In early July, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed a chain of buoys and barbed wire in the Rio Grande as part of his “Operation Lone Star” plan to crack down on illegal border crossings. Then, a few days later, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in response to the floating buoy border. The DOJ is using an obscure 1899 law called the Rivers and Harbors Act as the legal basis for this suit, claiming the border obstructs navigable waterways. Will that be enough for the DOJ to force Abbott to remove the buoys? Weeds host Jonquilyn Hill asks Texas A&M law professor Gabriel Eckstein and Texas Tribune reporter Uriel García to find out. 

Read More:
Biden is taking Texas to court over its floating border barrier
Eagle Pass residents sour on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star 

Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.

Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Katelyn Bogucki, producer
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Biden messed with Texas

Politics is how people achieve power. Policy is what they do with it. Every week on The Weeds, host Jonquilyn Hill and guests break down the policies that shape our lives, from abortion to financial regulations to affirmative action to housing. We dive deep and we get wonky, but we have fun along the way. New episodes drop every Wednesday.
Produced by Vox and the Vox Media Podcast Network.

Social Sciences

Science & Medicine

News

Science

Politics

News Commentary

If you’ve never used Amazon, you almost definitely know someone who has. Amazon is pretty much everywhere. In the three decades since its founding, Amazon has grown from a small startup to a trillion-dollar company, skirting rules, taxes, and accountability along the way. Then, in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against the company for monopolistic business practices. Reporter Dana Mattioli has covered Amazon for years, and chronicled their rise to power in her new book, The Everything War: Amazon’s Ruthless Quest to Own the World and Remake Corporate Power.


Read More:
The Everything War: Amazon's Ruthless Quest to Own the World and Remake Corporate Power 


Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.


Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Alexa, is Amazon a monopoly?

America is in the midst of a homelessness crisis. With little affordable housing and limited space at shelters, many people are instead sleeping outside. But as tent encampments become more common, particularly on the West Coast where the housing crisis is most acute, the pressure on local governments to address the problem has skyrocketed. Now, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in. The issue at the center of it is whether cities can fine or jail unhoused people for sleeping outside. Vox senior policy reporter Rachel Cohen (X, Instagram) explains the case and the stakes. 

Read More:
Cities are asking the Supreme Court for more power to clear homeless encampments
The Supreme Court will decide what cities can do about tent encampments
Supreme Court Amicus Brief No. 23-175 
  

Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.


Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is homelessness a crime?

Since the Dobbs decision almost two years ago, reproductive rights have been at the center of our national consciousness. Two of the latest headlines come from Florida and Arizona: a six-week abortion ban, and a total abortion ban unless the life of the pregnant person is threatened, respectively. Both states have constitutions that name-check privacy rights, but both courts found that those rights don’t extend to abortion. What does privacy look like in the United States, and do we still have it in a post-Dobbs world? 

Read more:
Do Americans still have a right to privacy? 

Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.


Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Patrick Boyd, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Abortion and the erosion of privacy

Earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos have the same rights as children. The decision sent shockwaves throughout Alabama and raised serious questions about the future of IVF in the United States. While the Alabama legislature has since passed legislation protecting IVF in the state, that doesn’t address the big question behind the court’s decision: What does personhood mean, and what does it mean for the anti-abortion movement?  

Read More:
Fetal personhood laws, explained - Vox 
Alabama’s Supreme Court IVF ruling is a warning to the country - Vox 
Opinion | The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Gunning for Fetal Personhood - The New York Times 
How America’s Two Abortion Realities Are Clashing - The New York Times 

Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.

Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is “fetal personhood”?

What if you weren’t allowed to have more than $2,000 at any given time? Could you make it work? For people who receive Supplemental Security Income, this isn’t a what-if — it’s reality. SSI beneficiaries are subject to strict requirements and risk losing their benefits if they have more than $2,000 in financial assets, even if they exceed that by just a dollar. Why is the limit so low, and is anything being done to fix it? That’s today on The Weeds.

Read More:
Tyler (@tylerlimaroope) | TikTok
The Case for Updating SSI Asset Limits | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  

Submit your policy questions!
We want to know what you’re curious about.


Credits:
Jonquilyn Hill, host
Sofi LaLonde, producer
Cristian Ayala, engineer
A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts

Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Biden messed with Texas

Download our free app to listen on your phone