the constitution
means today I think we're all in a lot of trouble this is like this is like they want to party like at 1776 coming back to the 2025 project and the pornography yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah just get that on it get you know not exactly history and tradition all right you got your
bind to say abortion next challenge level two okay get your bind to say porn I don't know that his people should take that we talked a little bit about the immunity case is it now officially like too late to start a trial before the election if it comes this week I mean
judge chukkin is a very impressive district or judge I wouldn't rule anything out but you know it's I would say it's in the single digit percent likely at this point um an actual trial but you know there are ways that she could she could figure out how to hold a hearing potentially
on this question of what is an official act and what is not because if that that maybe how the case gets resolved yes official acts get some kind of immunity but the indictment that Jack Smith brought has some official acts and some things that were clearly just conspiracies by an individual
sort of outside of kind of the scope of the presidency so some official acts some non-efficial acts so it's been at least suggested that she could hold a hearing on this question of what is official and what is unofficial from the indictment and that that could serve as something like a
mini trial with a public facing component so it wouldn't be a full trial there wouldn't be a jury verdict but it would be something I love it looks like that's weak sauce that might that might be right it's opening on Broadway that's how that's how stuff came to be
let's let's exist in a hopeful world for a minute yeah are there legitimate reasons it's taking so long for them to release this decision that aren't just the conservative majority dragging its feet there are other reasons but none of them are reasons that are hopeful I don't think so
conservative conservative majority dragging its feet is I think one and two just like writing a complex opinion that sets forth some kind of immunity that is never in American history existed immunity of an ex-president from criminal prosecution is just a wildly novel idea and so if you're
defining what the kind of outer parameters of that are it might take some time but you know the longer it takes the less likely you have an opinion that just basically says affirmed which is you know the DC circuit rejected the immunity arguments very forcefully one word right affirmed
is honestly what the Supreme Court opinion should say if it had to take the case at all and obviously the longer it takes the less likely that is so you know dragging their feet and writing something you know complex but protective of the president I think are the two theories and neither is good
I just have like a process question about it like I know it was the last case they heard yep is there something to the order for it being like they could just say no this is important yeah we want to do absolutely there's no they don't have to like decide the earlier argued cases
first nothing like that you know the complex cases there are opinions right now flying back and forth inside chambers because I'm sure there are multiple writings and dissents and and all that so so it does take time to kind of hash out how the opinions talk to each other but you know like
think about the Colorado disqualification case right like that was two weeks and it was you know and it was you know it was a short ish and there was you know two separate writings and but they can they wanted to move quickly because it was super Tuesday and they thought they should speak before
the actual voting happened on that day and they did so if they felt a similar sense of urgency here we would absolutely have had this opinion weeks ago can I ask you so you obviously like you're saying they're contemplating argument that that that has never been been made before but also
they're dealing with an unprecedented situation of a president former president being prosecuted in some cases for crimes committed while being in office if you were put aside the politics and the reality that we're all living in and the fact that you know Samolitos wife is flying
fucking rebellion flags outside or I don't know harbor property uh but is there a way that you can see to like there are complexities here that actually do need to be grappled with that like you know if this weren't such a sort of obvious situation that that
that a president might be pursued for for what was being construed as crimes for while president was in office you know I think a charitable read would be they're they're thinking seriously about this question that there could be edge cases where something we might want to protect that a
president engages in is subject to a you know spurious prosecution and so it actually is important that there be some principle protection of the president but I think they don't have to touch any of that because this is an easy case so I think they can just write something that says we're
not going to if they want to they could say we're not going to foreclose the possibility of some kind of immunity but it's obvious that no such immunity exists here remanded I think that that's the principled way in the case you'd say if they want to even entertain the possibility I think
they could also just reject a wholesale affirmed as I suggested but but either one would be fine with me so this whole I think it was gorsuch that said we're writing an opinion for the ages like you don't have to no you're not supposed to right like if there are very hard questions that
touch these deep kind of constitutional dynamics and relationships and powers and you don't have to answer them you're actually really not supposed to yeah what are the other big ones we're waiting on besides immunity that you are thinking about I mean there's the other J6 case fissure which is
not about Trump but about a lot of other individuals charged with January 6th related offenses and two of the four Trump charges are the the under the statute that's being considered here and so that case and a lot of the other January 6th offense cases could be thrown out that was the
tenor of the oral argument that's another really important one you have another big abortion case about emergency care for individuals who might under extreme circumstances need an abortion to preserve their health that's the amtolic case that one we're still waiting for there are a bunch
of cases about administrative agency power that are again difficult to talk about in the same way that schedule f is difficult to talk about and communicate about but are like fundamentally about whether government gets to act to protect health and safety and well-being or the court is going
to decide for itself like what a single function of the trigger means and like what an acceptable amount of pollution in the air and water really looks like or whether expert agencies are going to get to make those determinations like four different cases the court is considering present variations
on that question and so sometimes dry and technical but enormously high stakes for people's lives well as you guys say on strict scrutiny time for some bad decisions there's a 23 plus outstanding I think they're almost all going to be really bad all right your lines coming attractions
uh kacha thank you so much thank you for having me for joining president america it was such a pleasure and uh we will see you again on uh dan and tom you're going to do Thursday's episode and we'll post that on Friday bye if you want to get ad free episodes exclusive content and more
consider joining our friends of the pod subscription community at crooked dot com slash friends and if you're already doom scrolling don't forget to follow us at pod save america on instagram twitter and youtube for access to full episodes bonus content and more plus if you're as opinionated
as we are consider dropping us a review pod save america is a crooked media production our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and david tolito our associate producers are salt rubin and ferris safari read churlin is our executive producer the show is mixed and edited by andrew Chadwick
jordan canter is our sound engineer with audio support from kyle seglin in charlotte landis writing support by hale keifer madeline herringer is our head of news and programming matt de grote is our head of production andy taft is our executive assistant thanks to our digital
team alijah kone hailey jones mea kelemann david toles kiehrl pela viv and malle lobelle if you thought the world was finally running out of podcasts stop worrying john steward is making his new podcast the weekly show with john steward available to your ears every thursday nice
john and his special guest delve into current events from the twenty twenty four election to the ups and downs of the economy and all of the chaos and corruption in between there's no telling where the conversation might go listen to the weekly show with john steward wherever you get your broadcasts