CSPAN - Review of Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 5, 2025 18:49-20:03 - CSPAN

01:13:54

Review of Supreme Court's 2024-25 Term

Participants

Main

mark joseph stern

05:32

Appearances

jamelle bouie

04:22

Clips

ashley etienne

d 00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Across the country.
		Coming up Sunday morning, we'll talk with syndicated columnist Cal Thomas about Trump administration policies and the state of U.S. politics.
		Then Amanda Littman with the group Run for Something, discuss its efforts to help elect young progressives to public office and the state of the Democratic Party.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
		When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
		Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
		Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
		Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Up next, legal commentators reviewing the Supreme Court's most recent term.
		They talk about the outcomes from some key cases, including the Supreme Court upholding Tennessee's law, banning transgender medical treatments for minors, and allowing states to cut Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood.
		The conversation was hosted by Georgetown University.
		All right,
		we are going to get started.
		I'm so happy that you all are mingling.
		It's wonderful.
		And if you could grab your seats, and for those of you who are seeking CLE credit, there is a tabling right outside of this room.
		So please remember to stop by.
		And I'll ask the Supreme Court term and review panelists to please take the stage.
		What a fabulous opening session.
		Can we please give a round of applause to those who've literally been in the trenches, both with regard to monitoring the rule of law, Andrew's work has been to monitor case after case, litigation after litigation.
		Sky Perryman, who's been bringing so many of the lawsuits, so many on that panel, just doing remarkable work.
		Could we just give them one last round of applause?
		And thank you so much, Regina.
		I don't know where you are in the room.
		What a fabulous panel.
		As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Magazine in Ms. Studios is one of our co-sponsors of this event.
ashley etienne ▲ ● ▼		There is a tabling of the feminist majority over there with some feminist swag that's over there and interns waving at us.
unidentified		I want to take a moment to also thank everyone who helped to bring this event together.
		The O'Neill communications team, please give them a broad.
		They've worked so hard in bringing this together along with our Georgetown University Law Center event planning team.
		Please help celebrate them as well.
		And all of the people who've helped to bring this together and the C-SPAN staff as well.
		Thank you so much for being here.
		I wanted to just take a moment.
		Mark, can you hold this for a second?
		Thank you.
		Thank you so much.
		To just hold up the latest Ms. magazine cover because I think it says so much about where we are today.
		And it's the special report on men.
		Yes.
		Nobody asked George for comment, but yes, they should next time.
		And it's an unpacking.
		It's a special edited issue by Jackson Katz, who's one of the leading scholars who studies men and boys in the manosphere.
		So anyway, pick up a copy.
		And then at each of your tables is the spring edition.
		And it's about even in blue states what's taking place in terms of the efforts to undo the rule of law.
		So please take a look at those.
		And now we're going to get started.
		And with this program, Mark, to my immediate left, and also a number of folks on this panel, would join me in California for the Supreme Court term in review.
		And in fact, we have wonderful supporters who've actually flown out from California who would support our event there and who are in the room now.
		Thank you so much, Greg and Pat.
		The tradition of doing this and with my dear friend, Dean Erwin Shimerinski, would be to ask Irwin, as I will now, to give an overview of this last term.
		So Erwin, before I ask you to do that, Mark, can you hold this again?
		I just want to tease something out because in some ways, I wonder about, Erwin and I write a lot together.
		And when I think about some of the things that we've written about, I think that maybe we shouldn't have.
		So here it goes.
		And around 2015, Erwin and I said, well, what about if the Supreme Court tries to do white with abortion?
		So Texas Law Review, we write about that.
		Dobbs isn't until 2022, but in 2015, we're writing about that.
		And then we say in 2016 in the Harvard Law Review, what if there's a global pandemic?
		Who's thinking about a global pandemic in 2016?
		And we're saying, well, if there is one, how do we think about civil liberties and civil rights?
		And then following that, we say, well, what about if there are questions about vaccines?
		Can a government require that you have vaccines to keep other people safe?
		And so we do that around 2016-17 in the Northwestern Law Review.
		And then we do another piece that's about a transgender military ban, that transgender people deserve to be able to serve anywhere in our government.
		And what about if there's an attack on folks who are trans serving in the military?
		Well, of course, sadly, so much of what we've written about has come to pass, but not in ways in which so many of this room would appreciate and expect.
		But with that said, Irwin, let me turn it over to you to give an overview of this term.
		Thank you.
		It's such an honor to be part of this discussion.
		Each year I write a short book for the American Bar Association, Recapping the Term.
		I try to come up with a title that captures the theme for the year.
		My title for this year is going to be Taking Sides.
		Our country is more ideologically divided than it's been at any time since Reconstruction.
		Many of the cases this term posed issues with regard to that ideological divide.
		Time and again, the Supreme Court came down on one side, and solidly so, the very conservative side.
		I think the most important cases to illustrate this, and among the most significant of the term, involved presidential power.
		And also, it was the year that the culture wars came to the Supreme Court.
		With regard to presidential power, let me start not with nationwide injunction, but the many instances where matters came to the Supreme Court on the emergency or so-called shadow docket.
		Overwhelmingly, the Supreme Court has sided with President Trump.
		Give just two examples, and there are many.
		One is from a week ago Monday.
		It's a case called Department of Homeland Security versus DVD.
		And the issue was whether the Trump administration could deport individuals to South Sudan.
		There's a federal statute that lists where people can be deported to.
		It lists it in priority order.
		Only if there's nowhere else to go does the administration get discretion.
		A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against sending individuals to South Sudan.
		It clearly violates the federal statute.
		But the Supreme Court 6-3 lifted the preliminary injunction, allowing the Trump administration to do this.
	What's particularly striking is the sixth justice of the majority didn't even feel a need to write a word of explanation for what they were doing.
	Another example of this that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention is Trump versus Wilcox.
	In 1935, in Humphrey's Executive v. United States, the Supreme Court said that Congress can create federal agencies and provide protection for removal of the commissioners of those agencies.
	It can limit removal to where there's cause.
	President Trump announced he's not going to follow Humphrey's executor.
	He believes it's a unitary executive and he can fire anyone in the executive branch.
	He fired Gwynne Wilcox, a commissioner on the National Labor Relations Board, even though she's a term that goes till 2028, even though she can be fired for cause.
	He fired another person, Kathy Harris, who's the head of the Merit System Protection Board.
	Same thing, there's a statute providing protection.
	The lower courts, the DC Circuit on Bank, ruled in favor of Wilcox and Harris.
	They said Humphrey's executor is the law, and it has to be complied with unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it.
	But the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the DC Circuit, allowing Trump to fire Wilcox and Harris.
	As Justice Kagan said in her dissent, this was the Supreme Court effectively overruling a 90-year precedent without briefing an argument on the shadow docket.
	And then, of course, there's the birthright citizenship case from last Friday, Trump versus CASA.
	This is the Supreme Court unquestionably reducing the powers of the federal judiciary to check the president at the same time we have a president who is asserting unprecedented authority.
	Here I must respectfully, though strongly disagree with what Mr. Conway said on the last panel.
	He said, federal courts are limited to deciding cases and controversies.
	Of course that's true, but there were cases, Trump versus Casa, Trump versus New Jersey, Trump versus Washington, and the federal courts were issuing relief in those cases.
	He said, as Justice Barrett did in her majority opinion, that nationwide injunctions didn't exist early in American history, are relatively new.
	Federal courts have always had broad injunctive power.
	And the fact that something wasn't done in 1791 doesn't mean that the courts didn't have power to do it.
	In fact, I can show you nationwide injunctions going back well over a century.
	The reality is it's going to be much more difficult to check the president.
	Now, you're going to need to file lawsuits in 94 federal districts.
	And the president can continue to lose in many of them and continue the unconstitutional practice and others until unless the Supreme Court gets involved.
	Mr. Conway, Justice Barrett, said there's class action suits, but they have additional procedural obstacles.
	And we'll have to see if they're really there.
	Because I predict, and I'm sure of this, the Trump administration will try to oppose every one of those class actions and certification.
	I think here what Justices Suttara and Jackson said and their dissent is right.
	This is very much weakening the rule of law.
	The courts right now are only guardrailed to enforce the Constitution, and the Supreme Court weakened that guardrail.
	So these are examples of what I mean of the Supreme Court clearly taking sides.
	But there are also the cases about the culture wars this term.
	Take, for instance, United States versus Scrimetti, filed a Tennessee law that prohibited gender-affirming cure for transgender youth.
	26 states have adopted such laws, all with Republican-controlled state legislatures.
	A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against this.
	The federal district court said, this is sex discrimination.
	The federal district court said, this is discrimination against transgender individuals.
	The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the Tennessee law.
	And here, too, it was very much the Supreme Court taking sides.
	Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the court.
	He said, it's not sex discrimination because the Tennessee law prohibits gender-affirming cure for both boys and girls.
	But as Justice Sutton Senator said, what this law means is that certain drugs can be given to boys for gender-affirming reasons.
	Boys for whom puberty is delayed can be given testosterone.
	Certain drugs will be given to girls for gender-affirming reasons.
	Estrogen where puberty is delayed.
	But those drugs can't be given to boys for gender-affirming reasons or to girls for gender-affirming reasons if they're transgender.
	This, as Justice Sonner said, is sex discrimination.
	Also, the court said this isn't discrimination based on gender identity.
	In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court invoked one of the most ridiculed Supreme Court decisions in history, Gduldig v. Cyllo.
	Gduldig was a 1974 case that involved a California law that said the state would pay for its employees for any disability related to health, but not pregnancy-related disability.
	It would pay for disabilities that would only affect women, say from ovarian cancer, or only affect men, testicular cancer, but not pregnancy.
	And the Supreme Court said excluding pregnancy wasn't sex discrimination.
	The court said there's two categories of people, pregnant people and non-pregnant people.
	And since women are both categories, that's not sex discrimination.
	That's what the court said.
	Chief Justice Roberts says, well, there's two categories of people under the Tennessee law.
	There's transgender individuals who can't have these hormones for gender-affirming reasons.
	And then there's all the other people who can have these hormones for other reasons.
	He said, since transgenders are in both categories, that's not discrimination based on gender identity.
	Of course it is.
	The whole law is about gender identity.
	Justice Sotomera ridiculed this in her dissent and said, this is the same as if a state were to say, we're not going to provide any insurance for anybody who can ever menstruate, but it's not sex discrimination because some women don't menstruate.
	The whole point of it is discrimination based on gender identity.
	The court didn't reach the issue of the level of scrutiny to be used for gender identity discrimination, but I think the court has signaled where it's going in that regard.
	There was another matter on the emergency docket, United States versus Schilling.
	It involved the Trump administration's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.
	The district court issued a preliminary injunction.
	The Supreme Court 6-3 overturned that preliminary injunction, allowing the discrimination.
	One more case I'd mentioned with regard to the culture wars came down last Friday, Mahmoud versus Taylor.
	The Montgomery County, Maryland school system adopted a curriculum with regard to education about sexuality, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and it started at a young age.
	A group of parents objected on religious grounds.
	They said that they should have had notice and the opportunity to opt out.
	The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the Montgomery County curriculum, but the Supreme Court 6-3 reversed.
	Here, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the court.
	I'm sorry, Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the court, and Justice Sotomera wrote the dissent.
	Justice Alito's majority opinion here said that this is a substantial burdening of religion.
	Therefore, strict scrutiny is to be used.
	And the conclusion was that parents should have the right to notice and to opt out.
	As Justice Sotomera said in her dissent, never before has the Supreme Court said that mere exposure to material is a violation of free exercise of religion.
	But she also said, and I think she's right, this is going to cause chaos in the public school system.
	Anytime a parent objects to anything now, they have the right to notice and opt out so long as it's on religious grounds.
	If a parent objects to evolution being taught in science or biology, they have the right to notice and opt out.
	If a parent objects to English classes where they read The Wizard of Oz or Harry Potter, because there's witchcraft, they'll have the opportunity to notice and opt out.
	And the government would have to meet strict scrutiny, which is enormously difficult for it to do.
	This is so much the Supreme Court coming down on one side of the culture wars.
	I can give other examples, both with regard to presidential power and culture wars.
	But here I want to conclude again by disagreeing with Mr. Conway.
	I don't believe it's the role of the Supreme Court to pick and choose and be careful.
	I think Marvary versus Madison got it exactly right, that the Constitution exists to limit the government.
	And those limits are meaningless if they're not enforced by the court.
	And I think what the Supreme Court has done is very much abdicate its role.
	And so I think the profound question going forward is, at a time when our country is so ideologically divided, what will it mean to have a Supreme Court that's consistently and solidly come down on one side of that ideological divide?
	Thank you so much, Erwin.
	Can we give him a round of applause for that overview?
	So Erwin Shimerinski is the dean of Berkeley's Law School.
	Sherilyn Eiffel, who is to his left, served as the seventh president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund from 2013 to 2012.
	Well, let's see, for 22, right.
	And as the founding director of the 14th Amendment Center for Law and Democracy at Howard Law School, I'm also joined by Jamal Bowie from the New York Times, who's to Irwin's right.
	And to his right is Chris Geidner, who was at BuzzFeed and is now feeding us all news through LawDork.
	And then Moradon again, to his right, who's at The Guardian and providing some of the most comprehensive coverage that we've been having on the status of women and so needed for a very long time.
	And immediately to my left, Mark Joseph Stern from Slate.
	And with that said, let's get started and get all into it.
	And Sherilyn, I'll start off with you.
	Were there, I was going to say, big surprises for you for this term.
	You were mentioning at our table that you knew the gloves were off and that things would be, in some ways, as we have seen them, based on just simply paying attention to what the now sitting president has said.
	Surprises for you this term.
	First of all, thank you so much for having me join you.
	This is wonderful.
	And Michelle, you are, I heard the introduction, but they left out badass.
	You are also a badass.
	Thank you.
	It takes one to no one, Sherilyn.
	And thank you, Dean Shemerensky.
	I said I wanted to be sitting down there to listen to him because it's just mesmerizing.
	I wouldn't say surprises.
	I mean, that would be, I would be lying if I said I was surprised by anything the majority of this court did.
	And I stopped being surprised a couple of years ago when the Supreme Court decided the Section 3 case under the 14th Amendment.
	Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that those who have participated in insurrection cannot serve in state or federal government.
	And that decision was so egregious and so over the top.
	And I read very closely the dissents in that case.
	And I heard Justice Kagan and Sotomayor and Jackson to be sounding an alarm.
	They were trying to tell us something.
	And they said it in terms that was maybe the starkest I had heard.
	And I felt like they were ringing the alarm bell.
	They were telling us that that six-member majority is okay with this stuff.
	It was obviously followed by the immunity decision and it continued, but I have not changed my view since then that those three justices have been trying to signal to us a sea change.
	And what, you know, I'm a civil rights lawyer, okay?
	I have never, for my entire career, I have not litigated before or in the context of a Supreme Court that has been inclined, shall we say, towards the issues that are the issues of my clients.
	But this is very actually different than what I have seen over the course of my career for all of the reasons that Dean Shemerensky just talked about.
	It's extremely explicit.
	And I'll just give one example.
	And I think that this is what Justice Jackson is talking about in her dissent in Medina and certainly in her dissent in Trump versus CASA.
	There always was a glancing pass towards understanding the effect of their decisions and even saying something about the effects of their decisions.
	This court not only militantly refuses to talk about the effect of their decisions, they kind of gaslight us into pretending that the effects of their decision won't be what they are.
	It really begins with Shelby County versus Holder, to be honest, right?
	I mean, it took an hour before the Texas Attorney General was saying, okay, let's impose the voter ID law that we had been kept from imposing under Section 5 in the past, right?
	There was this willingness of the court, it's a carelessness, a devil may care, a hard charging move towards their agenda, towards checking off a set of issues that have long been issues that those on the legal right have cared about, right?
	Unitary executive, mass executive power, limiting powers of district courts, although I think that has gone off the rails, limiting the 14th Amendment.
	There are all kinds of things that have been just part of the, you know, in the suitcase of the legal right.
	But this court has shown itself willing, almost with breakneck speed, you know, not willing to leave anything to chance, checking off those boxes without regard to what the effect of the decision is.
	It's unpacking the suitcase.
	It is.
	It is.
	Well, with that said, let's then talk about these cases and give them more deliberation.
	Mark, I want to start with you and I'll go to some of the other panelists about the USV Scrimetti case.
	And I want you to tell us about the case, our listeners, so that they understand what was at stake.
	What is the law about in that case?
mark joseph stern ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so this is a Tennessee law that prohibits, as Irwin was explaining, medical treatments for youth experiencing gender dysphoria that allows them to receive gender-affirming care and transition to the gender they identify as.
		And as Irwin explained, these so clearly classify on the basis of sex.
		If you are a boy who is assigned male at birth and you develop unwanted breast tissue, you can receive testosterone treatments to reduce that breast tissue.
		But if you are a trans boy and you were assigned female at birth and you develop unwanted breast tissue, you cannot receive testosterone to reduce that breast tissue.
		So whether or not you can receive the same treatment for the same reason depends entirely on the sex that you were assigned at birth.
		And under a long line of Supreme Court precedent, that is so blatantly sex discrimination, as well as discrimination on the basis of transgender status.
		And to sort of close his eyes to that, I think that Chief Justice Roberts had to really badly contort the majority opinion.
		He had to very badly contort the law of sex discrimination and the law of equal protection in order to pretend as though these laws are not in fact trying to force children to adhere to a certain sex and certain sex stereotypes.
		And he had to close his eyes to the text of the law itself, which states that one of the legislature's key goals was to make minors appreciate the sex they were assigned at birth.
unidentified		And so to just be clear about this too, right?
		So it's not that in the state of Tennessee, which some people might think, that gender-affirming care is banned altogether because it's possible.
		Is that right, Maura?
		It's banned for the people who need it, right?
		It's banned for people on the basis of their transgender identity, which I agree with.
		Mark, I really think it's a almost embarrassingly sloppy opinion.
		It's an opinion that tends to insult the reader with its bad faith.
		Because some people think with the case, like, oh, you know, here are these parents trying to force testosterone on their kids.
		But the reality is in Tennessee, kids were already getting testosterone and estrogen.
		Yes, and cis children will continue to receive those treatments.
		And I am interested that you point out the concerns of the parents, right?
		Because in this case, the court declined to hear the question of whether the ban infringes on parents' rights.
		And as Chris pointed out in his very excellent blog on this set of cases that I think everybody should read, they also declined to hear further argument for next term on the question of parents' rights.
		We saw some other very aggressive interpretations of rights that parents have this term, right?
		But this right to guide the medical care of their children in ways that they feel are most advantageous for those children's thriving and development.
		The Supreme Court intervened to stop a particular culture war outcome from having legal protection.
		So, Chris, tell us a little bit about these concurring decisions, right?
		Because you have broken this down and looked at it left, right, up, and down.
		Give us some more texture about how the justices beyond the Chief Justice viewed this case and what's at stake.
		Yeah, I know it's the Stephen Miller effect.
mark joseph stern ▲ ● ▼		Try again.
unidentified		Hello.
		There we go.
		There you are.
		Yeah, no, I mean, thank you.
		I think it is just so whenever talking about this case, I think the gaslighting that we were talking about is so clear.
		Because if you asked, I mean, like if people wonder, but yes, we know that.
		What this law is about.
		Nobody's going to say it's about age and medical use, which is what the Chief Justice insisted to us is all that this case was about.
		That they're going to say, whatever side they come down on, whether they support the law or oppose it, they're going to say this is a law about trans kids.
		And it's just so remarkable that the law of the United States is now that a law that everyone passing it, supporting it, opposing it, signing it, challenging it, defending it, everybody going all the way up.
		Trump appointed district court judges across the country, even the appeals court judges, until you got to Jeff Sutton.
		You had an Eighth Circuit decision before this all started that had upheld a district court injunction against Arkansas's ban.
		All of a sudden, John Roberts gets it and tells us this is not sex classification, this is not transgender status, and because of that, that's the only way that they're able to then do the second trick, which is we're not even going to look at the debate over the evidence.
		He literally says the fact that there is a debate was all that the Tennessee legislature needed to prove to form a rational basis.
		And because of that, you just went forward.
		And so then you're stuck with this ruling and the dissent that you get from Justice Sotomayor that really does.
		Tell us about that dissent.
		And back to this gaslighting, right?
		This sort of sense when it's raining outside that we're told is not really raining, or you really don't need an umbrella, or you really don't need to have something that protects you from the rain.
		Yeah, no, it's this idea that we saw that you can just ignore the text of the law.
		You can ignore the purpose of the law.
		You can ignore all of these things in other cases that conservatives, judicial appointees have been telling us we have to follow, and all of a sudden say, no, in this one instance, we're going to go outside of that.
		It's just, I mean, you could just tell that there was, I mean, it was a powerful dissent, but it was almost sort of like a dissent that understood that they're, I'm writing for the future because this is clearly a lost cause right now.
		Which also seems to be something that's taking place within the dissent.
		Jamel, I see you gripping your microphone.
		Yeah, no, I just, I just.
		I've learned what the grip of the microphone means.
		Yes.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		I just want, I want to pick up on Chris is saying and tie it back to something Sherilyn said, which is Sherilyn mentioned that the court is acting in ways that are indifferent to the consequences on the ground.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		But I think the corollary to that is the court is pretending as if it operates in this world of total abstraction, right?
unidentified		That they can do pure law.
		Right.
		And they don't have to worry about context.
		They don't have to worry about anything other than whatever language games they're playing.
		And Roberts' opinion is just a language game, right?
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		It's ignoring what's plainly in front of us as a matter of material reality in favor of saying, well, no, if you abstract it out, then this isn't sex discrimination.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		And it reminded me so much of oral arguments in Trump v. U.S. where Roberts is like, well, we can't think about the particular circumstances involved.
unidentified		It's like, what do you, what?
		Like, what are you talking about?
		It's a community decision, right?
		That's nonsense.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		Like, of course, this is, of course, you have to think about the particular circumstances because you're not actually a legal academic.
unidentified		You're not, no offense to legal academics.
		You're not a philosopher.
		You are someone doing the concrete.
		You're a historian.
		Right, nor a historian.
		You're doing the concrete work of judging, which is fundamentally a material thing.
		I mean, the ironic part of that is that then you get to like Justice Thomas, who was not philosophy, nor, he was neither doing practical effects nor philosophy.
		He was writing a series of blog posts.
		It was like, it was literally each, if you go through each section of his concurrence, like you could literally probably like type in the keywords from it and you'll find a national review or some far-right TERF blog that advanced whatever he was writing because it was just this like attack on, he said it was an attack on elite opinion, but it wasn't.
		And it was an attack on knowledge.
		It was an attack on evidence.
		It was an attack on science.
		It was truly this effort to just say like, no, no, we're not only is Robert's wordplay fine, but we don't even need to worry about reality when making our decisions.
		Sherilyn and the Mora.
		Yeah, this is because this court finds facts and reality inconvenient.
		And therefore, they are working very hard to ensure they never have to encounter them.
		And I have come to believe that part of their attacks on district courts are because district courts present the inconvenience of facts.
		They don't want to deal with the factual record.
		And in Scrimetti, for me, the tell was at oral argument when Justice Alito said to the Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelager, and he was pounding the desk as he sometimes does, you didn't include in your brief, I don't see you citing anywhere this important case study from Great Britain that shows the harm of gender-affirming care on children.
		And of course, you know, Solicitor General Prelager has to say in the very nice way that she does that that study wasn't out when we tried this case.
		It's not part of the record, right?
		And there are actually lots of views that are contrary that show the weakness.
		But the point is that, you know, people who are lawyers in this room know that appellate courts don't get to do the facts over.
		The facts are developed below.
		And for like a civil rights lawyer, the record is the coin of the realm.
		That's where we get to prove that the thing that our client said is happening actually is happening.
		And it's really important for us that you adhere to the record and that appellate judges defer to the record.
		This Supreme Court, part of their attacks on district court judges is they don't want to have to do, they don't want to have to deal with what it means that this administration is coming before district courts and lying for the express purpose of disappearing people into other countries.
		So they can make decisions about whether you can send people to South Sudan and so forth in the abstract without dealing with, there were some very important facts on the ground.
		In fact, Justice Alito called those facts sketchy.
		That there was some sketchy evidence that the administration was playing a fast and loose with the truth and with lying to the court.
		So that's what we're seeing.
		What you're describing, Jamel, is exactly what they want.
		They don't want to have to deal with the inconvenience.
		And just the last thing I'll say, Michelle, that's what makes them different from earlier courts, I think.
		Because in the most difficult circumstances in this country, circumstances where, you know, we had violent conflicts, circumstances where people were being taken to Guantanamo and so on and so forth, you would find a conversation in these opinions about what was actually happening.
		And you don't find that information.
		And how people's lives were being affected.
		My final question that's going to be on Scrimmetty, and then we're going to move on because we've got others, which is that this comes three years after the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
		And to your point, Sherilyn, thinking about a prior court, this 1973, it's a 7-2 opinion.
		It's not even close.
		Justice Blackman authors the case.
		He's appointed by Richard Nixon.
		Gives us some sense of just how different, how far this court is.
		Maury, I'm wondering if part of the aftermath of the Dobbs decision happens to be scrimmetti.
		Your quick thoughts on that.
		Yeah, I don't think you get scrimmetti without the sort of shift that the court has been on for a long time, but was really epitomized by Dobbs, right?
		So this is a case that had to be brought on sex discrimination grounds because the broader jurisprudence of bodily autonomy has already been gutted, right?
		So there's already a narrowing of the avenues.
		This is something the previous panel addressed at length, right?
		Is that the Supreme Court does this thing where they set the house on fire and then they run around like systematically locking all the doors so that nobody can get out.
		I'm sorry if that's a little bit right, yes.
		But you know, this is also something I wanted to point out in Scrimmetty.
		I think these points are well taken with regard to Thomas's concurrence as well as Barrett's, which I think was also sort of weirdly cavalier with history and fact, Is that this is a decision that was also based on this idea that's really been recurring in the court's jurisprudence about sex discrimination since Dobbs with its revival of Godoldig, right?
		This notion that with regard to medicine in particular, sex discrimination claims are, or sex discriminatory laws are subject only to rational basis review.
		And I think something that the Thomas dissent showed us is that, you know, we're in a, or I'm sorry, the Thomas concurrence, he is sadly so rarely in dissent.
		The Thomas concurrence showed us that we're also in an era of epistemic collapse, right?
		When what classifies as a medical license to discriminate becomes a loophole so big that you can drive a truck through it.
		Irwin, you're gripping the microphone.
		And my next question is for you, but go ahead.
		Yes.
		Really quickly.
		First, it was just 10 years ago on June 26, 2015, that the court decided Obergefell v. Hodges.
		Does anyone in this room believe that this court would decide Obergofell the same way?
	And second, it was just mentioned Justice Barrett's concurrence in Scrimetty.
	It was a very strong opinion saying only rational basis review should be used for discrimination based on gender identity, including said there's not really a history of discrimination based on gender identity in the United States.
	I want to tie this together with the majority opinion that she wrote last week in Trump v. Casa.
	I think that liberals have tried to project their hope that she's going to be different, and she's not.
	She's very much a solid conservative justice.
	If you look at all the major cases since she's come on the court, we've got Dobbs or the gun cases, separation of church and state cases, she's always with the conservatives.
	And I don't think we can fit in hopes that somehow she's going to be a more moderate justice than she ever was thought to be.
	I appreciate that, Erwin.
	And we're actually going to get to the Casa case and what has been written about in terms of a bit of a showdown between Amy Coney Barrett and what she tossed at Justice Jackson.
	We're going to get there, but I do wonder about Kennedy v. Braidwell, really Braidwood, really quickly, and I'll start with you, Irwin.
	Many see that as a victory to celebrate.
	Are there concerns that you have, and could you tell us just quickly about that case?
	Kennedy v. Braidwood is about the presidential appointment power.
	And the Supreme Court has increasingly said that officers of the United States have to be appointed by the president.
	And this involves a particular board that prescribes what needs to be covered with regard to insurance.
	And the question is, did the president have to appoint the members of this board?
	Were they, in the language of the Constitution, officers of the United States, or were they inferior officers?
	And the Supreme Court said that given the fact that everything they do is reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, given they can be fired by the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, they should be thought of as inferior officers, not officers, so the appointment power doesn't have to be the president.
	I don't think this is a major case at all.
	I would just say the only concern that it raises, it was this was the case that started out as the challenge to PrEP, the HIV prevention drug, was brought by right-wing, was a Jonathan Mitchell case out of Texas, went to Judge Reid O'Connor.
	I mean, this was a right-wing mission to get rid of PrEP coverage and some contraceptive coverage, but that sort of went off to the side in the case.
	And the problem of what we got out of the ruling was that, yes, the commission, the task force was upheld, but now it is in the same position as one of the other commissions that provide coverage under the ACA preventive care,
	which is ACIP, which if you've been reading about that, that's the board that HHS Secretary Kennedy fired all the members and put a bunch of vaccine skeptics on.
	So even though this was a victory at the Supreme Court, the political reality of it being inferior officers and Kennedy being able to fire them is that you could actually see some real upheaval in that board membership, which then could lead to changes in what they recommend should be covered.
mark joseph stern ▲ ● ▼		Just to put a finer point on it, I mean, in order to save the Preventive Service Task Force, which was a key plank of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court had to give RFK Jr. so much more power over it to hire and fire its members to block its rules.
		And that goes entirely against what Congress was intending to do when it designed this task force and gave it the powers that it has to basically instruct insurance companies, you must cover these preventive treatments, including HIV prevention, including PrEP and cancer screenings and diabetes screenings.
		All of that must be covered without any co-pays or any patient payments.
		But RFK Jr. doesn't believe diabetes exists.
		He does not accept the medical causes of cancer.
		He is an HIV denialist who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS.
		And he has now been handed by the Supreme Court near total power over the body that regulates insurance companies' coverage of this preventive treatment.
		And so it seems to me this is a good example of how even when the Supreme Court does something good, like uphold part of the ACA, it is still putting through a lot of the people.
unidentified		I just want to say, I think it's important to separate the appointment issue, which is what this case is about, from the removal power.
		I think the Supreme Court's going to give the president the power to fire anyone in the executive branch of government.
		So I don't think this case is going to increase the removal power.
		And I think it's very troubling that no longer is Congress going to be able to provide protection for those in the executive branch of government.
		All right.
		Moving on to our next case.
		We've got more to cover.
		All right.
		Medina v. Planned Parenthood.
		I want to start off with you, Maura, and then go to you, Sherilyn, especially on this point with regard to gaslighting and the history of Medicaid being part of a civil rights agenda.
		Maura, what's the case about?
		So this is a case out of South Carolina where the Republican governor said that any Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood providers were, even for other non-abortion-related services, were functionally subsidies of abortion because money is fungible.
		And on that basis, he moved to exclude Planned Parenthood from all of the state's Medicaid reimbursement.
		Now, this is a pretty big deal for Planned Parenthood.
		About half of their patients nationwide are Medicaid recipients.
		One in three American women has received services from a Planned Parenthood.
		For black women, that's about one in two.
		And so this means that the Planned Parenthood patients no longer had what was supposedly guaranteed to them in the 1965 Medicaid Act, which is a free choice of provider, the ability to access Medicaid care from the provider of their choice, right?
		So Sherilyn, I want to then pick up with you on that.
		Why was that even important?
		And coming out of 1965, what does that all represent?
		You know, but I think it's really important that you put a pin in this because to understand the agenda of this court, right, you have to understand the context from which these statutes emanate, right?
		And so this period of the 1960s, before we got to 1968, which kind of turned things, right?
		This period was also this period of the Great Society in which Lyndon Johnson had been advised by a number of very powerfully important people, including Marion Wright Edelman and others, about the relationship between race and poverty and folding that into the civil rights piece.
		And this idea of the Great Society was to create this platform that would lift people up, that would deal with profound poverty, that would deal with those who didn't have access to health care, that would address discrimination.
		This is the period in which we get head started, all these other supports that are supposed to create this kind of set of services that will allow people to be lifted, right?
		So it is also true that this is the period when we get the change in our immigration laws in this country.
		And I raise that because, of course, given everything that is happening around immigration and around birthright citizenship and so on and so forth, if you can understand the suite of issues that this court has shown their hostility to, it is about an anti-civil rights agenda.
		That is the agenda of this court, even when it's masquerading as something else.
		What was powerfully important in, I think, Justice Jackson's dissent in this case was her doing what she does so well and did as well in Trump versus CASA, which is compelling the court to deal with Reconstruction history and the history that undergirded the ratification of the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment and the civil rights statutes that emanated from the 14th Amendment, including the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871.
		And her willingness to mine that history, to tie together the Medicaid Act with that project, the reimagined project of our country that emanates from the 14th Amendment, was incredibly powerful and important.
		Justice Thurgood Marshall, when he went on the, he was later interviewed about being on the bench and the effect he had on the bench.
		And one of the things he said was, and he said it, he said, not one of them knew anything about black people before I got there.
		Not one of them.
		And you know who he was talking about.
		So that's what Marshall said.
		I would paraphrase that around the 14th Amendment before Justice Jackson got there, because if you read their opinions, particularly in civil rights cases where they purport to address that history, they do it so anemically.
		They so clearly have never done a deep dive on the history of the 14th Amendment and the intentions of the framers of the 14th Amendment.
		And I almost think that part of the agenda of the long arc of this court's discrimination, and actually not just this particular set of justices on the court, has been to diminish the power and authority of the 14th Amendment as a restart.
		So we see it coming out in this dissent where Justice Jackson calls it out and essentially says, we've got to really deal with what was the 1871 Enforcement Act about?
		Why does it connect to Medicaid?
		And of course she does the same in Trump versus CASA.
		What was birthright citizenship all about?
		What was it meant to do?
		And why is it that it's significant?
		Even in this case where we're talking about nationwide injunctions, that we can't pretend that this is not the context in which it's happening.
		Jamal, then I want to take us, and thank you so very much for that, because what you've shared is that there is something broader for us to understand in terms of the civil rights achievements that were scored in our nation and what that looks like within the context of this court and those reversals.
		What's written on paper is seeding in many ways to the adjudication that's taking place in the decisions of the court.
		Jamal, I want to turn to you as we talk about Trump v. Casa.
		Can you tell us about that case?
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		Well, on the surface, the case is just about whether or not district courts can issue these nationwide injunctions.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		But as Justice Jackson points out in her dissent, removing that tool from federal district courts, especially in this particular circumstance, what it does is it empowers the executive branch to essentially revoke a constitutional right from a class of people.
unidentified		And that to me is what the case is about.
unidentified		I've gotten into some arguments about this on the internet because the best arguments.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		Because my initial reaction was that the court, even though in Barrett's opinion, and the opinion of the court, they hold out the possibility of a broad group of plaintiffs being able to get relief through different mechanisms.
		It remains the case that what they've done is said that if you cannot get access to that relief, the president can, with the stroke of a pen, revoke your constitutional right to citizenship if you are the child of undocumented immigrants or if you're the child of anyone who cannot prove their citizenship.
		And there's been this debate over whether or not the framers of the 14th Amendment intended birthright citizenship to apply to undocumented immigrants.
		And my response to all of this is about kind of the origins of the amendment, which weren't narrowly about enslaved people, but quite broad about creating a country where there is no more tiered citizenship.
unidentified		Like this is the language, the language of the framers of the 14th Amendment.
		They are constantly talking about caste.
		They're constantly saying we cannot have caste in this country.
		Charles Sumner refers to color caste.
		Thaddeus Stevens refers to caste.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		All these people are talking about this notion established in the slaveholding republic that there are tiers of citizenship, tiers of Americans, and they get particular rights depending on where they are.
unidentified		And they're Americans and then there's property.
		Right.
		And the purpose of the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, broadly, of the Reconstruction Amendments in their totality, is to end this notion of tiered citizenship, to write it out of the American Republic.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		And so as soon as you grant any president, grant this president, the ability, even if it's theoretical, even if plaintiffs get the relief, as soon as you grant that president the ability to at least temporarily question that, to say that, oh, maybe in fact that there are tiers of citizenship, you've done just tremendous violence to the constitutional text.
unidentified		So, Irwin, there are some that say that this is not a case for people to worry about, that this was just procedural.
		It doesn't reach anything substantive.
		What's your response to that?
		But procedure does affect substance.
		If you can't get to court, then your rights aren't going to be protected.
		If the court can't provide a remedy, then your rights aren't going to be protected.
		The reality is, and I think everyone has to read, this lessens the power of the federal courts to check the executive branch of government.
		And it happens at a moment when the executive branch is systematically ignoring the Constitution.
		Maybe it'll turn out that class action suits are a substitute.
		But as I said, I expect the Trump administration will fight very hard against class certification.
		Maybe state governments will be able to sue.
		But what we've done last Friday is lose an important judicial check on the federal government.
		Just for a second, just because I just want to respond to the class action piece because George talks about how these are not like B3 class actions.
		And just speaking as a civil rights litigator, where B2 class actions are my bread and butter, that doesn't, there's no, it's not a cakewalk.
		It's not a cakewalk.
		The federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, are extremely hostile to class certification.
		So hostile that they changed the federal rules, the judicial conference changed the federal rules so that now you can immediately appeal from a class certification decision that is adverse.
		So we're now talking about collateral litigation, right?
		That takes time, that takes money, and all of it happens in the context in which how is this going to play out in real life?
		The way this plays out in real life is like what we have been seeing outside Home Depots.
		A massed group of men roll up to the maternity ward or roll up to your house as a new parent and say, Your baby is not an American citizen, and we have a deportation order.
		We're going to deport that baby, right?
		They're not going to wait for you to get to the courthouse, right?
		And it's not going to be everyone who gets to the courthouse.
		We already know that.
		Where there are class actions, it's no mistake that the class actions so far have been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire, right?
		It's no mistake that they're trying to go through systems where they're likely to get favorite.
		But what about if you are in Texas?
		And what is your Texas Attorney General going to do?
		Is the Attorney General in Texas going to sue on behalf of people in Texas?
		They are not.
		This court has been hostile to nationwide injunctions, so nationwide class actions.
		So if you couldn't get a nationwide injunction, you're not going to get nationwide class action status either.
		So I think when we talk about this as though, in the pendency of, when we say go to court, in the pendency of your going to court and litigating, we're talking about babies being ripped out of the arms of their parents or not, and the whole family just having to leave the country because this administration wants to execute orders against that baby.
		This is shocking and horrifying.
		And to keep it abstract, makes us complicit in denying what is really happening here.
		Chris, I mean, I think that that's right on.
		And I think the great thing about we were talking in the earlier panel about federal district court judges really stepping up.
		We saw that in Judge Deborah Boardman's courtroom when she held the first hearing when the CASA litigants have tried to turn their case into a class action lawsuit.
		She held just a status conference hearing to figure out how to proceed with this on Monday after the ruling.
		And she did ask that question.
		And I was really happy she did.
		She was like, told the Justice Department lawyer, I want to know, are you going to be trying to deport babies?
		And I think it was so powerful to hear that question and to hear DOJ need to give sort of this proceduralist answer about the 30-day stay, which ironically, of course, the Supreme Court can still give that stay.
		The other thing I just want to say quickly is that from Justice Jackson's dissent, I think she really did hit the nail on the head when what she said was that this turns constitutional rights upside down because it makes it so that the presumption is that a constitutional right can be withdrawn and you have to get a ruling saying that you get to keep it.
		And that just isn't functional.
		So as our time is rounding down, you got us to where I also want us to go.
		And Maura, you're taking the microphone, which is that tension between the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and then that powerful dissent written by Justice Jackson.
		I was really glad that Jackson wrote separately after also joining sort of Mayor's dissent for the two other liberals, because she really drove home what I think is the takeaway of this ruling, which is that there now is a presumptive lawlessness, at least this applies to those who do not have the ready resources and wherewithal to achieve that relief, that relief that as Kavanaugh, I think, sort of said that quiet part out loud in his concurrence,
		the relief will be entirely at the actual Supreme Court's discretion, right?
		And this is a, you know, kind of a scary new state of affairs in terms of actually getting the laws and the rights in force, which is now a much narrower privilege rather than a fundamental guarantee.
		However, I wanted to point out that there was some real hostility directed towards Justice Jackson by Justice Barrett in a way that I think gave us a little bit of insight into how tense things have gotten in chambers.
		And I was really struck by the tone that Justice Barris took towards Justice Jackson.
		I see Mark Trump.
mark joseph stern ▲ ● ▼		I thought Justice Barrett was extraordinarily disrespectful toward Justice Jackson in that opinion.
		I thought it was shameful the way that she addressed her so contemptuously.
		And I think that it may well reveal some implicit biases on the part of Justice Barrett about what kind of person she thinks can speak with authority on these issues.
		And for some reason, Justice Jackson isn't one of those people.
		So I'll leave that.
unidentified		Well, Justice Barrett was joined by the other five colleagues.
		So you shouldn't just put it on her.
		And therefore, I think that it was an effort by many of them who agreed that it was time to try and put Justice Jackson in her place.
		Because remember, she had had that colloquy with Justice Gorsuch earlier in the, was it the Sanford, Florida case, the Stanley case, right?
		Where she said, I can't abide the narrow-minded approach, right, of this court.
		So I think that it's not only Justice Barrett that wanted to kind of hit it hard.
		I think she was joined by her colleagues who decided.
		And perhaps helped to goad her a little bit.
mark joseph stern ▲ ● ▼		I strongly agree.
		I just want to make one more point that I think ties us back to where we started about this court pretending that it's not looking at the consequences or the political context of its decision.
		So just to spell this out, for four years under Joe Biden, this Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed and upheld nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration.
		Every single justice in the CASA majority repeatedly voted to uphold these nationwide sweeping universal injunctions against Joe Biden for four years.
		And then within six months of Donald Trump returning to power, those justices abolished universal injunctions and cut back nationwide relief.
		Why would that be?
		I think the only real reasonable answer that we can give is that those justices thought that Donald Trump deserved more power, that they want to cut back the district courts that are trying to rein in Trump's lawlessness, and they want to give Trump more discretion, more freedom to implement his agenda, even when it is unlawful.
		And what is bizarre is that as Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent in CASA, you will not find a constitutional right more clearly spelled out than birthright citizenship, right?
		It's not something sort of hazy like equal protection or free speech.
		It is right there in the text of the 14th Amendment.
		And so for the court to use this particular case with this particular question to give the president this newfound freedom to start to implement an unconstitutional policy, it either shows extraordinarily callous disregard for the actual rights of humans on the ground, or it is a deeply ominous sign about where the court will land on the state.
unidentified		Can I just wrap it, wrap it up and just bring it back?
		We are going to wrap it up.
		I'm just flashing signs and numbers to the beginning.
		That's what I saw in the Section 3 case.
		When I talked about the dissent, they were telling us these folks, they're for him.
		They weren't just saying they're for like the unitary executive.
		They were saying something very particular.
		And I couldn't agree with you more, Mark, that this felt very targeted.
		Well, in a term where what we've seen as opportunistic originalism, where history matters for some and then doesn't matter for others, there's so much yet to unpack.
		Our time went by incredibly quickly.
		I am so grateful to each of you.
		I want to just take the chair's discretion, even though I've gotten looks from the back, to just give you each just a quick moment to just wrap up.
		Regina shared what I do on my podcast, What's the Silver Lining?
		So we heard that from an earlier panel.
		I'm wondering, given your wisdom, what you predict and see for the future and just quick takes.
		I'll start with you, Sherilyn.
		Well, I already wrote about this.
		I see an opportunity for us on the other side of this, and I cannot tell you when the other side will be, but I believe one day there will be one.
		And when we get to that other side, we need to reimagine our Supreme Court and what are the qualifications.
		How do we evaluate whether a distinguished lawyer has what it takes to take on the awesome responsibility of sitting on the United States Supreme Court?
		We have the justices that the system that we have created for selecting justices provides.
		We're getting what we paid for.
		And what we paid for are people sitting at a table answering questions in a way that is not truthful, that is designed to get them on the bench.
		We have allowed ourselves to be clouded by what they say.
		We have pretended that saying you think that judging is like calling balls and strikes to seem like a virtue instead of a disqualifying viewpoint for someone who would take on the job of being Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
		So that's my silver lining, the future.
		Thank you, Sherilyn.
		All right, Irwin.
		It didn't have to be this way.
		So we shouldn't assume that of necessity it was going to be that way.
		If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 and she had picked three justices, none of it would be this way.
		If Mary Garland had gotten confirmed and if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had stayed alive a few more months later, it would be a 5-4 court a very different way.
		I think that what we're going to have to face is it's going to be a very conservative court for a long time to come.
		Thomas is 77, Alito is 75, Roberts is 71, Kavanaugh is 60, Gorsuch is 58, Barrett is 54.
		So we have to do that's just the reality that we face.
		So what we have to do is constantly show that this is an emperor that has no clothes.
		They're not following the law.
		They're not following originalism.
		They're imposing their own conservative values.
		And in addition to pushing back against the court, we've got to find other ways to succeed because the court's not going to be the friend for progressives for a long time to come.
		Thank you so much, Erwin.
		All right.
		Jamal.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		In the interest of not going on about how much I think we should just use institutional mechanisms to change the court, I will say that one thing I have really appreciated of Justice Jackson's opinions, or dissents rather, is her broad vision of what who is included in American history.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		Didn't really so much talk about this in her Medina dissent, but she references the colored conventions, which if you don't know, basically throughout the mid to early to mid-19th century, black Americans in cities where there were large populations of free black Americans basically held conventions where they discussed the constitutional issues of the day.
unidentified		They issued petitions to Congress.
jamelle bouie ▲ ● ▼		They kind of were deeply engaged in the work of constitutional debate, and they are remarkable documents that give us some insight into how people outside of the mainstream, but still very much engaged in American political life, understood constitutional and political debates of the day.
		And bringing that into a discussion of how Americans at the time thought about rights, I think it was a powerful rejoinder, but also I think can help us think, help us think about American history in a broader and more inclusive way, and in ways that actually are generative of new approaches to our Constitution, to constitutional amendments, to thinking about what our Constitution guarantees us.
		It is not the case that the Constitution is a document that grants extraordinarily narrow rights and narrow privileges to American citizens.
		Many of the people engaged in writing the thing in the various amendments didn't think of it that way.
unidentified		And I think Justice Jackson's offering us a way to recover these older meetings.
		Thank you, Jamal.
		Chris, here quick.
		Yeah, I'll take sort of a similar but the other side of that with Justice Jackson, which I think she is starting to chart out for us something that we are seeing in people like Democracy Ford and others,
		the ACLU, that there is a vision forward as well, that not only looking toward the history, but that part of being in the minority now, part of being the great dissent now, is not only looking to the past, but charting a course forward and remembering, as Sherilyn alluded to, that there is a future.
		Santa Claus, the only way that what we're doing now is worth it is if we are charting a path to get out and to what we do when we get there.
		Thank you so much, Maura.
		I was also going to say that I was excited about Justice Jackson, and you guys kind of stole my thunder.
		But I will echo some other people as well in saying that I think that one thing that is a silver lining of the sort of antagonism this court has shown towards litigants who aspire to equal protection and towards the concept that this is a country that guarantees dignity and equality across a lot of difference is that that has provoked a lot of people into an attention that they weren't paying to the ways that the law is.
		is asymmetrically applied and into the ways that rights are asymmetrically distributed by the political system that we have.
		And I think that is a sort of consciousness that is growing in people who didn't always have it.
		George Conway went to a protest.
		I don't know if you guys heard.
		And that, I think, is a very good sign.
mark joseph stern ▲ ● ▼		My silver lining, I think, is that the brave district court judges who are out there doing this courageous work, really putting it all on the line to defend the rule of law and to try to rein in Trump's lawlessness.
		Judges like Deborah Boardman and James Boesberg and Amir Ali, who are forcing the Supreme Court to look at the facts and reality and actual law, putting it before them, making it impossible for them to entirely close their eyes to this stuff, and standing up for the most vulnerable among us and for democracy and civil liberties.
		And the Supreme Court might keep throwing them under the bus, but we have already seen these judges stand up and dust themselves off and get back to doing the work.
		And I guess my feeling is if they can do that, then so can we.
unidentified		Please join me in thanking our Supreme Court tournament review panelists.
		Thank you, each of you, so much, and thank you all for joining us.
		There is a reception to follow and also books of theirs to purchase.
		Thank you.
		One last thank you to Michelle.
		Thank you all for joining us.
		We really appreciate it.
		And there is a reception and you'll be guided there so that you can meet our panelists.
		Next, a discussion of the concept of natural rights amid the upcoming 250th anniversary of America's independence from Great Britain.
		Then a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case involving procedures that the Trump administration would have to follow to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
		And later, a discussion about the Supreme Court's ruling to limit nationwide injunctions.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
		Coming up Sunday morning, we'll talk with syndicated columnist Cal Thomas about Trump administration policies and the state of U.S. politics.
		Then Amanda Littman with the group Run for Something discuss its efforts to help elect young progressives to public office and the state of the Democratic Party.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
		From the beginning, C-SPAN was there for every word of debate, every vote.
		C-SPAN was there, giving you around-the-clock coverage through all-nighters into the early morning hours with record-breaking back-to-back votes in the Senate.
		We're going to press on until victory is won.
		I yield back.
		And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries giving the longest House speech ever.
		Only on C-SPAN could you witness the full story unfold, unfiltered in real time.
		The Yeezer 218, the Naser 214.
		The motion is adopted.
		And we're sort of celebrating like the biggest bill of its kind ever signed.
		And it's going to make this country into a rocket ship.
		It's going to be really good.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including MediaCom.
		This is binging.
		That's buffering.
		This is a meetup.
		That's a freeze-up.
		Power home, power struggle, security detection.
		No protection.
		You can have this or you can have that.
		This is MediaCom, and this is where it's at.

▲