The MAGA Supreme Court's Assault on America

Pod Save America

The podcast dissects recent Supreme Court decisions, focusing on rulings that expand executive power in immigration policy and undermine asylum rights, while also discussing the long-term consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade and the political fallout in 2024 and beyond.

Key takeaways

• The Court upheld Trump-era TPS terminations, enabling mass deportations without judicial review.
• Racial animus in immigration policy was ignored, despite clear evidence of racist rhetoric.
• Asylum seekers can now be denied rights if stopped outside U.S. borders, creating dangerous incentives.

Transcript preview

Welcome to Ponce of America, I'm Dan Feifer. You're going to be a lot. conservative grievances, fringe theories, and bad vibes. We talked about this week's monumental Supreme Court decisions on the Trump administration's immigration policy, what's making Leah anxious about the upcoming decision on birthright citizenship and the legacy of Roe v. Wade, including how it's playing in the race to unseat Susan Collins in Maine. We also talked about some of the other decisions we're expecting to come out of the court soon, including decisions on mail ballots, trans participation in sports and the independence of the Federal Reserve. It was a great conversation and we'll get to a minute. But before we do, but before we do, please, please, please, please, please, for episodes of Pod Save America. Subscriber only Friends and my show Polar Coaster and discounted tickets to crooked media events including this falls CrookedCon. Plus it's the best way to support independent pro-democracy media. Head to crooked.com slash friend to subscribe today. Also check out my sub-stack newsletter of the message box which is where I share all of my best most in-depth takes and I have a special deal for Pod Save America fans sign up now at crooked.com slash yes we Dan. Dan get 20% off your subscription for Yes, we Dan. All right, here's my conversation with Leah Lippman. Littman, welcome back to POTS of America. Thanks for having me. Under these great circumstances, so originally when we scheduled this, we scheduled this, we thought there was a chance the Supreme Court would have released all of its big monumental decisions at the end of this quarter, per usual, St. Melito, John Roberts have screwed up our best laid plans, but they have released a number of very important decisions that I want to you about. And then I want to talk to you about it. And then I want to talk about it. people's 4th of July break. Let us start with a case that I think has the most impact for the most people. Can I just start with the timing point? Please please do, please. Okay, because it's not just that you thought they would finish by the end of this week. It's that traditionally and historically the court has finished releasing opinions and argued cases before the holiday week. And these guys have one fucking job. And they're not even doing that. Right, like they cannot bother to do law, and yet they can't finish according to schedule. Despite loving history and tradition, they cannot conform to this most basic tradition about how the Supreme Court works. Which is important for many reasons, but primarily for a podcast recording schedule. Exactly. Yes. Exactly. Super inconvenient. Okay. So, good. This is important point to make. I'm glad you made that point. I want to start with the case that I think has the most impact on the most people. This is the sixth three decision. Everyone, everyone, listen. You can guess, you can guess, you can guess. You can guess. You can guess. You can guess. You can guess. are that will allow the Trump administration to rescind temporary protective status for 350,000 Haitian immigrants. This case is about a lot of things. It's a big deal. Talk to me about what was at stake in this case and what the ruling says. Oh my gosh, this case is so maddening. I have just become angrier about it with every passing hour. So the case involved actually two different revocations of the temporary protected status program. And TPS. And TPS is. a method where the executive branch can offer immigration relief to individuals who undergo a rigorous vetting process who are from certain countries when returning them to those countries would be horrific because of conditions in those countries. And so Haiti was one such country after devastating natural disasters coupled with the basic failure of the government. It's super dangerous to be in Haiti. So, with respect to Syrian nationals. And so early on in the Trump administration, fall 2025, Christine Ome says, we are just going to end these TPS programs for individuals from several different countries and those decisions to end the program were challenged. And these cases involve challenges to the end of TPS for Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals. By statute, Congress, because of the importance of the TPS program to people's lives. they structure their lives around being able to live and work in the United States, required the executive branch to undergo a fairly rigorous process before deciding to end TPS. And specifically, the executive branch had to consult among different agencies to determine that conditions in that country were indeed sufficiently different, that ending TPS was justified. And there's almost no question that the Trump administration didn't do that. to Haiti in particular, emails suggest that the Department of Homeland Security asks the State Department to weigh in about conditions in Haiti and then went ahead and cancel TPS before State Department even weighed in. That's not actually consultation. And I don't think there's any argument on that point. You add to that, the fact that the President said vile horrible grotesque things about Haitian nationals and it sure looks like they decided to end TPS not because conditions and Haiti had changed. but because the president just wanted to fulfill Stephen Miller's white supremacist immigration dreams. And so those were the challenges that the Trump administration violated statutes by not following the required processes and violated the Constitution by implementing this policy out of racial animus discriminating on the basis of race. And in the six to three opinions Sam Alito was like I don't care do you? You know on the statutory arguments he said who cares whether or not they complied with the statute courts can't review whether they violated the statute or not. So that's a new that's a new finding right that is a new entirely new rule for decades it has been understood that even though the statutes don't allow courts to second-guess the secretary's determination ultimate determination about whether to end TPS they do allow courts to ensure that the secretary followed the required process to ensure sound decision-making and I'm Alito and co wipe away all of those rules and render all of these statutes unenforceable. They're basically guidelines at this point. The executive branch faces no consequences for openly flouting them. Donald Trump, Mark Wayne Mullen, could stand up tomorrow and say, we're not going to follow these statutes and there's not a thing that courts could do about it in light of that ruling. I want to get to the comments in a minute and the racial animus points. I think that's very important and really plays a big role in why the decision is so much. and the opinion by Alito so amending. But what is the reason, you know, it seems like a pretty basic thing. Congress rights laws, the executive must follow said laws. If the executive does not follow those laws, if the executive does not follow those laws, if the executive does not follow those laws, if the president immigration, what is the basis for saying the laws don't apply on this particular issue? It's so wild to hear you say that because this unfortunately was a theme of almost a theme of all of the courts decisions from this last week saying that people whose rights were violated can't do a thing about it can't sue to challenge in federal courts so here their rationale was Congress had actually decided to impose these rules on the executive branch and to foreclose the possibility that courts could review whether the executive branch complied with those rules so they put the decision at Congress's feet rather than saying the Constitution doesn't allow courts to review those determinations. So now let's get to the racial animus point and why that matters here. Because I think for people who have been following this saga for a long time, the Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and Jannie Vance and the entire MAGA media accused during the 2024 campaign of eating the pets in Ohio. Yes, that's what we're talking about here, right? Well, and it wasn't just that. It is, the president said people from Haiti have AIDS. He called it a shi whole country. they were his national's poisoning the blood of the country. A bunch of racist vile remarks and Sam Alito does not even have the backbone to recite those remarks in his opinion. He just declares they're not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means given that the president also said he wanted to admit more people from Sweden and Norway. He tried to say, I guess there's xenophobic and really about opposition to immigration policy, which makes no sense. And also, in any case, I don't understand why that would be constitutional. And if he cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person who he's saying isn't racist, I think that's a pretty big indication that maybe the person is racist and saying racist things. But he just kind of said nothing to see here and legalize. is what the president did and said. And so this means for patients that there are 350,000 of them I believe, many of them in this country for quite a while now. I think TPS have been around for almost a decade, right? Yeah, more than a decade. And so these people can all be deported now, either in there, when they go to the, because you have to go to a regular check-in, right? And so they go to the next time they encounter a nice officer, CPP officer, they could be deported. Same is true of Syrians. Now. Now, now. Now, now, now, now, the dangers in Haiti and comparing it to Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles. But Syria seems like a harder case to make that this is a totally safe and fine place to go back to. I mean, I think Haiti is a really tough place. Yeah, I mean, maybe even tougher than Syria actually. Yes, exactly. And so this would be the largest de-legelization in the United States history. So while these cases specifically. are about Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals. The Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protected status for individuals from other countries, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and more. You know, when Trump took office there were more than a million people living in the United States with temporary protected status. And suddenly all of those people potentially lose their legal authorization to remain in the United States. And your point about check-ins just drives home, the people they are penalizing are the people who followed the immigration. rules. They underwent this vetting process. They do check-ins with immigration officers. And so now the federal government knows who they are, where they are, and could be poised to effectuate these mass deportations. In her dissent, Justice Kagan says, as a result of the court's order, they're basically telling the executive branch, you can put these people on the next plane and send them off. And it's just cruel what the Supreme Court is potentially allowing and inviting the Trump administration. administration to do. So for the non- Syrians, non-Hatians who have protective status, like you mentioned, Venezuelans, we also talk about people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall of the Afghan government, people who helped the American military and diplomats there, talking about Ukrainian refugees, all these other groups, can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of paper and remove their TPS, or go through the fake process of even they don't even have to go through anymore? Are we just like one Stephen Miller email away from all from 1. is people potentially being deported? Potentially yes and there have been cases challenging the rescissions of the other temporary protected status programs as well but in light of this decision telling courts they can't review any of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gutter racism it's going to be really hard for any court to pause those recitions. Great so this is not great this is honestly truly terrible and so then we have in a second immigration decision that came down. This one is less immediate and its consequences and hinges as I understand it on the meeting of the word arrive in immigration law. Can you explain this is another six three with the typical six and the typical three decision. He explained what's going on in this case? Yeah so this case is about the meaning of asylum law under international law and statutes the Congress has passed. Individuals who arrive in the United States are entitled to claim asylum and they are entitled to have their asylum claim assessed in a legitimate process and procedure. What the Supreme Court said is an individual doesn't arrive in the United States and therefore they aren't entitled to claim asylum or have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped outside of the physical borders of the United States. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, this creates a giant loophole. It tells the executive branch so long as you physically block people from entering the United States. you do not have to consider their asylum applications. You can just turn them away wholesale. And that decision was entirely unnecessary. Part of what is so, I think, heinous, both about the asylum case and the TPS case, is that the Supreme Court did not have to reach them. On this asylum case, the case originated as a challenge to a policy that isn't in existence. It was a challenge to the so-called metering policy. that began almost a decade ago and under that policy immigration officials would turn away people and say we can't process your asylum applications if the quota for the number of individuals who could be processed at the border had been met. That policy was ended. There was not in effect any policy that presented this question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well, we've decided you could do this thing that you may want to do and therefore paved the way for them to implement another callous immigration policy. And so in the original metering policy, which began at the end of the Obama administration, you would show up and they would say, we just had, there are too many people today, we're not going to be able to get to your case, come back tomorrow, and we will look at your case. And so at that point it wasn't an attempt to deny them. recognizing you've shown up at the door. We can't let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the right to make your asylum case and we are going to, or we are going to allow you to do that on a different day when there is an actual someone who can hear it basically, right? Yes, that was the sensible. And so now, this seems like such an insanely stupid decision on so many levels because doesn't it seem to argue that if you are someone who has a legitimate asylum case. You're coming to the United States to avail yourself of your human right to seek asylum right to seek asylum. consistent with our laws and traditions, you are better off sneaking across the border. Exactly. And getting caught and then claiming an asylum case, then showing up at the front door and asking to present your case. This decision is unhinged, as Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die. And among the reasons is it creates this incentive for people to try to sneak across the border, because only if they manage to get into... the United States borders, would they be able to claim asylum? This is another example of the Supreme Court adopting a rule that penalizes people who are trying to comply with immigration law by presenting themselves at the border and trying to assert an asylum claim. It's basically funneling them into these trafficking organizations that are making money to get them into the country as a totally. To me, that's what seems so insane about it. And so the net result of this, other than the consequence of the people who then now get injured, get injured, get hurt hurt, get hurt. get killed are trafficked, young women in children who go to these groups end up in very bad places often in an attempt to get the United States. What is going to happen is the Stephen Miller could just tell the CBP, don't let anyone, like, no one gets in. So we will not recognize any legitimate asylum claims that come in through the normal process. Yes, it does not matter if someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed, killed, in. their home country. The administration can just refuse to consider that. Now in this I learned from your very the very excellent emergency strict scrutiny podcast you guys did that came out today yesterday. What is today? Time has no meaning anymore. Today's June. Friday. I listen to it this morning. And but that during the release of this decision that something very dramatic and perhaps unprecedented the history of the Supreme Court happening could you lay that out first. So it's not entirely unprecedented, although it's deeply rare. By tradition, what happens is when the Supreme Court releases an opinion, the author of the majority opinion will provide some remarks and offer a brief summary of their case. Occasionally, but only in rare circumstances, will the author of the dissent, then proceed to summarize their dissent. And reading portions of your dissent from the bench is reserved for very strongly held dissents where you want to signal a very signal a. very obvious strong objection to what the majority has done. So in the asylum case, Justice Sotomayor read portions of her dissent. And then Sam Alito proceeded to respond. And having the author of the majority opinion