48 Comments
User's avatar
Bruce Whitney's avatar

As per usual, Sam interrupts his guest as soon as he gets bored with the guest's response to his question. Some of the interruptions are just Sam wanting to show the guest that he's as knowledgeable as she is. The Bulwark listener/viewer are the ones who get cheated.

Expand full comment
Shana's avatar

Awww, my worlds colliding, and for such a delightfully dystopian episode! 1) MORE LEAH. 2) Sam, at the end there you were kind of (incorrectly) mansplaining the law to an expert you invited on because she is *checks notes* a law professor. Love you. Don't be that guy.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

That was really helpful though I’ll have to listen to it a couple more times as it’s dense. Excellent interview by Sam, really worked to bring out key points of what could be a thicket of legalese. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Robert J Danolfo's avatar

Sam, Thanks for having Leah on the show to decipher this consequential ruling. What a terrific, knowlegable guest. Imagine what kind of ruling this is when an expert like Leah has to say at one point "It's unclear". I listened intently to learn as much as possible about this ruling and it's ramifications. Maybe my mind isn't equipped to handle these things, but my takeaway is the Supreme Court (or should I be more precise, the shit six) is going to interpret the Constitution at the behest of everyone but the American people. Like, what's good for them. What's good for Trump. What's good for Steven Miller. What's good for Bondi. What's good for Texas. What's good for Alabama. I think you get the picture. Sorry, sounds like we're pretty fucked to me.

Expand full comment
Ann P's avatar

Steve Vladeck of One First has an entirely different explanation of the USSC decision on universal injunctions. He is almost literally on a different planet from Leah Litman where this case is concerned. I would strongly recommend to Sam that he read Vladeck’s analysis before settling down thinking that Litman’s analysis the correct one.

Here’s the link:

“162. What Does the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Portend?”

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/162-what-does-the-birthright-citizenship

What Vladeck goes into that Litman does not is illustrated by this part of the analysis:

“…There’s no question, in my mind, that today’s ruling dramatically restructures the relationship between federal courts and other government institutions (and between the Supreme Court and lower federal courts)—in ways both big and small. How deleterious those changes are to the ability of courts to hold the President accountable depends, in my view, on how three questions are answered—questions raised by today’s ruling, but very much not answered by it:

(1)When will parties (especially states) need a universal injunction in order to obtain “complete” relief?

(2)If lower courts start certifying more nationwide classes in suits challenging federal policies, will the Supreme Court approve? [ie, class action lawsuits]

(3)To what extent is Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence (and the normalization of emergency relief for which it argues), speaking for a majority?…”

Vladeck doesn’t say one single word about the 30 day period being for filing some kind of regulations. His emphasis is that the 30 days is to allow the plaintiffs to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all birthright citizenship holders in the entire country. If this happens, a nationwide “universal injunction” would be the appropriate remedy. Litman’s answer is unnecessarily complicated.

Expand full comment
Steven Insertname's avatar

So every state that follows Trump's illegal order will be sued bkz it's unconstitutional.

Expand full comment
Charlie Siefert's avatar

Thank you Leah and Sam for sifting through the legalize of the SCOTUS decision and explaining it in 'regular' language - making it easy to understand for us.

💖💖

😁☕️

Expand full comment
Amy 0415's avatar

This is the Supreme Court paving the way for Trump to change/remove our basic Constitution rights. The Constitution states that the extraordinary authority to do that lies solely with our elected representatives, expounded by case law from the Federal Courts.

The entire concept of democracy is “we govern ourselves.” We elect our representatives, who in turn enact laws. The Supreme Court is assisting Trump to usurp Congressional power in direct violation of the Constitution. Our elected officials will be powerless, even those who are genuinely working to protect democracy. Congressional action will not be recognized. It is already ignored.

So, the elections in 2026 are irrelevant. We must not think they will help. It does not matter how many pro-democracy candidates are elected — Congress will no longer have the authority to stop Trump/MAGA. The authoritarian coup will be complete.

Expand full comment
Keith Wresch's avatar

If the current make up of the court is handing down decisions that favor one one political party and their policy choices over other political parties, isn’t the obvious choice to pack the court and level the playing field? What other option is there to return the courts to some sort of neutrality or rule for the benefit of everyone?

Expand full comment
Fiona Hawke's avatar

Not sure but was it Leah Litman who wrote the book "Lawless"? :D Thanks Sam and Leah, great interview.

Expand full comment
Emily Fine's avatar

Is there any hope

Expand full comment
Beth Fisher's avatar

Leah Litman is great as is her book Lawless. She is spot on here.

Expand full comment
Jim Soiland's avatar

Leah Litman is brilliant and delightful. Would love to hear more from her.

Expand full comment
Postcards From Home's avatar

What would the Court say to an EO abolishing the Court?

Expand full comment
Annie B.'s avatar

Hang on. This whole thing about needing a nationwide ruling because a person's status shouldn't change when they cross state lines... Isn't that exactly what happened with the Dobbs decision? Now a woman can be a "murderer" in some states and not others. So... make that make sense.

Expand full comment
Don Allmon's avatar

Extradition. If a woman is arrested in a state in which abortions are legal for an abortion in a different state, they can be extradited to the other state. Citizenship is a bit different as being a non-citizen isn't a crime in itself.

Expand full comment
Annie B.'s avatar

I see. I still don't believe our fundamental rights should change from state to state, but I understand the distinction for this particular thing. It's wild we're even discussing it, but thank you for clarifying.

Expand full comment
Marion F's avatar

Xavier Becerra? Rob Bonta is AG of California now and he is urging us to avoid overreacting to this ruling.

Expand full comment
ErrorError