Voting Rights Under Threat? Inside the Supreme Court’s Louisiana Redistricting Review with Hansi Lo Wang
In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana’s redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what’s at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana’s case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn’t just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
--------
27:06
--------
27:06
Voting Rights Act on the Line: What’s Really at Stake in the Supreme Court Case with Jan Wolfe
In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court’s skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court’s docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year’s affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case’s impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
--------
30:04
--------
30:04
Breaking Down James Comey's Arraignment and Defense Strategies in Federal Court
In this episode of Passing Judgment, we cover the arraignment of former FBI Director James Comey. Host Jessica Levinson explains the charges against Comey and outlines his defense strategies, including claims of vindictive prosecution and challenges to the validity of the prosecutor’s appointment. Tune in as Jessica breaks down the legal complexities and what this high-profile case means for the broader landscape of justice.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Challenge to Validity of Appointment: Comey’s defense intends to argue that the U.S. attorney who brought the indictment, Lindsey Halligan, may not have been validly appointed. If successful, the charges can't simply be refiled due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.Selective and Vindictive Prosecution Motions: The defense plans to file motions asserting that the prosecution was brought with political animus and lacked objective justification—raising important questions about equal protection and due process under the law.High Bar for Prosecution: To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove that Comey knowingly made false statements and intentionally obstructed Congress—standards that can be difficult to meet, especially with the complex context and timing of the indictment.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
--------
10:37
--------
10:37
Inside the Government Shutdown: Causes, Impact, and What Comes Next with Nicholas Wu
In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson is joined by Politico’s Nicholas Wu to break down the causes and consequences of the ongoing government shutdown. They discuss how partisan divides, failed budget talks, and the Senate filibuster have led to a halt in government services and potential spikes in healthcare costs. Nicholas shares what this means for everyday Americans, the political strategies on both sides, and why the shutdown could last for weeks. Tune in for a clear explanation of how we got here, what’s happening now, and what may come next on Capitol Hill.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. How the Government Shutdown Happened: Nicholas Wu lays out the basic process of government funding through appropriations bills in Congress. He explains that both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are supposed to agree on funding for each agency by September 30th. This year, they failed to come to an agreement, and attempts at a stopgap measure (a continuing resolution) fell through, triggering the shutdown.2. Partisan Gridlock & Narrow Legislative Majorities: A recurring theme is the impact of narrow majorities in Congress and the difficulties that creates for reaching agreements. Wu highlights that with such close margins, especially in the Senate due to the filibuster rule, bipartisan cooperation is necessary but often lacking. The lack of communication between parties and between Congress and the White House is also emphasized as fueling the stalemate.3. Impact of the Shutdown on Everyday Americans: The conversation shifts to what the shutdown actually means for federal services and the public. Wu notes that the effect varies depending on where people interact with the federal government. Essential services (like air traffic control) keep running, but might do so without pay, while some non-essential services are halted, affecting federal workers and potentially local economies.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
--------
22:12
--------
22:12
Legal Perspectives on Federal Action in Oregon: State vs. National Authority
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Trump administration’s move to federalize the National Guard in Oregon amid Portland protests. She explains Oregon’s lawsuit against the federal government, outlining key arguments such as the improper use of federal authority, possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, and state sovereignty issues. Jessica evaluates each argument’s strength, noting that courts usually defer to presidential discretion in these cases. The episode offers a clear overview of the unfolding legal battle and what’s at stake for both state and federal powers.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. Federalization of the National Guard in OregonThe episode opens by discussing the Trump administration’s decision to federalize the National Guard in Oregon—specifically Portland. This move was made over local objections and parallels previous situations, such as federal intervention during protests in Los Angeles.2. Oregon’s Legal Arguments Against FederalizationThe majority of the episode breaks down the legal case Oregon is making in its suit against the federal government.3. Legal Analysis of Oregon’s ChancesEach argument is weighed in terms of likely success. The host points out that courts have historically given substantial deference to presidential discretion in these national security and public order matters, making Oregon’s position a difficult one.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
Is the constitution in crisis? This podcast is for people who are curious about politics and the law and how the biggest political and legal issues of the moment affect you. Pull up a chair and join host Jessica Levinson, a professor at LMU’s Loyola Law School, and a rotating cast of experts. Jessica will be joined by journalists, politicians, political scientists, lawyers, and many others.
Listen to Jessica and her guests for a wry, and sometimes irreverent take on the most pressing issues of our time. What are the laws of our democracy? How are they changing? And what does that mean for your daily life?
USA