Passing Judgment

In today's episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, we explore the intricacies of the legal realm and examine the most recent developments in the ongoing civil case against the former president. Our guest is Elie Honig, a CNN senior analyst and the bestselling author of 'Hatchet Man.' Together, we delve into the allegations of fraud, witness tampering, and their potential implications for our justice system. From analyzing the judge's ruling to questioning the validity of guilty pleas, this episode leaves no stone unturned. We also delve into the power dynamics, legal strategies, and potential solutions within this captivating case, which could have significant, far-reaching consequences.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ The judge's summary judgment ruling in favor of the attorney general has raised concerns about bias and prematurely determining the case's outcome without considering genuine disputes of material facts.

2️⃣ Gag orders can limit speech and expression, but they are important tools to ensure a fair trial. Maybe it's time to rebrand them to be less restrictive while maintaining their purpose.

3️⃣ Powerful individuals often pay for co-defendants' legal representation, making it harder for them to cooperate with authorities. These dynamics can complicate prosecutions, highlighting the need for DOJ policies that discourage such practices.

Follow Our Guest:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @ElieHonig

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

In today's episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, host Jessica Levinson discusses the recent lawsuits filed by over 3 dozen states against Meta for allegedly promoting addictive behavior and pushing harmful content to minors.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ Congress's inaction has led to a dangerous vacuum when it comes to protecting children and teens on social media. The absence of federal legislation has prompted states to sue Meta, seeking to hold them accountable for their alleged violations of privacy and consumer protection laws.

2️⃣ Evidence shows a strong link between time spent on social media and increased depression, anxiety, and self-esteem issues among kids and teens. Cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content have even been linked to the death of minors. It's crucial that we address these issues and prioritize the mental health of our younger generations.

3️⃣ While Meta has made some reforms and safety improvements, more needs to be done. Content moderation, algorithm changes, and increased privacy protections are essential to mitigate the harm faced by minors. Without federal legislation, lawsuits filed by the states may serve as a means to push for change in the absence of proactive action.

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

Today, we have an exciting new episode of the Passing Judgment podcast where we're joined by Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent at Slate and author of the book "Lady Justice". In this episode, we explore a range of intriguing topics, from the court's centrist decisions and its challenges to regulatory agencies, to the crucial cases that will shape the future of the First Amendment and technology. And don't miss out on our exploration of Georgia legends Sally Yates and Stacey Abrams, their divergent paths in the legal system, and the disparities in access that still persist today.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ The episode highlights the impactful work of Stacey Abrams, who fought against voter suppression and created a successful model for other states. This is a reminder that grassroots efforts are integral in shaping our democracy.

2️⃣ We explore the incredible legacy of Pauli Murray, a constitutional hero who played a pivotal role in shaping the thinking about the 14th Amendment. Murray's contribution often goes unrecognized, underscoring the importance of acknowledging the work of unrecognized individuals who fight tirelessly for equality and justice. It's a reminder that progress is driven by nameless heroes.

3️⃣ We discussed the impact of prominent lawyers like Roberta Kaplan, whose high-profile lawsuits have brought about significant legal victories.

Follow Our Guest:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @DahliaLithwick.

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

In the latest episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, we delve into a variety of legal cases and hot topics currently on the Supreme Court's docket. We're rejoined by David Savage, one of the nation's experts as we unravel the intricacies of these captivating legal matters.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ Diverse Perspectives on the Supreme Court: Contrary to popular belief, not all conservative justices on the Supreme Court think the same way. While they may have made conservative rulings on issues like abortion and affirmative action, there are notable differences among them, reflecting a range of conservative views.

2️⃣ The Impact of Regulatory Laws on Gun-Related Offenses: The case involving Hunter Biden's gun-related offense sheds light on the existence of various regulatory laws and their potential impact on other gun-related prosecutions. This case has the potential to initiate a significant Second Amendment discussion in the Supreme Court, prompting considerations of history, tradition, and the scope of constitutional rights.



3️⃣ Social Media Regulation: With different states having varying views on what content should be allowed on social media platforms, the issue of government regulation becomes complex. The episode explores recent cases where Trump-appointed judges in different circuits had differing opinions on states' authority to regulate social media. The Supreme Court's decision in this matter could have wide-ranging implications for free speech, censorship, and states' rights.

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, we're joined by Laura Kusisto, national legal affairs reporter for The Wall Street Journal, to discuss the state of abortion rights in America one year after the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. They explore the shifts in legislation and litigation surrounding abortion, emphasizing the political and legal hurdles faced by the anti-abortion movement. Overall, the episode delves into the complex landscape of abortion rights in post-Roe America.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ Contrary to initial expectations, fewer states have outright banned abortions post-Roe v Wade than anticipated. About a dozen states have passed significant restrictions, but many face political and legal hurdles. Voter support for abortion rights remains strong, even in politically mixed or conservative states like Michigan and Kansas.

2️⃣ Republicans in states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Michigan have faced setbacks in their efforts to restrict abortion. Attempts to pass restrictive legislation have been met with opposition from voters, leading to upset victories for the abortion rights movement. The political landscape is proving that even traditionally conservative states have a significant population in support of abortion rights.

3️⃣ State Supreme Court decisions protecting abortion rights are more fragile than federal Supreme Court decisions based on the US Constitution. State constitutions may contain more explicit provisions protecting privacy and equality, allowing for the interpretation of abortion protections. However, state courts are subject to turnover and political pressures, leading to the potential reversal of decisions in short periods.

Follow Our Guest:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LauraKusisto

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

On the newest episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, we focus on the ethical dilemmas surrounding Supreme Court justices and their affiliations. Joined by Supreme Court correspondent for USA Today, John Fritze, we delve into Justice Thomas' alleged luxurious trips to Justice Alito's controversies, and examine a web of potential influences on court decisions. Fritze shares his expertise on how the lack of clear authority to enforce ethical rules raises questions about self-policing and potential separation of powers concerns. This episode emphasizes the need for ethics reform and transparency urging us to question the higher standard we hold for our esteemed justices.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ Their is a lack of enforcement mechanisms for ethical rules in the Supreme Court and the challenges of self-policing. Who should be responsible for ensuring that justices adhere to ethical standards, and how can we strike a balance between independence and accountability? This is where the need for ethical accountability is necessary.

2️⃣ Ethics concerns may also influence the court's decisions on which cases to take. With public perception playing a role, we explore the potential consequences of aligning case selection with public opinion.

3️⃣ The recent controversies surrounding Justice Thomas and Justice Alito's travel raise questions about transparency and the Supreme Court's declining poll numbers. The implications of these issues on public confidence in the court and the need for ethics reform is emphasized in light of these challenges.

Follow Our Guest:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @Jfritze

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

This week's episode of the Passing Judgment podcast, we are joined by the president of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), Noah Bookbinder. We delve into the recent lawsuit filed by CREW in Colorado. The suit claims that former President Trump is disqualified from holding public office due to his alleged violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This provision prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding federal or state office. Tune in to better understand the intersection between the law, politics, and the preservation of democracy.

Here are the three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ In the state of Colorado there's a unique law that allows voters to sue to remove candidates who are not qualified to serve. This provided an avenue for the plaintiffs, 6 Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, to challenge Trump's eligibility for the ballot.

2️⃣ The lawsuit is considered ripe for review because Trump has already declared himself a candidate for president, actively fundraising, and giving campaign speeches. With the possibility of him filing paperwork and being put on the ballot, time is of the essence for this case.

3️⃣ Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: This provision was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to prevent those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. Previous cases and decisions in state courts have interpreted and applied this section to disqualify individuals. CREW's success in a similar case in New Mexico highlights the potential impact of this provision.

Follow Our Guest:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @NoahBookbinder

Check out CREW here.

Follow Our Host:

On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode, we dive into the highly publicized indictment of Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden. From the charges laid against him to the collapse of his previous plea agreement, we unravel the legal complexities surrounding his case. Join us as we analyze the potential defenses, including a surprising Second Amendment argument, and examine the political backdrop against which this indictment unfolds. Stay tuned as we shed light on what this indictment means for Hunter Biden's future and the implications it holds for American politics. 

Here are the three key takeaways from the episode:

1️⃣ Hunter Biden is facing three felony charges related to gun possession and his gun purchase. He allegedly lied on a federal form when purchasing a gun, stating that he was not using controlled substances when he actually was. Additionally, he was in possession of a firearm when he shouldn't have been allowed to.

2️⃣ The plea agreement that was previously in place fell apart in open court. Part of the agreement included a pretrial diversion program, which would have allowed Hunter Biden to avoid prosecution on these gun-related charges. However, the judge expressed concern about the structure of the plea deal, and the Department of Justice couldn't reach an agreement with Hunter Biden's defense team.

3️⃣ Hunter Biden may present two key defenses. First, he may argue that the pretrial diversion agreement still remains in effect and should be honored. However, the Department of Justice maintains that it was never signed by a probation officer and is null and void. Second, Hunter Biden may claim protection under the Second Amendment, arguing that the law prohibiting certain drug users from possessing a gun violates his rights.

Follow Our Host:

On Twitter @LevinsonJessica

Let's dive into the intriguing world of legal cases involving former President Donald Trump. With a multitude of indictments, federal trials, and state investigations, it can be challenging to keep track of all the allegations and their implications.

Our host is joined by special guest Rebecca Beitsch as they unpack the latest developments in these cases, including the controversy surrounding RICO conspiracy charges and the federal case relating to the 2020 election.

They discuss the unique aspects of these cases, such as the involvement of a candidate for federal office and the legality of hush money payments. Jessica and Rebecca also examine the strategic decisions being made by defense attorneys, the upcoming trial dates, and potential implications for the former president. So, put on your legal thinking caps, because we're about to pass judgment on these complex and consequential legal battles.

Don't miss the premiere of season 5!

Meet Our Guest

Rebecca Beitsch is The Hill’s national security and legal affairs reporter where her beat spans immigration, the intelligence community, and high-stakes legal battles, including investigations concerning former President Trump. She previously covered criminal justice and civil rights issues at Stateline and worked as a statehouse reporter in North Dakota and Missouri. She is a graduate of the University of Missouri and also served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Panama. Rebecca can be reached at [email protected].

Follow Rebecca on X formerly known as Twitter @rebeccabeitsch

Read more of Rebecca's articles here.

Follow Jessica A. Levison on X formerly known as Twitter @LevinsonJessica

In a nation of complicated legal machinations, the mifepristone situation is especially complicated. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk last week suspended a number of laws regulating the popular and widely-used abortion drug mifepristone. Kacsmaryk’s ruling affected both the Food and Drug Administration's original 2000 approval of mifepristone as well as subsequent updates to laws regulating the drug from 2016 and 2019. Multiple appeals to Kacsmaryk’s ruling followed, and late this week the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay on the lower court’s ruling in the aftermath of a formal request from the Justice Department to block the new restrictions to the drug. Limiting access to mifepristone would have far-reaching implications of the ability of the FDA to approve other drugs, and to further complicate the situation, a ruling out of Washington was issued that could potentially limit Kacsmaryk’s decision. As the story develops in real time, Jessica updates you on the current state of the law surrounding mifepristone, as well as how we got here and where the law is going.