October 7, 2025 • 36 mins
The beginning of the new Supreme Court term has officially begun, and a storm of possible bad outcomes is brewing. Jessica Mason Pieklo, Co-Chief Content Officer of Rewire News Group and co-host of Boom! Lawyered, sits down with us to give us a holistic view of cases, tells us what to expect in the new court term, and highlights which cases we should be keeping an eye on in the lower courts.
A collection of cases over the summer gave us a peek into the health of the Supreme Court—especially the conservative majority’s willingness to facilitate the Trump administration’s agenda. Coming up this term includes a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy (Chiles v. Salazar), a West Virginia ban on transgender girl’s participation in sports (B.P.J. v. West Virgina Board of Education), a case on no-knock searches by law enforcement, and a redistricting case in Louisiana (Louisiana v. Callais). Cases in the lower courts that are not yet on the Supreme Court docket (but could head there soon) include challenges to state shield laws and administration attacks to mifepristone and the FDA.
For more information, check out Pantsuit Politics: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/s/podcast
Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social
Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store
Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.com
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast
Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jennie (00:03):
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on
all things related to sexual andreproductive health, rights,
and justice.
Hey rePROs, how's everybodydoing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and my pronouns are she/ her.
So, y'all just a flag before weget too far into this episode.
My allergies really got to meas we were recording this
(00:24):
episode, like the day before.
I've been taking my allergymeds and everything, so like I
feel fine.
But I'm sure we've talked aboutthis on the podcast before
because it happens to me everyspring and fall, but I get
allergy-induced asthma.
So, I get this wheezy coughthat will like hang around for a
month or so, which is super notfun.
(00:44):
But it it happens.
Anywho, hopefully Meg can cutaround it.
It wasn't as bad as I figuredit was going to be when we got
started, but it still wasn'tgreat.
But I was able to mute andcatch most of them.
But just FYI.
If I sound a little not great.
I feel fine other than thewheezy cough.
But also, it is October.
(01:06):
It is spooky season.
I mean, honestly, y'all, it hasbeen spooky season for me for a
while.
I'm definitely the like it hitsSeptember and I'm like ready
for spooky season.
I have these really cute pairof flat Mary Janes that have
skeleton feet on them.
Like it looks like your feet,right?
But they're skeleton, they'resuper cute.
I love them.
(01:26):
And so, as soon as it hitsSeptember 1st, I bust those out
and wear them as much aspossible because they are just
my absolute favorite.
But I am also looking forspooky season book
recommendations.
I will anything, anything thatyou think is spooky season.
So, I love a cozy witchyfantasy.
(01:47):
I love horror.
Anything in between, just sendme your favorite recommendations
for spooky season reads, and Iwill add them to my TBR.
Like I said, I am a big fan ofspooky season reading.
I'm a big mood reader.
It's one of those things that,you know, if you're on like
BookTok or Bookstagram orwhatever, and you see people who
(02:10):
are like, this is what I amgoing to read this month.
I am not that person.
I am a hundred percent moodreader, and this is what I want
to read right now.
And I never know what my nextread is going to be until I
finish the book I was currentlyreading.
And I look in my digital TBRand pick the next book.
I cannot be the person who islike, these are these are the
(02:34):
next three books I'm going toread.
That is just not how my brainworks.
That is not how I enjoyreading.
So, but spooky season, I alwaysmood read spooky reads.
So, and again, big wide rangeof what that means.
So, send me all of yourfavorite spooky season recs.
Um, you can reach out to me onsocial.
I'm at @JennieInDC on Blue Sky.
Or you can shoot me an email atjennie@reprosfightback.com.
(03:01):
Yeah, I would love to get anyand all spooky season rec.
Thanks, y'all.
Okay, speaking of spookyseason, we're it's a scary
season, right?
It is the start of the SupremeCourt term.
I know.
Sorry, y'all.
That was a bad transition, butit also feels right, a bit of a
horror.
So we are going to do a SupremeCourt preview episode, and I
(03:25):
couldn't think of a betterperson to have come on than Jess
Pieklo with Boom! Lawyered andthe Rewire News Group to talk
about all of the things thiscoming Supreme Court term.
So with that, let's turn to myconversation with Jess.
Hi, Jess.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Oh, thank you so much forhaving me back.
Jess (03:44):
Always a pleasure.
Jennie (03:45):
I feel like I have to flag before we start that my
allergies hit me all of asudden, like yesterday.
I've been taking my allergymeds, but they like go, it goes
like straight to my lungs, so Iget like that wheezy cough.
So FYI, everybody, sorry.
Jess (03:58):
You sound fantastic.
Jennie (04:00):
There's just maybe a little bit of coughing.
So hopefully.
Thank you, Meg, for editingaround it.
Okay, Jess, before we getstarted, would you like to
introduce yourself and includeyour pronouns?
Jess (04:10):
Sure.
I am Jessica Mason Pieklo.
I use she/ her pronouns, and Iam Co-Chief Content Officer,
Rewire News Group, and co-hostof the Boom! Lawyered Podcast
with Imani Gandy over there.
Jennie (04:22):
I'm so excited.
One, love the podcast.
I feel like I have to say thatevery time, but it's so true.
It's, like, I never miss anepisode.
Jess (04:29):
Mutual Admiration Society here.
Jennie (04:31):
Okay, so we are getting ready...this is coming out on
the very near the very beginningof the new October term for the
Supreme Court.
How are you feeling coming intothe term?
You know, I know dangerousquestions.
Jess (04:48):
The vibes are not great.
I think this is a reallyimportant term, not necessarily
because there's 50 marquee caseson the docket, although there
are some big cases on thedocket, but because we had a
really important summer where Ithink the justices revealed a
(05:10):
lot about the health of theinstitution of the Supreme
Court, of the health of therelationship between the
justices themselves and thedirection that the court is
going in terms of facilitatingTrump administration agenda and
accelerating theauthoritarianism that has taken
(05:32):
hold in this country.
So jokes aside, I would saythat, you know, this particular
term is really cloudy in termsof an opening.
You know, we haven't evenstarted the term in terms of its
like formal opening and oralarguments, and we've already
seen the justices bless— youknow, the conservative majority
(05:54):
when I say that, I feel likeeverybody knows that, but let me
just be very clear what I'mtalking about is is the
conservative majority here—we've seen the conservative
majority bless racial profilingin ICE detentions, and we know
that there are cases on thedocket that are teed up to make
that worse, let alone the reprospaces and what is bubbling up
(06:16):
that could land on the court'sdocket as well.
So, you know, I think by thetime we get to June, we will see
sadly some of the longer-termeffects of the court's decisions
around things like executivepower and detention and
extradition, things that, youknow, we're not always talking
(06:38):
about on a repro podcast, butare absolutely part in that
framework, really come tofruition.
And then, you know, we'll be inan election cycle.
So, it's fraught right now.
Jennie (06:49):
The things I tried to not think about.
Yes, election cycle is coming.
Okay, so this is coming out onthe day where they're hearing a
case related to conversiontherapy.
Do you want to tell us a littlebit about that case?
Jess (07:03):
Sure.
So, as I had had sort ofsuggested, there are a couple
big cases that are already teedup, and one of them is this
challenge to Colorado's ban onconversion therapy.
And it's a case called Chiles,I think I'm saying that
correctly, v.
Salazar.
And uh, you will not besurprised to hear that this is
an Alliance Defending Freedomcase.
They are the conservativelitigation firm that cooks up
(07:26):
most of the anti-LGBTQ andanti-abortion litigation that we
see in the country, them andthe bucket fund.
And this is a case thatinvolves a Christian counselor
by the name of Kaley Chiles.
And, you know, Colorado, likemany states, had passed a ban on
conversion therapy.
It is a practice that has beendisavowed by mainstream mental
(07:50):
health medicalorganizations and, for folks who
aren't familiar with it, can bevery abusive in its most
extreme cases.
And it is essentiallyeverything from, you know,
trying to pray the gay away intherapy sessions to more extreme
measures and behaviors.
And the testimony that folkshave shared having been subject
(08:13):
to conversion therapy and thedamage that it's done is really
heartbreaking in the briefing.
But at any rate, Colorado, likea lot of states, had a ban has
a ban on conversion therapy onthe books, and it was challenged
as a violation of free speech.
This Christian therapist arguesthat, you know, she has
conversations in her therapysession that are God-centric and
and driven, designed tobasically help, you know, quote
(08:38):
unquote, "help her clients avoidtheir LGBTQ impulses" and, you
know, basically convert themaway from being gay, lesbian,
bisexual, whatever is the"deviant" sexual behavior that
they're talking about in thattherapy session.
The 10th Circuit Court ofAppeals, the ban has was
(08:59):
blocked.
The courts said the lower courtsaid this isn't restricting
your speech, it's a ban onconduct, right?
Conversion therapy is a type ofconduct, and there's a
different constitutionalstandard that applies when
regulating conduct versusregulating speech uh in this
arena.
And the Tenth Circuit agreed,and that case has been appealed
up to the Supreme Court, and thecourt took it because this is
(09:20):
an area that for a little whilewas really hot in terms of
litigation, and then it kind ofcooled down.
And as a result, we have whatfeels, you know, almost quaint
by legal norms now, which is agood old-fashioned circuit
split.
So that both the Ninth and theTenth Circuit Court of Appeals
have held that that laws likeColorado's that ban conversion
(09:43):
therapy regulate conduct, notspeech.
Meanwhile, the Eleventh Circuitand the Third Circuit have said
no, that's not the case.
These are, you know, targetedregulations on speech, and so
there's a differentconstitutional standard.
The Supreme Court has decidedthat it will step in and resolve
that circuit split.
And that is a very traditionaland normal role for the court to
(10:05):
do.
Way back in the olden days, Iused to show up on podcasts like
yours and talk about the courtresolving circuit splits in
whether it was around abortionrestrictions or other types of
laws in these areas.
And then the first Trumpadministration happened and the
court became so captured byideologues that it went off the
(10:28):
rails functionally in terms ofnorms.
The use of the shadow docketexploded, and the way that law
and policy got crafted throughthe court changed.
So, in some ways, this is likean old school constitutional
fight that we haven't seen in alittle while.
That's kind of refreshing froma legal journalist standpoint.
(10:50):
However, we have the court thatwe have, and I am not
anticipating that this goes wellfor the folks who are defending
Colorado's ban on conversiontherapy.
Jennie (11:04):
I mean, honestly, I it's just to the point of like,
yeah, I anything around thesetypes of issues, I just always
have a bad feeling about, andnot just the like low-level
worry I used to have back in theday when you were never sure,
but now it's, like, I'm prettysure.
And yeah.
Just yeah, it's it's heavy.
Jess (11:26):
Yeah, you know, and I think one of the conversations
that I hope we start to havemore of both in, you know, sort
of the political media and in,you know, legal media, and as
the public clues in more andmore to just how unchecked the
Supreme Court is right now isthe harm that is happening in
(11:50):
the opinions.
And we talk about these, like,you know, obviously the harm of
Dobbs and and whatnot, butreally the harm to the rule of
law.
And I actually am a littleoptimistic that this is starting
to happen.
Not too long ago, NBC reportersspoke to 10 federal judges on
the record.
And I know that doesn't seemlike a lot, but 10 federal
(12:12):
judges used their governmentname to go to NBC News.
And these were judges that wereappointed by both Democrats and
Republicans to say what theSupreme Court is doing right now
in issuing these major rulingson its shadow docket around
immigration and detention, youknow, around executive power,
around what have you?
(12:33):
Let's not forget that, youknow, Texas's SB8 went into
effect as a result of a shadowdocket ruling, right?
These judges have said publiclynow this is not okay.
It's undermining theinstitution, it's undermining
the federal judiciary generally,and it's undermining the rule
of law.
That is a sea change in termsof the institution of the
(12:56):
federal judges and the federaljudiciary.
And I want to bring attentionto it because they should hear,
their clerks should hear, thestaff at the courthouses should
hear that this is a good thingto do, particularly those judges
who were appointed byRepublican presidents, because
those are the folks we need tostart calling their people in.
(13:18):
I mean, you know, that if we'rebeing very, very true.
So, you know, in the case ofthe Colorado conversion therapy
ban, I am pretty confident thatthat ban is going down.
My concern is what harm isgoing to be crafted in that
opinion now that the justices,the conservative justices, don't
(13:40):
feel that they have to bechecked, right?
Anytime there's been a littlebit of a check on these
justices, they have lost theirever-loving mind.
Amy Coney Barrett spent theentire summer complaining about
how people were mean to her withthe Dobbs decision and how
being a Supreme Court Justicemeant that your opinions aren't
(14:04):
necessarily popularity contestsand all sorts of weird stuff to
be complaining about on a booktour.
And I think that should tellfolks that they know how
unpopular they are and theyreally want to be popular.
So that's gonna hurt.
Jennie (14:20):
Yeah, I think that's the one thing like that is really
important in this this moment islike how broad or narrow they
go in some of these rulings andhow much additional harm can be
created with the way they writethem.
Jess (14:35):
Yeah, I mean, if Justice Alito has a majority opinion
that says, you know, practiceslike conversion therapy are
subject to a lowerconstitutional standard and also
manages to pepper in some sortof like, you know, religious
preferences towards, you know,Christian, particularly
(14:58):
conservative Christianpractices, that opens the
floodgates for all sorts ofother stuff.
I mean, right now we have thesuperintendent of the Oklahoma
Public Schools trying toabsolutely just put the Bible
into their curriculum, and it'sbeen beaten back a couple times
by the courts there.
But, you know, there is aexceptionally emboldened
(15:20):
evangelical class right now thatalso understands this is, you
know, they've got a a shot atreally enshrining some things
that they have been trying to dosince the Roosevelt
administration, right?
Like these people really havebeen have been working on this
for a long, long, long, longtime.
And their heirs are finallyseeing some policy successes,
(15:45):
and they are not gonna just takelittle nibbles anymore.
They are going to go for wholebites when they can.
Jennie (15:52):
Okay.
There's another case I wantedto touch on, and that is the one
around trans sports and a transsports ban.
I feel like this is one ofthose, this is one of the areas
that I feel like I've beengetting really frustrated with
in the broader discourse aroundtrans girls playing sports,
yeah.
And a lot of willingness to belike, this is an okay place to
(16:13):
have this conversation and likeit's fine to like open that
door, and I'm just want toscream, talk to somebody who
worked in abortion, talk tosomebody who worked in repro
about why that is not okay.
Anywho, that is where my headis at when I think of all of
these things.
So, let's talk this case.
Jess (16:33):
Yeah, so this is a case I think that kind of snuck up on
folks.
Imani and I actually covered itat the appellate level.
It involves a student by thename of Becky Pepper-Jackson and
a lovely and a
Jennie (16:46):
I know, it just makes me smile.
Sorry, y'all.
You couldn't you can't see thevideo, but it just made me
smile.
Jess (16:50):
I mean, you know, she's a sweet kid.
I mean, it's a sad case.
And, you know, West Virginia.
So West Virginia has a law thatbans trans girls from
participating on all girls'sports teams from middle school
through college, writ large.
It, you know, I mean, itdefines who participation based
on biological sex only.
You know, so this is blanketban.
(17:13):
And the Fourth Circuit hadblocked the ban.
It lost at the at the lowercourt to the ACLU as
representing the student and thefamily here because it violated
Title IX and Equal ProtectionClause of the Constitution
pretty clearly.
And this had been consolidatedwith another case.
That student has since actuallyasked to have their case, you
(17:35):
know, pulled out of it becausethey have graduated out.
And this is actually an issuethat comes up for trans students
in Title IX challenges, andparticularly is they often age
out of their challenge becausethe law is not quick, it's not
speedy.
Justice does not move fast ifit moves at all for trans kids.
And so that's, you know, someof the background there.
(17:56):
West Virginia, after theSkrmetti decision, petitioned
the court to take this case up,and they did.
And so, the court will be atwill be answering whether the
question of whether or not WestVirginia's ban violates both
Title IX and the EqualProtection Clause of the
Constitution.
And so this is a case thatagain has the possibility to
(18:18):
create some precedent that willtake a long time potentially to
work around.
You know, I don't know if thestatus of this case will change
before oral arguments given thatone of the parties has pulled
out.
I, you know, but West Virginiais the party that petitioned the
court to take it.
And so right now we've we'vegot it scheduled or we've got
(18:38):
it, you know, in in briefing.
And, you know, I think it'simportant to note a couple
things.
There are a handful at most oftrans athletes in this country,
let alone trans kids who aretrying to play sports.
And the evidence isoverwhelming that the only
(19:01):
people who give a crap aboutthis issue are politicians and
parents that they can whip upinto a fever about.
This is not an organic issuethat sp that comes up on
playgrounds, on club sports.
99% of the time, kids are justkids.
And it's unfortunate that agroup of activists and adults
(19:25):
feel the need to bully themconstantly.
Jennie (19:28):
Yeah, to me, it just boggles my mind like just let
the trans kids play sports.
Like, I don't they just want todo the things their peers are
doing, they just want to havefun with their friends.
Like, I don't this is just likestate-sanctioned bullying.
I don't understand.
Jess (19:47):
And look, I'm 51 years old, right?
I am roughly the same age asTitle IX is another way to look
at it.
And I grew up as a young girlin the Midwest who wanted to
play sports.
And none of the people, and Idid, and I played club sports,
and my kids played club sports,my daughter plays club sports,
(20:09):
none of the people who areconcerned about women's sports
in the political arena actuallycare about women's sports.
They have not been hereadvocating for any sort of
equality or fairness and accessto resources, to facilities, to
all of the things that Title IXis supposed to guarantee women
(20:30):
an access to education.
None of the folks who areraising a fight against trans
students accessing those thingsgave a shit about any of this to
begin with.
In fact, they were often TitleIX's largest attractors.
So it is, again, exceptionallywrong to use trans kids as the
(20:51):
straw man here.
They don't want access togirls' sports generally.
And if they can break Title IXby whipping up fear and
ignorance around trans kids,that's how they'll do it.
Jennie (21:06):
And just like with abortion, young people is where
you start to crack open the caseof restricting all
gender-affirming care.
You start going and singlingout young people, a place where
people can feel discomfort.
And then, oh, if that's okay,okay, then we can split this a
little further.
And we'll make sure that, youknow, people under 19 or all
(21:28):
these other ways where you canrestrict access.
Don't cover it with insuranceor all of these ways to other
it.
And that is how you get to anabortion ban.
That is how you get to bans ongender-affirming care.
So, it is not just this simpleconversation we can have around
young trans people playingsports.
(21:49):
It is all part of this biggerfight over rights.
And this is just the gatewaywhere they can find a little
crack that they can exploit.
Jess (21:57):
And just to yes, and that point, I'm old enough to
remember the Obama years wherestates actually lost economic
opportunity if they wereattacking trans folks and trans
kids in particular, right?
I mean, North Carolina wentthrough this.
It used to be exceptionallyunpopular to do this.
(22:18):
And there was an understandingthat extending the promise of a
burger fell of dignity tosame-sex couples was going to
take work, and there were peoplebehind it to try and make that
work happen.
And the backlash from that hasbeen so furious.
And the retreat from supposedallies has been so fast that I
(22:41):
think that that is a kind a partof the conversation that's
getting lost.
Like, it is not a coincidencethat folks were able to so
quickly coalesce around this asan issue because they had so
recently felt economic pain.
And that was, they were notgonna stand for that.
Jennie (22:58):
Okay.
Is there anything else you'rekeeping an eye on right now?
Jess (23:01):
Yes, I am.
So, you know, I had mentionedthe decision on racial profiling
in immigration detention.
A companion case, it's notreally a companion case, but
it's a yes and case to that.
And I'm just I'll hit a coupleof these very quickly because
literally it's not great.
You know, is whether or not,you know, or to what extent the
(23:23):
law enforcement can um enteryour premises without a warrant
at all.
So, no-knock searches.
And when we couple thatquestion with an authoritarian
administration and an attorneygeneral Pam Bondi, which I can't
believe that's a truestatement.
You know, just a little sidebarhere.
Today I was actually thinkingabout how at least when Jeff
(23:47):
Sessions was attorney general,we had an understanding that he
knew the law.
He absolutely didn't agree withit and was gonna do whatever he
needed to do, but he knew it atleast.
Pam Bondi, man.
I still cannot believe thatwoman's an attorney general.
Anyway, so you know, the thecriminal justice docket is one
(24:09):
that we don't follow veryclosely over at Boom! Lawyered,
but it is one that is making alot more noise in the
background, in particularbecause there are some issues
coalescing around that.
The Supreme Court kicked backdown for arguments of the
Louisiana redistricting case.
And so, one of the bigquestions that the court is
grappling with and is beingforced up it is to, you know,
(24:32):
what extent after the VotingRights Act has basically been
decimated, can any majorityblack voting districts exist
functionally?
And so this was a live fight inLouisiana, and the court had
ordered additional briefing andkicked it back down for argument
this term.
That case will be going onwhile the redistricting fight in
(24:53):
places like Texas andCalifornia and now Missouri is
really heating up.
And so the anything that isgoing to be touching the
upcoming uh midterm electionsand looking ahead towards a
potential presidential electionas well is something that is
absolutely on my radar.
Of course, we've got the, youknow, uh big terrible bill and
(25:16):
the defund Planned Parenthoodprovision, which is really
broader than Planned Parenthood,but it affects Planned
Parenthood specifically.
To the extent that that kind offunding fight can, you know,
find its way to the SupremeCourt.
I don't feel great about that,particularly, you know, after
Medina last term.
And, you know, in the lowercourts, and again, you know,
(25:37):
this isn't on the on the docketyet, but these are just, you
know, what are the sort ofwhat's the heat map in terms of
litigation right now?
We have tests on uh shield lawsthat are going to heat up.
We have this administrationdoing funny business with the
FDA and Metha Pristone thatcould result in, you know, uh
(25:57):
some challenges or legal action.
You know, so there arepossibilities for some quick
turns at the court aroundabortion policy specifically.
And yeah, so, you know, thoseare that's the sort of
high-level assessment.
I really think, in particular,the Colorado conversion therapy
(26:19):
case, not just because it'searly in the term, but because
it's one of those cases thatcan, you know, sort of spiral
into other areas policy-wise, isone that and it's not getting a
lot of attention because of thedaily horrors from the
administration.
It's one of those,like, sleeper cases that I hope
folks start to get moreinterested in and curious about
(26:42):
and learn more about.
Jennie (26:43):
Yeah, I feel like I haven't heard much about it.
Even when we were first talkingabout doing this, like I went
and did like a Google search andwas like utterly shocked by the
lack of information out there,and the only like hits were like
right-wing sites, and I was- itsurprised me.
(27:03):
I was like, did I do- did I,like, type something wrong?
Did I like...
Jess (27:08):
No, you did not.
You know, you did not.
It's just, you know, when theadministration is occupying the
nation's capital, and when, youknow, ICE is swooping up folks
and every other...
it's a lot.
I think folks just don't evenhave the capacity to read the
docket right now.
Jennie (27:26):
Okay.
I figure you have things tosay, so I will ask Amy Coney
Barrett's book.
And her book tour.
Jess (27:36):
Should I hate read it live for people?
Oh my god.
Like, should I was thinkingabout this.
I like maybe it's a fundraiseropportunity, right?
Like if I raise X amount ofdollars, I can like, I don't
know, like Mystery ScienceTheater 3000 a live reading of
it or something.
Like, no, I mean that might getme a defamation loss is what
(27:56):
that might get me.
But there's gotta be-
I would listen.
So no, I mean, I would hateread it.
I'm gonna just say I would hateread it.
I would offer up forfundraising content, hate
reading it out loud in my aim,my best Amy Coney Barrett
impression.
So, listeners, hit me up ifthat's something you think you
would uh pay money for for agood cause.
(28:18):
Yeah, I mean I haven't, I bet Iwill.
I mean, let's be honest.
Jennie (28:23):
Okay.
I think the other thing we hadtalked about maybe touching on
was retirements and thepossibility of retirements,
which again, yes, not topre-stress out or anything.
Jess (28:38):
Like look, some of those justices aren't young.
No.
And I like that's a fact.
And we know conservatives uhwill absolutely strategically
retire in ways um that liberaljustices don't.
So, and the reality is, youknow, some folks have been on
the bench for a while.
So while everybody has clerkedup, so there's no nothing
(29:00):
imminent right now, everybody'sprepped for the term.
I do think that we are ripe forsome turnover with some
justices.
I am concerned about JusticeSotomayor's health generally.
Um and so I think that, youknow, from the the, you know,
sort of centrist and liberalthree, um, she would be on my
list.
My dark horse candidate for aretirement in the near term is
(29:24):
Chief Justice John Roberts.
And I am constantly ruiningpeople's days when I start
talking about this, so I'll justdo it for you all who are still
listening.
Here's my take on Roberts isthis is a man who is at his
core, a partisan.
He his entire career ispartisan politics.
Even as Chief Justice of theSupreme Court, he is the chief
(29:47):
GOP partisan justice there.
So, he's also young enough ofthe conservative justices to
still enjoy a life off thebench, to, you know, do the
speaking gig.
To, I don't know, teach a somea seminar at Oxford or
something, you know, to justlike do those sort of bougie
(30:10):
things that retired lawprofessor types do and make a
decent side hustle at it, right?
And guarantee that a Republicanappoints his predecessor.
So if I was taking the darkhorse um odds there, I'd say we
could see Justice Chief JusticeRoberts retire sooner rather
(30:31):
than later.
Alito and Thomas, sure, butthey're having too much fun and
they wield too much power rightnow.
Jennie (30:38):
Again, not a today problem.
But yeah, I mean, just enoughthinking through judiciary and
like beyond the Supreme Court,just watching confirmations and
(31:00):
watching things move maybeslower than I had maybe
expected, like thought, but notstill not great.
Like yeah.
Okay.
So I always like to end notwith this everything's terrible,
(31:21):
which is every episode.
So, what are some things peoplecan do?
How can people get involved inthis moment?
Jess (31:29):
There's a lot always that can be done.
And you know, one of, and soreally, you know, folks have to—
this something we talk about onBoom! Lawyered all the time—
find a lane and understand thatyou don't have to be in every
lane.
And sometimes you can alsoswitch lanes.
That's fine.
But really, you know, find alane.
For some people, that lane isdonating resources.
(31:51):
And so if that is a lane ofyours, I would just encourage
folks to donate as locally rightnow as you can.
A lot of the disruption at thefederal level is uh fully
rippled through to yourcommunities as well.
So, you know, we haven't talkedabout the doging of this nation
in a while, but you know, thereare nonprofits that serve local
(32:14):
communities that are reallystruggling right now, folks, you
know, who deal with, you know,family violence and um serve
folks on the margins andunhoused communities and things
like that.
Give them your money if youcan.
If you don't, and that is fine,um, find time.
Is there a space that you canvolunteer at?
This is just good for the soul.
(32:34):
But right now, reallyimportantly, it's making
connections in the community.
I've referenced it a coupletimes, but we are very clearly
in an authoritarian era in ourcountry's history, and that
succeeds by dissolving anddisrupting local connections and
breaking apart localcommunities.
So the extent to which you canreally deepen and strengthen
(32:56):
your local fabrics is really,really important and encourage
folks to know your neighbors,have conversations with them,
and create those close networksright now.
That is an important time or animportant thing to be doing
just generally.
And uh, you know, I'm gonnasound really corny here, but
lean in with some kindness andjoy in this matter, in this time
(33:18):
as well.
The folks that are trying togovern from a place of force and
power and fear do not want usfeeling happy and they do not
want us feeling joyful becausethose are the antidotes to
authoritarianism.
And lead with that.
Jennie (33:35):
And they want you to feel overwhelmed and paralyzed,
yes, so that you feel likethere's nothing you can do
matters when that is absolutelynot the case.
Jess (33:43):
That's not the case.
It is fine to log off, youknow.
Jennie and I were talking aboutat the at the upfront about you
know being online less as a wayto do more in community, and I
think that there is value there.
Jennie (33:56):
Yeah.
Protect yourself.
And making sure...
you can't help if you burnyourself out and if you get
overwhelmed by all of this, it'sokay to take a step back and
jump in.
This is definitely, I know it'strite, but definitely a
marathon, a relay race.
Like it is not you need to doall the things, so find the
(34:17):
things that work for you.
Jess (34:18):
Yeah.
Jennie (34:19):
Jess, thank you so much for being here as always.
It was such a pleasure to talkto you.
Jess (34:23):
Thank you so much for having me back.
I love it.
It's one of my favorites.
Jennie (34:26):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Jess.
It was so great to get to talkto her about a couple of the
upcoming Supreme Court cases andto think through this term.
And with that, I will seeeverybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email.
You can reach me atjennie@reprosfightback.com, or
(34:51):
you can find us on social media.
We're at rePROs Fight Back onFacebook and Twitter, or
@reprosfb on Instagram.
If you love our podcast andwant to make sure more people
find it, take the time to rateand review us on your favorite
podcast platform.
Or if you want to make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atreprosfightback.com.
(35:12):
Thanks all!
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on
all things related to sexual andreproductive health, rights,
and justice.
Hey rePROs, how's everybodydoing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and my pronouns are she/ her.
So, y'all just a flag before weget too far into this episode.
My allergies really got to meas we were recording this
(00:24):
episode, like the day before.
I've been taking my allergymeds and everything, so like I
feel fine.
But I'm sure we've talked aboutthis on the podcast before
because it happens to me everyspring and fall, but I get
allergy-induced asthma.
So, I get this wheezy coughthat will like hang around for a
month or so, which is super notfun.
(00:44):
But it it happens.
Anywho, hopefully Meg can cutaround it.
It wasn't as bad as I figuredit was going to be when we got
started, but it still wasn'tgreat.
But I was able to mute andcatch most of them.
But just FYI.
If I sound a little not great.
I feel fine other than thewheezy cough.
But also, it is October.
(01:06):
It is spooky season.
I mean, honestly, y'all, it hasbeen spooky season for me for a
while.
I'm definitely the like it hitsSeptember and I'm like ready
for spooky season.
I have these really cute pairof flat Mary Janes that have
skeleton feet on them.
Like it looks like your feet,right?
But they're skeleton, they'resuper cute.
I love them.
(01:26):
And so, as soon as it hitsSeptember 1st, I bust those out
and wear them as much aspossible because they are just
my absolute favorite.
But I am also looking forspooky season book
recommendations.
I will anything, anything thatyou think is spooky season.
So, I love a cozy witchyfantasy.
(01:47):
I love horror.
Anything in between, just sendme your favorite recommendations
for spooky season reads, and Iwill add them to my TBR.
Like I said, I am a big fan ofspooky season reading.
I'm a big mood reader.
It's one of those things that,you know, if you're on like
BookTok or Bookstagram orwhatever, and you see people who
(02:10):
are like, this is what I amgoing to read this month.
I am not that person.
I am a hundred percent moodreader, and this is what I want
to read right now.
And I never know what my nextread is going to be until I
finish the book I was currentlyreading.
And I look in my digital TBRand pick the next book.
I cannot be the person who islike, these are these are the
(02:34):
next three books I'm going toread.
That is just not how my brainworks.
That is not how I enjoyreading.
So, but spooky season, I alwaysmood read spooky reads.
So, and again, big wide rangeof what that means.
So, send me all of yourfavorite spooky season recs.
Um, you can reach out to me onsocial.
I'm at @JennieInDC on Blue Sky.
Or you can shoot me an email atjennie@reprosfightback.com.
(03:01):
Yeah, I would love to get anyand all spooky season rec.
Thanks, y'all.
Okay, speaking of spookyseason, we're it's a scary
season, right?
It is the start of the SupremeCourt term.
I know.
Sorry, y'all.
That was a bad transition, butit also feels right, a bit of a
horror.
So we are going to do a SupremeCourt preview episode, and I
(03:25):
couldn't think of a betterperson to have come on than Jess
Pieklo with Boom! Lawyered andthe Rewire News Group to talk
about all of the things thiscoming Supreme Court term.
So with that, let's turn to myconversation with Jess.
Hi, Jess.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Oh, thank you so much forhaving me back.
Jess (03:44):
Always a pleasure.
Jennie (03:45):
I feel like I have to flag before we start that my
allergies hit me all of asudden, like yesterday.
I've been taking my allergymeds, but they like go, it goes
like straight to my lungs, so Iget like that wheezy cough.
So FYI, everybody, sorry.
Jess (03:58):
You sound fantastic.
Jennie (04:00):
There's just maybe a little bit of coughing.
So hopefully.
Thank you, Meg, for editingaround it.
Okay, Jess, before we getstarted, would you like to
introduce yourself and includeyour pronouns?
Jess (04:10):
Sure.
I am Jessica Mason Pieklo.
I use she/ her pronouns, and Iam Co-Chief Content Officer,
Rewire News Group, and co-hostof the Boom! Lawyered Podcast
with Imani Gandy over there.
Jennie (04:22):
I'm so excited.
One, love the podcast.
I feel like I have to say thatevery time, but it's so true.
It's, like, I never miss anepisode.
Jess (04:29):
Mutual Admiration Society here.
Jennie (04:31):
Okay, so we are getting ready...this is coming out on
the very near the very beginningof the new October term for the
Supreme Court.
How are you feeling coming intothe term?
You know, I know dangerousquestions.
Jess (04:48):
The vibes are not great.
I think this is a reallyimportant term, not necessarily
because there's 50 marquee caseson the docket, although there
are some big cases on thedocket, but because we had a
really important summer where Ithink the justices revealed a
(05:10):
lot about the health of theinstitution of the Supreme
Court, of the health of therelationship between the
justices themselves and thedirection that the court is
going in terms of facilitatingTrump administration agenda and
accelerating theauthoritarianism that has taken
(05:32):
hold in this country.
So jokes aside, I would saythat, you know, this particular
term is really cloudy in termsof an opening.
You know, we haven't evenstarted the term in terms of its
like formal opening and oralarguments, and we've already
seen the justices bless— youknow, the conservative majority
(05:54):
when I say that, I feel likeeverybody knows that, but let me
just be very clear what I'mtalking about is is the
conservative majority here—we've seen the conservative
majority bless racial profilingin ICE detentions, and we know
that there are cases on thedocket that are teed up to make
that worse, let alone the reprospaces and what is bubbling up
(06:16):
that could land on the court'sdocket as well.
So, you know, I think by thetime we get to June, we will see
sadly some of the longer-termeffects of the court's decisions
around things like executivepower and detention and
extradition, things that, youknow, we're not always talking
(06:38):
about on a repro podcast, butare absolutely part in that
framework, really come tofruition.
And then, you know, we'll be inan election cycle.
So, it's fraught right now.
Jennie (06:49):
The things I tried to not think about.
Yes, election cycle is coming.
Okay, so this is coming out onthe day where they're hearing a
case related to conversiontherapy.
Do you want to tell us a littlebit about that case?
Jess (07:03):
Sure.
So, as I had had sort ofsuggested, there are a couple
big cases that are already teedup, and one of them is this
challenge to Colorado's ban onconversion therapy.
And it's a case called Chiles,I think I'm saying that
correctly, v.
Salazar.
And uh, you will not besurprised to hear that this is
an Alliance Defending Freedomcase.
They are the conservativelitigation firm that cooks up
(07:26):
most of the anti-LGBTQ andanti-abortion litigation that we
see in the country, them andthe bucket fund.
And this is a case thatinvolves a Christian counselor
by the name of Kaley Chiles.
And, you know, Colorado, likemany states, had passed a ban on
conversion therapy.
It is a practice that has beendisavowed by mainstream mental
(07:50):
health medicalorganizations and, for folks who
aren't familiar with it, can bevery abusive in its most
extreme cases.
And it is essentiallyeverything from, you know,
trying to pray the gay away intherapy sessions to more extreme
measures and behaviors.
And the testimony that folkshave shared having been subject
(08:13):
to conversion therapy and thedamage that it's done is really
heartbreaking in the briefing.
But at any rate, Colorado, likea lot of states, had a ban has
a ban on conversion therapy onthe books, and it was challenged
as a violation of free speech.
This Christian therapist arguesthat, you know, she has
conversations in her therapysession that are God-centric and
and driven, designed tobasically help, you know, quote
(08:38):
unquote, "help her clients avoidtheir LGBTQ impulses" and, you
know, basically convert themaway from being gay, lesbian,
bisexual, whatever is the"deviant" sexual behavior that
they're talking about in thattherapy session.
The 10th Circuit Court ofAppeals, the ban has was
(08:59):
blocked.
The courts said the lower courtsaid this isn't restricting
your speech, it's a ban onconduct, right?
Conversion therapy is a type ofconduct, and there's a
different constitutionalstandard that applies when
regulating conduct versusregulating speech uh in this
arena.
And the Tenth Circuit agreed,and that case has been appealed
up to the Supreme Court, and thecourt took it because this is
(09:20):
an area that for a little whilewas really hot in terms of
litigation, and then it kind ofcooled down.
And as a result, we have whatfeels, you know, almost quaint
by legal norms now, which is agood old-fashioned circuit
split.
So that both the Ninth and theTenth Circuit Court of Appeals
have held that that laws likeColorado's that ban conversion
(09:43):
therapy regulate conduct, notspeech.
Meanwhile, the Eleventh Circuitand the Third Circuit have said
no, that's not the case.
These are, you know, targetedregulations on speech, and so
there's a differentconstitutional standard.
The Supreme Court has decidedthat it will step in and resolve
that circuit split.
And that is a very traditionaland normal role for the court to
(10:05):
do.
Way back in the olden days, Iused to show up on podcasts like
yours and talk about the courtresolving circuit splits in
whether it was around abortionrestrictions or other types of
laws in these areas.
And then the first Trumpadministration happened and the
court became so captured byideologues that it went off the
(10:28):
rails functionally in terms ofnorms.
The use of the shadow docketexploded, and the way that law
and policy got crafted throughthe court changed.
So, in some ways, this is likean old school constitutional
fight that we haven't seen in alittle while.
That's kind of refreshing froma legal journalist standpoint.
(10:50):
However, we have the court thatwe have, and I am not
anticipating that this goes wellfor the folks who are defending
Colorado's ban on conversiontherapy.
Jennie (11:04):
I mean, honestly, I it's just to the point of like,
yeah, I anything around thesetypes of issues, I just always
have a bad feeling about, andnot just the like low-level
worry I used to have back in theday when you were never sure,
but now it's, like, I'm prettysure.
And yeah.
Just yeah, it's it's heavy.
Jess (11:26):
Yeah, you know, and I think one of the conversations
that I hope we start to havemore of both in, you know, sort
of the political media and in,you know, legal media, and as
the public clues in more andmore to just how unchecked the
Supreme Court is right now isthe harm that is happening in
(11:50):
the opinions.
And we talk about these, like,you know, obviously the harm of
Dobbs and and whatnot, butreally the harm to the rule of
law.
And I actually am a littleoptimistic that this is starting
to happen.
Not too long ago, NBC reportersspoke to 10 federal judges on
the record.
And I know that doesn't seemlike a lot, but 10 federal
(12:12):
judges used their governmentname to go to NBC News.
And these were judges that wereappointed by both Democrats and
Republicans to say what theSupreme Court is doing right now
in issuing these major rulingson its shadow docket around
immigration and detention, youknow, around executive power,
around what have you?
(12:33):
Let's not forget that, youknow, Texas's SB8 went into
effect as a result of a shadowdocket ruling, right?
These judges have said publiclynow this is not okay.
It's undermining theinstitution, it's undermining
the federal judiciary generally,and it's undermining the rule
of law.
That is a sea change in termsof the institution of the
(12:56):
federal judges and the federaljudiciary.
And I want to bring attentionto it because they should hear,
their clerks should hear, thestaff at the courthouses should
hear that this is a good thingto do, particularly those judges
who were appointed byRepublican presidents, because
those are the folks we need tostart calling their people in.
(13:18):
I mean, you know, that if we'rebeing very, very true.
So, you know, in the case ofthe Colorado conversion therapy
ban, I am pretty confident thatthat ban is going down.
My concern is what harm isgoing to be crafted in that
opinion now that the justices,the conservative justices, don't
(13:40):
feel that they have to bechecked, right?
Anytime there's been a littlebit of a check on these
justices, they have lost theirever-loving mind.
Amy Coney Barrett spent theentire summer complaining about
how people were mean to her withthe Dobbs decision and how
being a Supreme Court Justicemeant that your opinions aren't
(14:04):
necessarily popularity contestsand all sorts of weird stuff to
be complaining about on a booktour.
And I think that should tellfolks that they know how
unpopular they are and theyreally want to be popular.
So that's gonna hurt.
Jennie (14:20):
Yeah, I think that's the one thing like that is really
important in this this moment islike how broad or narrow they
go in some of these rulings andhow much additional harm can be
created with the way they writethem.
Jess (14:35):
Yeah, I mean, if Justice Alito has a majority opinion
that says, you know, practiceslike conversion therapy are
subject to a lowerconstitutional standard and also
manages to pepper in some sortof like, you know, religious
preferences towards, you know,Christian, particularly
(14:58):
conservative Christianpractices, that opens the
floodgates for all sorts ofother stuff.
I mean, right now we have thesuperintendent of the Oklahoma
Public Schools trying toabsolutely just put the Bible
into their curriculum, and it'sbeen beaten back a couple times
by the courts there.
But, you know, there is aexceptionally emboldened
(15:20):
evangelical class right now thatalso understands this is, you
know, they've got a a shot atreally enshrining some things
that they have been trying to dosince the Roosevelt
administration, right?
Like these people really havebeen have been working on this
for a long, long, long, longtime.
And their heirs are finallyseeing some policy successes,
(15:45):
and they are not gonna just takelittle nibbles anymore.
They are going to go for wholebites when they can.
Jennie (15:52):
Okay.
There's another case I wantedto touch on, and that is the one
around trans sports and a transsports ban.
I feel like this is one ofthose, this is one of the areas
that I feel like I've beengetting really frustrated with
in the broader discourse aroundtrans girls playing sports,
yeah.
And a lot of willingness to belike, this is an okay place to
(16:13):
have this conversation and likeit's fine to like open that
door, and I'm just want toscream, talk to somebody who
worked in abortion, talk tosomebody who worked in repro
about why that is not okay.
Anywho, that is where my headis at when I think of all of
these things.
So, let's talk this case.
Jess (16:33):
Yeah, so this is a case I think that kind of snuck up on
folks.
Imani and I actually covered itat the appellate level.
It involves a student by thename of Becky Pepper-Jackson and
a lovely and a
Jennie (16:46):
I know, it just makes me smile.
Sorry, y'all.
You couldn't you can't see thevideo, but it just made me
smile.
Jess (16:50):
I mean, you know, she's a sweet kid.
I mean, it's a sad case.
And, you know, West Virginia.
So West Virginia has a law thatbans trans girls from
participating on all girls'sports teams from middle school
through college, writ large.
It, you know, I mean, itdefines who participation based
on biological sex only.
You know, so this is blanketban.
(17:13):
And the Fourth Circuit hadblocked the ban.
It lost at the at the lowercourt to the ACLU as
representing the student and thefamily here because it violated
Title IX and Equal ProtectionClause of the Constitution
pretty clearly.
And this had been consolidatedwith another case.
That student has since actuallyasked to have their case, you
(17:35):
know, pulled out of it becausethey have graduated out.
And this is actually an issuethat comes up for trans students
in Title IX challenges, andparticularly is they often age
out of their challenge becausethe law is not quick, it's not
speedy.
Justice does not move fast ifit moves at all for trans kids.
And so that's, you know, someof the background there.
(17:56):
West Virginia, after theSkrmetti decision, petitioned
the court to take this case up,and they did.
And so, the court will be atwill be answering whether the
question of whether or not WestVirginia's ban violates both
Title IX and the EqualProtection Clause of the
Constitution.
And so this is a case thatagain has the possibility to
(18:18):
create some precedent that willtake a long time potentially to
work around.
You know, I don't know if thestatus of this case will change
before oral arguments given thatone of the parties has pulled
out.
I, you know, but West Virginiais the party that petitioned the
court to take it.
And so right now we've we'vegot it scheduled or we've got
(18:38):
it, you know, in in briefing.
And, you know, I think it'simportant to note a couple
things.
There are a handful at most oftrans athletes in this country,
let alone trans kids who aretrying to play sports.
And the evidence isoverwhelming that the only
(19:01):
people who give a crap aboutthis issue are politicians and
parents that they can whip upinto a fever about.
This is not an organic issuethat sp that comes up on
playgrounds, on club sports.
99% of the time, kids are justkids.
And it's unfortunate that agroup of activists and adults
(19:25):
feel the need to bully themconstantly.
Jennie (19:28):
Yeah, to me, it just boggles my mind like just let
the trans kids play sports.
Like, I don't they just want todo the things their peers are
doing, they just want to havefun with their friends.
Like, I don't this is just likestate-sanctioned bullying.
I don't understand.
Jess (19:47):
And look, I'm 51 years old, right?
I am roughly the same age asTitle IX is another way to look
at it.
And I grew up as a young girlin the Midwest who wanted to
play sports.
And none of the people, and Idid, and I played club sports,
and my kids played club sports,my daughter plays club sports,
(20:09):
none of the people who areconcerned about women's sports
in the political arena actuallycare about women's sports.
They have not been hereadvocating for any sort of
equality or fairness and accessto resources, to facilities, to
all of the things that Title IXis supposed to guarantee women
(20:30):
an access to education.
None of the folks who areraising a fight against trans
students accessing those thingsgave a shit about any of this to
begin with.
In fact, they were often TitleIX's largest attractors.
So it is, again, exceptionallywrong to use trans kids as the
(20:51):
straw man here.
They don't want access togirls' sports generally.
And if they can break Title IXby whipping up fear and
ignorance around trans kids,that's how they'll do it.
Jennie (21:06):
And just like with abortion, young people is where
you start to crack open the caseof restricting all
gender-affirming care.
You start going and singlingout young people, a place where
people can feel discomfort.
And then, oh, if that's okay,okay, then we can split this a
little further.
And we'll make sure that, youknow, people under 19 or all
(21:28):
these other ways where you canrestrict access.
Don't cover it with insuranceor all of these ways to other
it.
And that is how you get to anabortion ban.
That is how you get to bans ongender-affirming care.
So, it is not just this simpleconversation we can have around
young trans people playingsports.
(21:49):
It is all part of this biggerfight over rights.
And this is just the gatewaywhere they can find a little
crack that they can exploit.
Jess (21:57):
And just to yes, and that point, I'm old enough to
remember the Obama years wherestates actually lost economic
opportunity if they wereattacking trans folks and trans
kids in particular, right?
I mean, North Carolina wentthrough this.
It used to be exceptionallyunpopular to do this.
(22:18):
And there was an understandingthat extending the promise of a
burger fell of dignity tosame-sex couples was going to
take work, and there were peoplebehind it to try and make that
work happen.
And the backlash from that hasbeen so furious.
And the retreat from supposedallies has been so fast that I
(22:41):
think that that is a kind a partof the conversation that's
getting lost.
Like, it is not a coincidencethat folks were able to so
quickly coalesce around this asan issue because they had so
recently felt economic pain.
And that was, they were notgonna stand for that.
Jennie (22:58):
Okay.
Is there anything else you'rekeeping an eye on right now?
Jess (23:01):
Yes, I am.
So, you know, I had mentionedthe decision on racial profiling
in immigration detention.
A companion case, it's notreally a companion case, but
it's a yes and case to that.
And I'm just I'll hit a coupleof these very quickly because
literally it's not great.
You know, is whether or not,you know, or to what extent the
(23:23):
law enforcement can um enteryour premises without a warrant
at all.
So, no-knock searches.
And when we couple thatquestion with an authoritarian
administration and an attorneygeneral Pam Bondi, which I can't
believe that's a truestatement.
You know, just a little sidebarhere.
Today I was actually thinkingabout how at least when Jeff
(23:47):
Sessions was attorney general,we had an understanding that he
knew the law.
He absolutely didn't agree withit and was gonna do whatever he
needed to do, but he knew it atleast.
Pam Bondi, man.
I still cannot believe thatwoman's an attorney general.
Anyway, so you know, the thecriminal justice docket is one
(24:09):
that we don't follow veryclosely over at Boom! Lawyered,
but it is one that is making alot more noise in the
background, in particularbecause there are some issues
coalescing around that.
The Supreme Court kicked backdown for arguments of the
Louisiana redistricting case.
And so, one of the bigquestions that the court is
grappling with and is beingforced up it is to, you know,
(24:32):
what extent after the VotingRights Act has basically been
decimated, can any majorityblack voting districts exist
functionally?
And so this was a live fight inLouisiana, and the court had
ordered additional briefing andkicked it back down for argument
this term.
That case will be going onwhile the redistricting fight in
(24:53):
places like Texas andCalifornia and now Missouri is
really heating up.
And so the anything that isgoing to be touching the
upcoming uh midterm electionsand looking ahead towards a
potential presidential electionas well is something that is
absolutely on my radar.
Of course, we've got the, youknow, uh big terrible bill and
(25:16):
the defund Planned Parenthoodprovision, which is really
broader than Planned Parenthood,but it affects Planned
Parenthood specifically.
To the extent that that kind offunding fight can, you know,
find its way to the SupremeCourt.
I don't feel great about that,particularly, you know, after
Medina last term.
And, you know, in the lowercourts, and again, you know,
(25:37):
this isn't on the on the docketyet, but these are just, you
know, what are the sort ofwhat's the heat map in terms of
litigation right now?
We have tests on uh shield lawsthat are going to heat up.
We have this administrationdoing funny business with the
FDA and Metha Pristone thatcould result in, you know, uh
(25:57):
some challenges or legal action.
You know, so there arepossibilities for some quick
turns at the court aroundabortion policy specifically.
And yeah, so, you know, thoseare that's the sort of
high-level assessment.
I really think, in particular,the Colorado conversion therapy
(26:19):
case, not just because it'searly in the term, but because
it's one of those cases thatcan, you know, sort of spiral
into other areas policy-wise, isone that and it's not getting a
lot of attention because of thedaily horrors from the
administration.
It's one of those,like, sleeper cases that I hope
folks start to get moreinterested in and curious about
(26:42):
and learn more about.
Jennie (26:43):
Yeah, I feel like I haven't heard much about it.
Even when we were first talkingabout doing this, like I went
and did like a Google search andwas like utterly shocked by the
lack of information out there,and the only like hits were like
right-wing sites, and I was- itsurprised me.
(27:03):
I was like, did I do- did I,like, type something wrong?
Did I like...
Jess (27:08):
No, you did not.
You know, you did not.
It's just, you know, when theadministration is occupying the
nation's capital, and when, youknow, ICE is swooping up folks
and every other...
it's a lot.
I think folks just don't evenhave the capacity to read the
docket right now.
Jennie (27:26):
Okay.
I figure you have things tosay, so I will ask Amy Coney
Barrett's book.
And her book tour.
Jess (27:36):
Should I hate read it live for people?
Oh my god.
Like, should I was thinkingabout this.
I like maybe it's a fundraiseropportunity, right?
Like if I raise X amount ofdollars, I can like, I don't
know, like Mystery ScienceTheater 3000 a live reading of
it or something.
Like, no, I mean that might getme a defamation loss is what
(27:56):
that might get me.
But there's gotta be-
I would listen.
So no, I mean, I would hateread it.
I'm gonna just say I would hateread it.
I would offer up forfundraising content, hate
reading it out loud in my aim,my best Amy Coney Barrett
impression.
So, listeners, hit me up ifthat's something you think you
would uh pay money for for agood cause.
(28:18):
Yeah, I mean I haven't, I bet Iwill.
I mean, let's be honest.
Jennie (28:23):
Okay.
I think the other thing we hadtalked about maybe touching on
was retirements and thepossibility of retirements,
which again, yes, not topre-stress out or anything.
Jess (28:38):
Like look, some of those justices aren't young.
No.
And I like that's a fact.
And we know conservatives uhwill absolutely strategically
retire in ways um that liberaljustices don't.
So, and the reality is, youknow, some folks have been on
the bench for a while.
So while everybody has clerkedup, so there's no nothing
(29:00):
imminent right now, everybody'sprepped for the term.
I do think that we are ripe forsome turnover with some
justices.
I am concerned about JusticeSotomayor's health generally.
Um and so I think that, youknow, from the the, you know,
sort of centrist and liberalthree, um, she would be on my
list.
My dark horse candidate for aretirement in the near term is
(29:24):
Chief Justice John Roberts.
And I am constantly ruiningpeople's days when I start
talking about this, so I'll justdo it for you all who are still
listening.
Here's my take on Roberts isthis is a man who is at his
core, a partisan.
He his entire career ispartisan politics.
Even as Chief Justice of theSupreme Court, he is the chief
(29:47):
GOP partisan justice there.
So, he's also young enough ofthe conservative justices to
still enjoy a life off thebench, to, you know, do the
speaking gig.
To, I don't know, teach a somea seminar at Oxford or
something, you know, to justlike do those sort of bougie
(30:10):
things that retired lawprofessor types do and make a
decent side hustle at it, right?
And guarantee that a Republicanappoints his predecessor.
So if I was taking the darkhorse um odds there, I'd say we
could see Justice Chief JusticeRoberts retire sooner rather
(30:31):
than later.
Alito and Thomas, sure, butthey're having too much fun and
they wield too much power rightnow.
Jennie (30:38):
Again, not a today problem.
But yeah, I mean, just enoughthinking through judiciary and
like beyond the Supreme Court,just watching confirmations and
(31:00):
watching things move maybeslower than I had maybe
expected, like thought, but notstill not great.
Like yeah.
Okay.
So I always like to end notwith this everything's terrible,
(31:21):
which is every episode.
So, what are some things peoplecan do?
How can people get involved inthis moment?
Jess (31:29):
There's a lot always that can be done.
And you know, one of, and soreally, you know, folks have to—
this something we talk about onBoom! Lawyered all the time—
find a lane and understand thatyou don't have to be in every
lane.
And sometimes you can alsoswitch lanes.
That's fine.
But really, you know, find alane.
For some people, that lane isdonating resources.
(31:51):
And so if that is a lane ofyours, I would just encourage
folks to donate as locally rightnow as you can.
A lot of the disruption at thefederal level is uh fully
rippled through to yourcommunities as well.
So, you know, we haven't talkedabout the doging of this nation
in a while, but you know, thereare nonprofits that serve local
(32:14):
communities that are reallystruggling right now, folks, you
know, who deal with, you know,family violence and um serve
folks on the margins andunhoused communities and things
like that.
Give them your money if youcan.
If you don't, and that is fine,um, find time.
Is there a space that you canvolunteer at?
This is just good for the soul.
(32:34):
But right now, reallyimportantly, it's making
connections in the community.
I've referenced it a coupletimes, but we are very clearly
in an authoritarian era in ourcountry's history, and that
succeeds by dissolving anddisrupting local connections and
breaking apart localcommunities.
So the extent to which you canreally deepen and strengthen
(32:56):
your local fabrics is really,really important and encourage
folks to know your neighbors,have conversations with them,
and create those close networksright now.
That is an important time or animportant thing to be doing
just generally.
And uh, you know, I'm gonnasound really corny here, but
lean in with some kindness andjoy in this matter, in this time
(33:18):
as well.
The folks that are trying togovern from a place of force and
power and fear do not want usfeeling happy and they do not
want us feeling joyful becausethose are the antidotes to
authoritarianism.
And lead with that.
Jennie (33:35):
And they want you to feel overwhelmed and paralyzed,
yes, so that you feel likethere's nothing you can do
matters when that is absolutelynot the case.
Jess (33:43):
That's not the case.
It is fine to log off, youknow.
Jennie and I were talking aboutat the at the upfront about you
know being online less as a wayto do more in community, and I
think that there is value there.
Jennie (33:56):
Yeah.
Protect yourself.
And making sure...
you can't help if you burnyourself out and if you get
overwhelmed by all of this, it'sokay to take a step back and
jump in.
This is definitely, I know it'strite, but definitely a
marathon, a relay race.
Like it is not you need to doall the things, so find the
(34:17):
things that work for you.
Jess (34:18):
Yeah.
Jennie (34:19):
Jess, thank you so much for being here as always.
It was such a pleasure to talkto you.
Jess (34:23):
Thank you so much for having me back.
I love it.
It's one of my favorites.
Jennie (34:26):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Jess.
It was so great to get to talkto her about a couple of the
upcoming Supreme Court cases andto think through this term.
And with that, I will seeeverybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email.
You can reach me atjennie@reprosfightback.com, or
(34:51):
you can find us on social media.
We're at rePROs Fight Back onFacebook and Twitter, or
@reprosfb on Instagram.
If you love our podcast andwant to make sure more people
find it, take the time to rateand review us on your favorite
podcast platform.
Or if you want to make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atreprosfightback.com.
(35:12):
Thanks all!
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!