In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks a significant federal court decision blocking the Trump administration from withholding or conditioning federal funds to UCLA in exchange for major campus policy changes. The discussion covers the court's reasoning under the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and 10th Amendments, and why the judge deemed the administration’s actions coercive. Join us for a breakdown of this breaking legal news and its broader implications for university autonomy.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

Federal Funding Leverage Challenged: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from freezing, terminating, or conditioning UC research funds—pointing out that the administration’s approach may violate legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedures Act, the First Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.

Academic Freedom & Speech Protected: The court found that forcing changes to speech policies, DEI efforts, gender healthcare, protest rules, and admissions could unlawfully coerce universities and chill free speech, especially among public university faculty and students.

States’ Rights and Spending Clause Limits: The judge ruled that federal conditions on funding can’t be so extreme they essentially take away states’ ability to decide their own policies—a “gun to the head” tactic that threatens economic stability and state sovereignty.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the escalating ICE raids and federal enforcement actions in Chicago, joined by Reuters reporter Renee Hickman. Together with Jessica Levinson, the episode explores fatal encounters involving federal agents, disputes over official narratives, and the controversies surrounding body camera requirements. We also discuss daily judicial oversight of law enforcement, its unique legal status, and challenges to the president’s order to deploy the National Guard. Tune in for a closer look at the clash between community resistance, federal enforcement, and ongoing legal battles on Chicago’s streets.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1. Fatal Shooting Involving ICE Agents: The episode opens with the recent ICE raids in Chicago, focusing on a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent and Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, a Mexican national. The circumstances are contested, with DHS claiming agents felt threatened, while surveillance and police records suggest otherwise. This incident marks the most violent encounter since the start of the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz.

2. Disputed Narratives and Lack of Accountability: Renee highlights the conflicting narratives between federal agencies and victims’ families, particularly in the cases of fatal shootings or injuries during enforcement actions. There’s an ongoing lack of clarity and accountability due to delayed or restricted investigations, including an internal probe that may be impacted by a government shutdown.

3. Judicial Oversight of Federal Agents: A rare level of judicial supervision has been imposed, compelling federal agents to report daily to a judge about any use-of-force incidents. This oversight stems from lawsuits by protesters, journalists, clergy, and others who allege excessive force during raids and demonstrations. The order has since been stayed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the future of this oversight is uncertain.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

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

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

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

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:

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

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 Oregon

• The 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 Federalization

• The 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 Chances

• Each 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

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica is joined by David Goodman of the New York Times to break down the unexpected surge of mid-cycle redistricting in Texas. They discuss how political maneuvering by Republicans—aimed at flipping congressional seats—has triggered national reverberations, with states like California now considering similar actions to counter Texas. The episode dives into the partisan motivations, the legal and political pushback, and the threat to independent redistricting commissions. Together, Jessica and David make sense of the fast-evolving redistricting landscape and its far-reaching impact on representation and the future balance of power in Congress.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

Mid-Cycle Redistricting—Why Now? The episode opens with an exploration of why an unusual mid-cycle redistricting is being discussed in 2025, even though redistricting typically happens every ten years after the census. The trigger for this push is political: Republicans, facing a narrow margin in the U.S. House, sought ways to gain additional seats, focusing first on Texas where state Republican control made this feasible.

The Politics and Justification of Gerrymandering Both Jessica and David highlight that Texas Republicans were fully open about the political motives behind redrawing district lines—to flip as many as five Democratic seats to Republican. They justified this by pointing out gerrymandering in Democratic-led states and emphasizing partisan advantage as allowed by the Supreme Court, which has found political gerrymandering to be outside federal judicial review.

The Domino Effect—Other States Respond Texas’s actions triggered similar conversations in other states. However, David points out that most opportunities for follow-on aggressive redistricting are found in Republican-led states because many Democratic-led states (like California and New York) have independent redistricting commissions, which limit the legislature’s ability to redraw maps for partisan gain. States specifically considered for similar moves include Indiana, Missouri, and Florida, while California emerged as the prime Democratic candidate, though with significant procedural hurdles.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal issues behind Jimmy Kimmel’s temporary show suspension. She explains the distinction between private action by ABC and possible government coercion from the FCC or the President, outlining why the First Amendment generally protects speech from government—not private—actions. Jessica also discusses the limited circumstances under which the FCC could revoke broadcast licenses and what this case means for free speech and media organizations moving forward.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

1. The Suspension and Return of Jimmy Kimmel’s Show

Jessica Levinson opens the episode by explaining the sequence of events around Jimmy Kimmel’s temporary suspension from ABC after a controversial comment in his monologue. She emphasizes that although he has now been returned to air, the legal issues discussed still remain relevant.

2. The Role and Limits of the First Amendment

A central theme is clarifying what the First Amendment protects. Jessica explains that the First Amendment limits government action against speech, not actions taken by private entities like ABC. If ABC alone had suspended Kimmel with no government involvement, it would not be a First Amendment issue.

3. Government Involvement and the FCC’s Role

The episode explores concerns about potential government overreach, specifically whether statements made by the FCC chair or the President could constitute government coercion. Jessica details how, if the government pressures a private company to take action against someone’s speech, First Amendment concerns are triggered.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the high-stakes legal battle over the attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Jessica explains the Trump administration's push to fire Cook, the court's decision to reinstate her, and the looming emergency appeal. Tune in as we explore the legal protections for Fed governors, the fight over presidential power, and why this showdown could impact both the central bank’s independence and the broader economy.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

Legal Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence: Jessica discusses the attempt by the Trump administration to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. She explains this centers on whether a president can remove a sitting Fed governor and under what circumstances, which is a pivotal question about the independence of the central bank.

The Law and Statutory Interpretation: The conversation delves into the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal of board members “for cause.” There’s debate on what “for cause” means—whether it should be restricted to on-the-job misconduct or include actions before taking office. The district court judge sided with the narrower reading, that it should only pertain to conduct while in office.

Due Process and Rights of the Removed Official: A significant part of the discussion is about whether Lisa Cook was given due process. The judge found she likely wasn’t given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations, which could be a violation of her rights.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica