Today we welcome constitutional law professor Mark Brown to review recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and their implications for social justice. Brown first discusses the close 5–4 birthright citizenship decision and criticizes the Court’s dissenters for adding an unsupported domicile requirement, while also noting limited historical exceptions for birthright citizenship.

Brown next reviews the Court’s decision that allows states to ban transgender girls from girls’ sports and his own concerns about the Court ignoring the factual record in cases like voting rights. Brown argues the Court historically favors the wealthy and powerful, praises Justice Jackson’s dissents on the doctrine of standing, and suggests that restoring the filibuster for confirmation votes could curb radical appointments.

Next is a discussion about the Court’s expansion of presidential removal power (the recent cases concerning the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve), ongoing litigation over a Trump mail-ballot executive order, the Court’s dismantling of the Voting Rights Act protections against racial gerrymandering, possible reforms like multi-member districts, and the Court allowing greater party-candidate fundraising coordination.

Justice Roberts may say the Court is doing nothing more than calling balls and strikes, but the Court has gotten into the habit of changing the strike zone.

We talk with immigration lawyer Emmanuel Olawale about the consequences facing immigrants after the Trump administration abruptly ended the Temporary Protected Status program. TPS was designed to provide temporary protection for people from countries experiencing disaster, conflict or severe instability, but it did not create a direct path to permanent residency or citizenship.

The shortcomings of TPS are confronting some 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants in the U.S. whose lawful status has abruptly ended, including about 20,000 to 30,000 Haitians who have lived, worked, built businesses, and raised children in Springfield, Ohio, for years and are now at risk of being deported

The discussion highlights the tension between federal immigration policy and the reality of conditions in Haiti, where political instability, gang violence, limited public services, and safety concerns remain severe. As Olawale puts it, TPS is “a temporary solution to a permanent problem,” emphasizing that Congress failed to create a durable legal pathway for long-term TPS holders. The conversation also explores the difference between TPS, asylum, refugee status, and family-based immigration relief.

Olawale explains how immigration enforcement is unfolding locally, including ICE reporting requirements, ankle monitoring, expedited immigration court procedures, and pressure on immigration judges. He argues that shifting policies and administrative practices have made immigration law more difficult and unpredictable for attorneys and clients alike.

The episode addresses the role of political rhetoric and misinformation in shaping public attitudes toward immigrant communities. The administration’s use of dehumanizing language for immigrants attempts to make harsh enforcement policies easier to justify.

The situation in Springfield is an example of how a temporary immigration policy like TPS leaves families vulnerable when political winds change.

Today we discuss the tension between social justice and politics by examining whether voters expect too much honesty from politicians or tolerate too much dishonesty. When we hear that a candidate hasn’t accurately presented his background, are we hearing a simple mistake as to the facts or an intentional misrepresentation?

And if it was an intentional misrepresentation, what do we do about it? Balance that misrepresentation with the candidate’s qualities? Reject him outright? How much of a misrepresentation is required before we reject a candidate?

Maryland Governor Wes Moore claimed in 2006 to have received the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan, when he actually received the less prestigious Army Commendation Medal. Other questions arose about how much combat time he had. Oddly, a Bronze Star was awarded in 2024, well after he resigned from the Army. Do these inconsistencies evidence a character flaw and lack of fitness for higher office, or should they be overlooked?

U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner, who was very popular with those who saw him as a way to help counter President Trump, was able to attribute to PTSD his offensive social media posts and ignorance about a prominent tattoo being a Nazi symbol. Platner’s story seemed to make sense until it didn’t—when credible allegations about sexual assault hit the news.

Now that Platner is out of the picture, the Democratic Party has to examine how virtue, or lack of it, should be balanced against electability, as well the risk that comes with inadequate vetting, and the notion that the “ends justify the means” politics.