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

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two recent Supreme Court emergency decisions. First, she discusses the Court’s move to allow ICE raids in Los Angeles to proceed, highlighting the legal debate over what constitutes reasonable suspicion for immigration enforcement. Next, she examines a ruling permitting President Trump to fire an FTC commissioner, raising questions about presidential authority over executive agencies.

Jessica then dives into a major Federal Circuit Court decision striking down President Trump’s expansive tariffs, explaining why the court found he lacked statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). With the Trump administration seeking Supreme Court review, Jessica explores what these rulings mean for executive power, immigration, and international trade.

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

1. 1. Supreme Court Emergency Docket Decisions: Jessica opens the episode with a breakdown of two new decisions from the Supreme Court’s “emergency docket.” These aren’t full decisions on the merits, but rather interim rulings that signal how the Court may eventually decide, and have real practical effects in the meantime.

2. The Federal Circuit Court’s Landmark Ruling on Tariffs: Jessica explains a recent and highly significant Federal Circuit Court decision regarding President Trump’s use of reciprocal tariffs. The court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs as he did.

3. The Core Legal Issue: Presidential Authority Under the IEEPA: A central theme is whether the IEEPA grants the president power to impose tariffs. The court found it does not, highlighting that the statute’s language does not include terms like "tariff," "duty," or "tax," distinguishing it from other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson welcomes Reuters reporter Joseph Axe to discuss the intensifying battle over redistricting across the country. They examine Texas’ unprecedented mid-decade redistricting push, California’s proposed response, and the broader trend of overt partisan gerrymandering. The episode delves into what these changes mean for voters, political polarization, and the balance of power in Congress, highlighting how the fight over district lines could have lasting impacts on American democracy.

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

What is Redistricting and Why It’s Unusually Timely Now: The discussion highlights why redistricting is happening now, outside the normal decade cycle, mainly due to political pressure—specifically, former President Trump urging Texas to redraw its maps to increase Republican representation.

The Texas Redistricting Battle: There’s a deep dive into recent, unprecedented actions in Texas, where Republicans are seeking to replace a map they themselves passed just four years ago with one even more favorable to their party.

Partisan vs. Racial Gerrymandering: Political gerrymandering is drawing lines to benefit a party (now effectively permitted by the Supreme Court), while racial gerrymandering—diluting the voting power of racial minorities—remains illegal, though often overlaps with partisan efforts.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of The Passing Judgment Podcast, host Jessica Levinson recaps the latest legal developments with the Menendez brothers. After being resentenced in May 2025 to 50 years to life, Lyle and Eric Menendez became eligible for parole and recently had hearings—but both were denied, mainly due to the brutal nature of their crime and rule violations in prison. Jessica explains that their legal team is still pursuing release through a habeas corpus petition (based on new abuse allegations) and a clemency request to Governor Newsom, although both are unlikely to succeed.

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

Resentencing & Parole Eligibility: A recent resentencing in May 2025 made the brothers eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender framework, even though they were originally sentenced to life without parole.

Recent Parole Board Denials: Despite the new eligibility, both Eric and Lyle were denied parole this August, with rule violations and the brutal nature of their crimes weighing heavily against them.

Multiple Ongoing Legal Paths: In addition to parole, the Menendez team is pursuing a habeas corpus petition (introducing new evidence) and a clemency request to the governor, though both face significant legal hurdles.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down three major legal developments: the Supreme Court allowing Mississippi’s age verification law for social media to take effect while litigation continues, a renewed but unlikely push to overturn the Court’s marriage equality decision in Obergefell, and a federal court ruling enabling potential mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Jessica explains what these cases mean for our rights and daily lives, highlighting the ongoing balance between state power, individual liberties, and consumer protection.

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

Supreme Court and Mississippi’s Social Media Age Verification Law: The episode opens with a discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Mississippi’s new law requiring age verification for children on social media to take effect while legal battles continue. The law mandates social media companies verify users’ ages and get parental consent for kids under 18. Supporters claim it protects children from online harms, while critics argue it’s vague, intrusive, and may violate the First Amendment.

Renewed Push to Overturn Marriage Equality (Obergefell v. Hodges): There’s renewed legal activity aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case gained attention due to Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, now asking the Supreme Court to revisit the ruling.

Trump Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The final major story discusses a recent court decision paving the way for the Trump administration to pursue mass firings at the CFPB—a federal agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of The Passing Judgment Podcast, host Jessica Levinson unpacks President Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops—including the National Guard and Marines—to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Jessica explains the current California v. Trump trial, which centers on whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act—a law barring the military from acting as domestic law enforcement unless certain exceptions apply. She discusses the difference between supporting federal agencies and directly enforcing laws, and outlines legal exceptions like the Insurrection Act. Jessica also details the president’s authority over the D.C. National Guard and the special rules for taking over the District’s police under the Home Rule Act.

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

The Posse Comitatus Act at Center Stage: The ongoing bench trial (California v. Trump) challenges whether deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles crossed the legal line into direct law enforcement, potentially violating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.

Presidential Authority—A Legal Balancing Act: While the president (any president!) can federalize the National Guard, there are boundaries—like the Insurrection Act—that determine what those troops can actually do once deployed. This nuance will shape legal precedents nationwide.

D.C. vs. State Jurisdictions: The president has much more direct control over deploying and directing the National Guard in D.C., versus states like California. Taking control of local police, however, requires navigating additional legal steps under the Home Rule Act.

Mentioned In The Episode:

• National Guard in Los Angeles: Decoding the Law Behind the Standoff
• The Legal Battle Over Federalizing California's National Guard: What You Need to Know

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode, Jessica Levinson unpacks the major legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze on federal research funding that impacts vital medical studies. Harvard argues the cuts violate its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming they're being punished for not complying with federal demands related to antisemitism policies. The Trump administration insists it’s merely a contract dispute, asserting their right to cut funding if Harvard doesn’t align with federal priorities. Jessica highlights that the judge in the case seems skeptical of the Trump administration's stance and notes that the outcome could have sweeping effects on academic freedom and federal funding for universities across the country.

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

The Legal Battle Over Federal Funding and Academic Freedom: The episode centers on the case of Harvard University vs. the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze in federal research funding to Harvard. Jessica Levinson explains that this legal clash is significant because it questions the extent of federal power over universities and touches on core issues of academic independence and freedom.

Harvard's Arguments: First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act: Harvard argues that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights—claiming it’s being punished for not complying with federal demands that affect speech and institutional governance. Additionally, Harvard contends the Trump administration failed to follow the correct legal processes outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, making the funding cuts arbitrary and lacking proper justification.

The Trump Administration’s Position and Judicial Skepticism: The Trump administration frames the dispute as a simple breach-of-contract issue, saying grant contracts allow for cancellation when an institution’s actions don’t align with federal priorities. In court, however, the judge sounded skeptical of the administration’s position, questioning whether the funding cut was improperly suppressing speech and whether there was enough evidence to justify such a drastic move.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson interviews Chris Stein, senior politics reporter for The Guardian US, about the "big, beautiful bill" driven by President Trump and congressional Republicans. Stein explains that the bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, primarily benefiting high earners, while also introducing new deductions and extending some relief for select groups. He highlights significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, noting these changes are delayed until after the midterms, while increased funding for immigration enforcement and the border wall takes effect more quickly. The episode also addresses the bill’s large projected impact on the federal deficit and the political strategy behind delaying the most controversial cuts. Levinson and Stein wrap up with insights into House Democrats’ push for Trump-related Epstein files, illustrating the limited tools available to the minority party.

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

Tax Changes: Immediate Relief, Long-Term Effects: The bill makes the Trump-era tax cuts permanent, creating significant (and expensive) relief that primarily benefits top earners, while also introducing temporary new cuts for working-class voters. However, not everyone qualifies, and the flipside could mean fewer resources for government programs.

Social Safety Nets: Delayed Pain, Lasting Impact: Major changes to Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps) are built in—including work requirements and shifting costs to states. Crucially, these cuts are delayed until after the next midterms, affecting rural and Trump-leaning areas the most, but the full consequences won’t be felt until later election cycles.

Immigration and Deficit: Shifting Priorities, Bigger Budget: The bill pours billions into border enforcement—including ICE, deportations, and the border wall—while still adding an estimated $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, eclipsing even the emergency pandemic-era spending.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court’s two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court’s ruling that sharply limits federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent’s focus on equal protection for transgender youth.

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

Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.

Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.

Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary’s role as a check on legislative overreach.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two pressing legal issues. First, she explores whether the President can legally bomb Iran, looking at the balance of war powers between Congress and the President, the War Powers Resolution, and recent historical precedents. Then, Jessica provides an update on the legal showdown between California Governor Newsom and the Trump administration over federalizing the National Guard, analyzing a recent Ninth Circuit decision and the role of the Posse Comitatus Act. Tune in as Jessica breaks down these timely constitutional questions and their real-world implications.

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

Presidential War Powers Are Limited—But Vague: Under Article 2 of the Constitution, the President can order military action in response to imminent threats or sudden attacks, but only Congress can declare war. The limits of what constitutes “imminent threat” or “war in the constitutional sense” are not clearly defined, leading to ongoing legal gray areas.

Congressional Oversight Remains Weak: While laws like the War Powers Resolution were intended to check the President’s power, in practice Congress often cedes authority, rarely using funding powers to halt military action even in constitutionally questionable situations.

Judicial Review Is Highly Deferential: Courts are reluctant to second-guess military decisions, frequently relying on the political questions doctrine and issues of legal standing. This means even if constitutional boundaries are tested, legal recourse is rare.

Follow Our Host:

 @LevinsonJessica