Transgender Athletes and Title Nine

Welcome to the Sound of Ideas. I'm Anna Huntman, and today for Stephanie Haney. Thanks so much for being with us The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped its term with a series of major decisions on immigration, presidential power, and election law Among the final rulings yesterday, the court voted against President Donald Trump to uphold the citizenship cllause of the fourteenth Amendment declaring anyone born within the borders of the US a citizen of the country. Last week, the justices held that courts cannot review Department of Homeland Security decisions to end temporary protected status, clearing the way for the Trump administration to end legal protections for Haitians and Syrians, which includes a large Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio that drew national attention. also ruled that Congress cannot prevent the president from removing members of the Federal Trade Commission, overturning a ninety year old precedent that had preserved federal agencies' independence President Donald Trump celebrated the decision on trruth social, saying it greatly increases presidential power, quote, at a time when it is most needed. unquote Two of the dissenting justices said this decision completely reshapes our government The court also upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail in ballots postmarked by election day to be counted for up to five days afterward. Today, we'll talk about these decisions, what they say about the direction of the High Court, and what they could mean for everyday Americans and the balance of power in Washington Joining me in studio today is Jonathan Enton, prorofessor of in the School of Law at Case Western Reserve University. Hi Professor Enton. Hello And with us by video callall is Ceesar Garcia Hernandez, prorofessor of laaw at the Ohio State University. Hi, professor Good morning. And doctor Ali Masud, Assistant prorofessor of politics at Oberlland College and Conservatory. Hi Professor G morning If you'd like to join the conversation, give us a call eight six six five seven eight zero nine zero three, send us an email, SOI at ideaSream dot orga or message us on Instagram at the Sound of Ieas So let's just start by talking in general about what these rulings kind of mean from this term. You know, President Trump's first year back in office has been characterized by a wide sweeping expansion of executive power. So I'll go to you first, Professor Enton. didid the end of term rulings reflect this idea of this expansion of power or did it reject some of the efforts At one level, the rulings were something of a mixed bag in the sense that The president lost on the citizenship. case and earlier in the term he lost on tariffs Overall say it was very sympathetic to presidential power I think the Federal Trade Commission case overrule that ninety year old precedident That is the most important case of the term, I think, in terms of what it means for the way the government will perceived from here on out Pident was right to say that O the whole He had a pretty good term although he didn't win everything that he wanted. What about you, Professor Hernandez? Were there any themes that you feel like are really connecting in this Supreme Court term Yeah, I think the president's authority to act unilaterally, to dispense with Congress certainly received judicial approval, by and large, certainly not across the board. But But to be frank, some of these losses were to be expected, I think they they came in matters in which the president was really pushing the extreme edges. of um, what was permissible and what had been the practice of executive branch agencies for going back for generations. And I think the citizenship case in particular is a loss that was entirely expected Although the fact is he only barely lost. the president was able to garner a substantial minority of the votes. and that in a way is a victory in and of itself Yeah. I want to dive deep into that as well, but First, I want to bring Professor Masouud into the conversation. whichich justices do you feel like had the biggest influence in this term. Well, the certainly the chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion for all of the cases that had President Trump's name in it, Trumpy Barbara, Trumpy Cook, Trumpy sllaughter. And so you can really see the role of The chief justustice wanting to have his influence in And kind of shaping the trajectory, keeping the coalitions together. L one thing I wanted to add is the theme you see with the opinions of the Chief Justice is like the through line is that the court is saying that the president has very broad powers, lots of discretion, but that discretion is not infinite So let's go ahead and get into first Trump versus Barbara. So let's first talk about what back up and talk about what is this case about, who are the parties involved? Professor Hernandez, I'll go to you for this Yeah, so the president was trying to reinterpret the way in which the fourteenth Amendment to the US. Constitution has been understood for well over a century. The fourteenth Amendment is the source of citizenship for the vast majority of US. citizens. goingo back to the late nineteenth century, it provides a broad based access to citizenship based on the location of and was added to the US Constitution in the aftermath of the Civil War. And since then, since the late nineteenth century, the federal courts have interpreted the language of the fourourteenth Amendment to grant citizenship to every child born in the United States with very narrow exceptions for children born to invading armies, children born to foreign ambassadors stationed in the United States and to the children of Native Americans. The last group has been granted citizenship for about a century now thanks to a law enacted by Congress, but the the first two continue to this day to not receive citizenship at the moment at birth. And President Trump on his first day back in office in twenty twenty five, issued an executive order dramatically narrowing access to citizenship based on the citizenship and immigration status of the parents of that child incorporating into into the fourteenth Amendment, a reference to parents that is not in does not appear in the text of the fourteenth Amendment. And this is the fact that the president lost was fully expected. President himself had said he expected to lose. This was a high profile issue for him. He campaigned hard on this issue. He promised his supporters That he would do everything in his power to narrow access to citizenship. And it was so important to him that he actually attended parts of the oral argument in this case,aking making him the very first president in the history of the United States to attend a session of arguments before the the US Supreme Court The fact that he lost was not expected, but on the constitutional issue, he actually only lost by one vote. It was a five to four decision when it came to whether the presresident's executive order violates the fourteenth Amendment. There was one additional vote Um, by just is Breick Cavanugh Um, u that focused on the text of a law enacted by Congress in which Justice Kavanaugh says that the president's executive order actually violates that law, but that law, like any other law enacted by Congress, can be amended, it can be repealed by the ordinary process of congressional talk about what this means sorry to interrupt but I wanted to kind of break it down. So talk about what the majority found, but then that point that you were just making about the concurring opinion, can you break down really what this means? What did the court really decide here Yeah, so the court decided that the president's executive order clashes with the fourteenth Amendment. The fourteenth Amendment is focused on the location of a child's birth and because of as long as somebody is born in the United States, the Supreme Court says that that is the only requirement on practical terms for all but the handful of children who are born to those exceptions that I mentioned earlier, the text of the president's executive order was hoping to eliminate from birthright citizenship kids born to fathers who are not US citizens or permanent residents. It's a green card holder and mothers who, um, are in the United States either under a temporary visa. There are about two dozen of these on the books right now in the United States or in the United States without the federal government's permission. And the Supreme Court, the majority of the court rejected wholeheartedly that position, leaving intact the generations old legal tradition in the United States of granting broad access to birthright citizenship Professor Enton, what do you think happens next? Should we expect future lawsuits, laws being created, what do you think is going to happen now? Well, the only way There are only two ways to overturn this ruling one would be to have a case. in which the Supreme Court changed its mind even need Yesterday's decision The other would be a cononstitutional amendment. It is almost impossible to imagine a constitutional amendment getting through. in order to get a constitutional amendment passed You need to get A two thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then you have to get three quarters of the states to ratify I don't think there's anything close to two thirds majorities in either House of Congress. In fact, it's not even clear to me that there's a majority in either House of Congress right now Never mind that I can't imagine thirty eight states to ratify such an amendment. So I think This is going to be a talking point. Perhaps for a long time I think this essentially settles the issue even though as my colleague has said peopleople going in thought that this was going to be a lopsided majority to reject President Trump's order And it turned out to be much narrower than people expected So I think if it's going to change, it will be when The composition of the court changes down the road and somebody tries to bring this issue back and get the court to reconsider eight six, five seven eight zero nine zero three is the number to call. If you would like to get in on this conversation, right now, we're talking about Trump versus Barbara, the ruling that upheld birthright citizenship in the United States. We've got a lot more to talk about. But before we do that, Professor Masud, is there anything else you wanted to add about what the majority had to say, what the dissenting side had to say when it comes to this case Yeah, one of the things that struck out to me was the lengthy dissents. There were over one hundred and thirty pages of dissents from the three dissenting justices, including a dissent that was over ninety pages by Justice Thomas The other the nature of those dissents are a fundamental disagreement like on the merits. but the other thing that was interesting was Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence that was alluded to earlier. Basically Justice Kavanaugh provides the way forward For the president to proceed moving forward, basically what Justice Kavanaugh is saying is that because this was done unilaterally through executive order, Congress has not weighed in, it conflicts with the statute. And so so the way forward is for Congress to do something soongress could pass a new statute, they could overturn their existing statute. And the general sense from all of these separate opinions is that the fight is not over. As was alluded to earlier, even though the fourteenth Amendment is pretty clear, the historical origins are that following the Civil War, like We don't want to deny the children of former slaves to citizenship. So the fourteenth Amendment is quite clear on that. But the fact that it's narrow and six three, officially but fivety four on the constitutional question suggests that any one member change in the court could lead to this ruling being overturned Yeah, thank you very much for that context. So that's justustices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch who did dissent on that. So let's move on to the case that has We had a lot of talk here in Ohio about Haitians and the Syrians with their temporary protected status, Malin vers. Doe. So sayay Sir, let's go back to you. What is this case about and what happened here Yeah Mullen versus Doe focuses on tempor protected status. That's the legal power that Congress enacted in nineteen ninety. Congress created it in nineteen ninety to provide humanitarian legal protection to citizens of countries that are deemed too unsafe to return to And since nineteen ninety has been used by every presidential administration, including the first Trump administration to extend a welcoming hand. to citizens of countries that are suffering through some kind of turmoil, it might be political, it might be economic, it might be a natural disaster of some kind. And as a result, there have been for decades now, people who have acquired legal permission from the federal government To live and importantly to work in the United States under temporary protected status. The Trump administrations or President Trump's first Secretary of Homeland Security during the second term, Christy Noome, came into office and at the time there were seventeen countries whose citizens were designated as eligible for temporary protected status, Secretary Noome attempted to terminate the TPS for thirteen of those countries, including Syrians and Haitians. This case was focused on Secretary Noome's power to terminate that TP those TPS designations Eectively the argument by the challengers was that she had not followed the process laid outeder in the federal law enacted by Congress back in nineteen ninety, that law requires that prior to terminating the Secret of Homeland Security engage in consultation with appropriate government agencies outside of the Department of Homeland Security, traditionally, it's the Department of State. As these cases played out, it became clear that there were a few emails sent by high level officials in the Department of Homeland Security, Aids Secretary Gome to the Department of State, none of which touched on the circumstances on the ground in Syria or Haiti And instead we're focuseding just on potential foreign policy ramifications of terminating GPS The justices actually went one step further and said, notot only does it not matter what those emails said, it doesn't really even matter if there were emails that were sent or any other communications because the courts have no role in reviewing whether the Secretary of Homeland Security followed the process set out by Congress if Congress doesn't think that The Department of Home Security follow that process, they can change the law, they can withhold funding, but there's no role for the courts in overseeing a decision to NTPS. So effectively that means that the Department of Homeland Security, the Trump administration can move forward with its plans to and TPS first for Syrians and Haitians and then for citizens of the eleven other countries that it has already put on its to do list. And we'll talk about what this really means and kind of the next steps here, especially how it relates to the Haitian community in Ohio. but Pfor Enton, did you expect this decision? I'm not surprised about the decision. and I think that There are a couple of points to be made here. O, as Pfessor Garcia Hernandz was pointing out The statute says that courts may not review the determination of the Secretary with respect to TPS. And as he pointed out, the challenge actually was that the Secretary of Homeland Security had failed to follow the statutorily required procedures. Now, we have a number of other federal statutes that say that T terminations factual determinations by various agencies are not subject to judicial review Courts generally have interpreted those statutes fairly narrowly. and so the challengers were basically trying to rely on that narrow approach to say, we're not trying to get the court to second guess the revocation of TPS, we're trying to get the court to say that to get to that decision, whatever it is, you have to follow a particular process And I think the implications of the courts's Reading that provision broadly might carry over into other areas of law that don't affect immigration, but affect a lot of what we deal with on a day to day basis. Like what? Well, for example, veterans benefits or other kinds of ven snap or Medicaid or even social security benefits. Now, some of those decisions are subject to judicial review, but A lot of them aren't and that will give greater latitude to agencies to do things that may at least be open to question And so that might limit people's legal recourse against arbitrary government decisions Professor Hernandez, I'm curious what this means for other countries that have temporary protected status and kind of what happens next here? Yeah, I think everyone who is currently a recipient of TPS should expect that the Trump administration is going to move forward with its announced plans to end TPS. And along with that means their legal permission to live in the United States and their legal permission to work in the United States U That includes citizens of Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries across the world. this is not by any means a decision limited to the three hundred fifty thousand or so Haitians, nor is it limited to the four thousand or so Syrians, Quite the contrary, That's about one point three million people currently have TPS living somewhere in the United States, many of wh them have been here for decades. The longest running TPS designation is actually for citizens of El Salvador. And all of those individuals should expect that the Trump administration sooner or later will turn their attention u to to to to them eightight six six five seven eight zero nine zero three is the number to call. If you have a comment or a question, you can also email SOI at ideasstream dot org dot We have a call from Todd. Hi, Todd. Welcome to the Sound of Idas. What's your comment or question? Okay, I don't I don't know everybody's name. That's okay. So but I do know Jonathan's name. He's a regular, if you will. Yes. Go ahead. One of your best guests, onene of your better guesss. So but this is to the group Is this a matter will this become a matter of illegal illegal behavior by the government because I have this consideration for you to guys for y'all to think about There are over a thousand children that were born in this country hundredundreds of them were born in Springfield area to parents from Haiti. So these children are all American citizens all these Haitians I mean, I mean, Haiti is unsafe and the State Department does say that. That's why commercial American airlines don't go there But if the government thrs these parents out and the parents take these kids, American citizens back to Haiti had they put American citizens in harm's way as a result of illegal behavior by the government and or have the parents leave and say, well, our children are citizens, they're going to stay here, but now they've been abandoned So now you have two issues here, abandonment and forcing them into a dangerous place. God forbid any of these children die over in Haiti over some dumb stuff. That is an interesting you bring up here? Yeah. so what do you think about that, Professor Hernandez? What Todd is asking, is this a child endangerment issue either way? Yeah, certainly, if families choose to return to Haiti, the likelihood that they will be subjected to criminal targeting or other kinds of danger is quite high. This is exactly why as your caller points out, the US government officially formally declares Haiti too unsafe to visit I think the more realistic option though, is that most people simply will not leave. Instead, these are individuals whose roots are firm in the United States. They run deep in the United States and the example of children who are not only US citizens but who are being raised and acculturated in the United States are a prime example. People are not just of flesh and bones that can be moved around without creating emotional attachment, financial attachment and aspirations. On the contrary, we're firmly we regularly embed ourselves in community and that community means something quite important to us. and it is very difficult to detach ourselves from that absent the most the strongest of reasons as all of these individuals have already experienced in their decision to leave eighty on. And so I think the most realistic outcome of the TPS decision and the Trump administration's plans to move forward with stripping Haitians of their legal permission to live in the United States is that we will start to see an expansion in the number of people living in the United States without the government's permission. It's a delegalization campaign I did want to point out that there are more than ten thousand refugees living in Ohio on july sixth. Those without TPS status could no longer be able to apply to a renew a driver's license, and it's also going to impact work permits that allow the refugees to seek employment. So we'll definitely be paying attention to that here at astream public media and our partners across the state will continue Let cover what's going to be happening because of this. But let's move on now to another case, Trump versus slaughter. This is about presidential firing power. So let's talk about this one. We've got Professor Ali Masouud. Tell us about what this case is about and what it means Yeah, at the core of this case is president wanting to remove an official at the at the FDC and this kind of raises like Longstanding precedent whichich is Humphrey's executor. just to like a quick synopsis. Humphrey was a commissioner that President Roosevelt wanted removed. And then for political reasons, but the statute that created the Federal Tade Commission outlined the conditions under which a commissioner could be dismissed. And this was for political reasons. The court said that it had to be for cause, it had to be for those stated reasons. So now we revisit it in twenty twenty six And what the court has done is they've overturned Humphrey's executor. And what this essentially means is for these independent agencies and commissions that have that report both to the executive and to Congress. And the argument is that the FTC is not really performing the functions of the executive branch I think the counter argument is that they are involved in enforcement, sending cease and desist notices, making sure' fair trade practices. But at the end of the day, what this me what the implications are is that the president has really broad authority in whom they want to appoint and whom they want to dismiss. at the heart of this is lack of permission from Congress. The president nominates, the Senate confirms. But when it comes to dismissal, what the court is basically saying is in order for the president to pursue their priorities, they're able to dismiss individuals without cause without the stated reasons, right, without any without the cause of being inefficient or some gross negligence in order to pursue the president's priorities. Right, that was what my biggest question was, you know, when Trump removed slaughter from the FTC He said her service was quote, inconsistent with his administration's priorities, so not accusing her of inefficiency or incompetence. So do you think that's what this means going forward, then, Professor Masud There can be really any reasoning now to fire somebody. Yeah, well, the court court said that in order for the president to to To pursue their priorities, they can dismiss any individual. And what this means long term is that as we see changes in administration from one party to another, but even interparty, when we go from one president to another, we'll see lots of changes in the nearly two dozen agencies. There's going to be a lot of turnover What's interesting is the court is making the argument that in order for these agencies to perform their functions, to pursue the president's priorities, it has to be clear and the mandate can't be, you're creating a fourth branch, which is just this bureaucracy. But what this effectively does is it creates a lot of turnover. So every time we'll see a new administration or even a new president sworn in, even if it's a president from the party of the outgoing president, we'll see lots of turnover because that turnover is going to reflect the new president's priorities Professor Enton, do you have a comment about this too? Well, I think we need to understand that The Federal Trade Commission is one of, as Professor Masud says, one of about a two dozen so called independent agencies. Most of the federal government doesn't have independent agencies. The ones that we have are important like the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, Securities Echange Commission, et ceter. All of the cabinet officers are in the executive branch, and the president has always been able to remove cabinet officers and other high level executive branch officials. The idea of independent agencies has been controversial for a long time and not simply among conservatives who have been really riding this hobby horse now for about forty or fifty years Even before that, there were concerns that independent agencies undermined the president's ability to do things. So what's really going on here is that the Supreme Court in the sllaughter case has said, Congress may not make the judgment that certain kinds of functions or certain agencies need to be insulated from complete White House control Court, the majority, has said, the Constitution divides power among three branches, and each branch is the master of its own house. The president is the head of the executive branch, therefore the president should be able to do these things. Now, there is a lot of controversy here about The court's analysis about the quality of the reasoning in the Humphrey's executive case. and even if you recognize that, that was a unanimous ruling with some of the most liberal and some of the most conservative justices we have ever had signing on to it. So this is a really big deal. but I think it goes beyond top of the agency The court didn't say anything about this. But if you look at some of the things that President Trump has said in firing lower level federal workers, he's been saying, this is consistent with my authority as chief executive. This could raise real questions about the the validity and the continuing existence of the civil service. As I said, the court hasn't said this, but a lot of the language in the majority opinion might encourage President Trump to say, I can fire pretty much anybody who works for the federal government indeed They've been making this sort of argument. And so far, the courts have been willing to tolerate that. Speaking of presidential authority and the expansion of that, let's take a call from Justin in Stow, who's got a comment about this. Hi, welcome to the Sound of Idas Hi, thanks for having me on I've been a governmentistory and history teacher for more than twenty years now and When I piece the Constitution, I always piece that the executive branch purposely weakened by the framers because of the fear of the Royalist model and that the legislative branch was to be The most powerful branch because it represented the people seemeeming to me I might have to change what I'm teaching with these rulings. Is that a? an accurate assessment. What do you think, Professor Enton? Well I think that The way we have come at separation of powers at the federal level. We've seen two differentere sorts of approaches. O is that Each branch is the master in its own house. That's what the majority of the Supreme Court was saying in the slaughter case and therefore should be able to exercise the full extent of that power without undue interference from outside other approach whichich by the way, is reflected in the Humphrey's executive case that the court overruled on Monday The other approach emphasizes that the branches of the federal government are interdependent There are some things that each branch does by itself But most things that the government does require the cooperation of at least two of the branches. So for example, Congress passes laws, but the president has the opportunity to veto those ws God President gets to appoint officials The Senate gets to confirm. had So Supreme Court and the lower federal courts decide cases according to law Congress decides the size and the jurisdiction of the courts, the budgets The Senate gets to confirm judges who are nominated by the president. So you see all and we can go on through a whole series of things What we're if we had a two hour long show. Yeah. what we are seeing partarticularly with the slaughter case, but a number of others in recent years is that the majority of the Supreme Court is less taken with the checks and balances approach and is more focused on the distinctiveness of the branches and particularly the distinctiveness of the executive branch Well hopefully, Justin, that helped inform how you might be writing your lesson plans this summer or refreshing your lesson plans this summer. We do have a few more cases to get to, but right now we're going to take a quick break and when we return, we'll continue talking about the Supreme Court's end of term rulings. This is the Sound of idedas. I'm Anna Huntsman in today for Stephanie Haney. We'll be right back You're with the Sound of idedeas. I'm Anna Huntsman in today for Stephanie Haney. Thanks so much for spending the hour with us. We're spending this hour talking about the Supreme Court's major decisions as they wraped up the summer term yesterday. So we were just talking about, well actually first, let me tell you who we're talking about all of this with. We're with Jonathan Enton, professor at the School of Law at Case Western Reserve University, Cesar Garcia Hernandez, professor of Law at the Ohio State University, and Ali Masouud, asssistant professor of politics at Oberlland College and Conservatory. And as always, we want to hear from you as well if you have a comment or question about any of the cases we're talking about eight six six, five seven eight zero nine zero three is the number to call or you can email us at SOI at ideasttream. orgot So we were just talking about a case that dealt with presidential firing power, Trump versus slaughter. but now I want to talk about Trump versus Cook. So Ali Masud, tell us about this case and kind of how it differs what the court found in that previous case. Yeah. so this involves an individual named Lisa Cook who was appointed by President Biden to the Federal Reserve. As people may have noticed, the president has commented frequently about the Federal Reserve and the direction that would he wants for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. And the overlap with slaughter is similar to that The president wants to dismiss Lisa Cook and place an individual who would advance his own priorities. Here, the court took a different track They so on a non merits ruling on an opinion again authored by the Chief Justice, the court said that this is different from the slaughter decision The central Bank has historically been independent. It really doesn't have executive branch functions. So you cannot just dismiss an individual without cause. And so basically what the court is saying here is that this is a different situation. This does not involve like executive authority. Now the court did add this caveat that you could potentially remove Lisa Cook by demonstrating cause. and that's still being litigated. And so we've likely not seen the end of this case. Interesting. We had a couple people write in with comments about presidential power and kind of the ability to fire people. So let's get to Stepehven, who wrote in, The argument for the president's ability to fire agency heads was that Congress shouldn't be able to saddle the president with people he or she doesn't want to work with But where are they getting the idea that those agencies are executive branch agencies? And then we have a comment also from Marvin, the president's priorities shouldn't factor into independent agencies. The reason for existing and the priorities that drive them was set out by Congress, and every president should simply realize those priorities. Any thoughts on that, Professor Enton As I said earlier, the idea of independent agencies has controversial for a long time Some people feel more strongly about it than others Um, But if you start from the premise that all goovernmental authority, where all federal authority is divided among three branches executive legislative judicial U then the idea of an independent agency is a little bit hard ad to justify Um, Now There are arguments that Congress under the Constitution has pretty broad latitude to structure the government. And so the fact that independent agencies don't fit neatly into these categories M be a feature, not a bug, but this is part of an ongoing debate that has been with us for a very long time. Let's talk now about Watson versus the Republican National Committee. So this deals with mail in voting, which is something that has been talked about quite a bit in Ohio and kind of how this now interferes with or may interfere with Ohio's own law about when votes actually count that have been mailed in. So the court upheld a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail in ballots postmarked by election day they come in up to five days after. So Professor Inton, talk about how the court reached this decision This is a case that was decided based on the wording of a federal statute that sets election day as a particular Tuesday in November and question was What does it mean that this that what does election dayay mean Um Nobody says that people can't vote early. The question is whether All of the ballots have to be received by the close of the polls on election Day a fair number of states allow a grace period. You, Ohio was one which has now been taken away. Mississippi was another, but But there's several dozen states allow for these ballots to come in. and the argument has been, well, if they're not there on election day, then they really shouldn't count The Supreme Court said the statute that sets election day doesn't say that The court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law that required that ballots for federal offices be received by election day because Congress does have some power over federal elections. But this statute doesn't really do that Nothing in the Constitution would prevent Congress from saying, as I said, ballots for federal offices have to be in on election day. And it doesn't require that there be a grace period. So Ohio, for example eliminated his great period. didn't do that because the federal law specifically required that, although a number of legislators said, well, we're going to do this in anticipation of what we think the Supreme Court is going to do. That turned out to be wrong. But the other concern about the grace period is that the post office delivers M absentee ballots. And people are concerned that the post office is not efficient enough to get all the ballots in by election day I think that this case This case is important, but I think it is more symbolic than substantive. I think if the court had gone the other way, people presumably would have adjusted the way they cast their their ballots their absentee ballots simply by putting them in the mail earlier or taking them to the board of elections and dropping them off. Inconvenient, maybe. But maybe not a game changer.. So it doesn't affect Ohio necessarily, but what I wanted to point out is that this was the first election that we just had where there was no grace period, and you had people from the ACLU saying, well, this is this can disenfranchise voters. So it's just interesting to see compared to what the Supreme Court said So we'll move on now to talking about the West Virginia versus BPJ. and this is about a big talking point transgender athletes. So Professor Enton, back to you. What does this say? and what did know how did the court get to that decision? Okay, There actually were two cases. This case was combined with a case from Idaho. Both of these cases involved state laws Phibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports Um, Now Cases had somewhat different legal theories. U One of the cases said that these laws violate Title Iine which prohibits sex based discrimination in educational activities that receive federal funds The court unanimously rejected the Title Iine challenge saying that if you look at the way Title nine is written and some other legislation implementing Title nine that Congress has passed over the years okay for states to determine sex for athletic purposes on the basis of Biological sex, sex assigned at birth Now The other theory was This was a sex based discrimination that violates the equal Protection Cause of the Constitution. That part of the case was six to three rejecting the challenge. dissenters did not reject the challenge out of hand, they said based on the record as the case had come to the court, things the decision at the lower level was not yet final and there was an opportunity for additional proceedings in the lower courts. and the dissenter said, we ought to allow for those proceedings to play out. As I said They were outvoted. And so both of these Both of these These challenges failed. Now there is, I think, an important qualification to be made here. These are laws that prohibit Transgender athletes from P and the challenges were brought by transgender students. But There are some other cases proceeding in the lower courts arguing that girls who participate in in an interscholastic sports are having their rights violated by by the presence of transgender athletes. The courourt didn't address those kinds of cases, but they're coming. And it if those cases win then there will be a basis for saying nationwide, transgender athletes can't participate in women's sports The rulings yesterday simply say that that states can prohibit transgender athletes from participating, but they don't have to prohibit them. So these cases coming along may raise the question across the board. you can ban whether you can ban transgender athletes at all. There were a lot of major consequential decisions ruled on this term. We talked about a handful of them today, but I did want to get everyone's thoughts on Which one will have the greatest practical impact? What should we expect in the future? So Sesar, I'll go to you first Which of these do you think has the greatest practical impact? Well, I think actually the absence of impact is the most significant story point that I'll draw out, which is the birthright citizenship lost by the president. I think this is not only a major political issue for him. it will continue to be so, but I think the fact that the Supreme Court is maintaining the one hundred twenty five year legal tradition in the United States of broad access to citizenship is the most significant thing that's come out of the court over the last few few weeks as the term has wrapped up Professor Masud, what about for you? Is there something that's top of mind for you? What are you going to be looking for as far as what legal issue is likely to continue to come up Yeah, I think it's the reflecting the theme of what we saw This term, of course, elections have consequences. notot only do elections Do we elect presidents who have their priorities, but also we're seeing that when presidents come in, they also are able to set the agenda somewhat of what gets litigated and what the court rules on. Like the broader theme that I think will continue in the coming terms is about the limits and the reaches of executive authority and this throughline of what role Congress plays, right? And a lot of the rulings from this term like reflect that in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Barbara, right that Congress needs to weigh in, whether it's like temporary protected status or whether it's the firing of officials,'s like What role does Congress play, what role do these statutes play And really what can and can't the president do Professor Enton, we're running out of time, as we said before, we'd love to spend two hours or two days on this, but what are you thinking here? Two quick points, as I said earlier, I think the most impactful decision of the term was probably slaughter gives the presresident basis for asserting very broad authority. One thing we didn't talk about today that will have continuing impact, the voting rights cases from earlier in the term that have essentially allowed for massive redistricting pretty much at the drop of a hat, and that could affect the composition of Congress in the House of Representatives. Is there anything quickly that you feel An thing that we didn't spend time on that surprised you or isn't getting a lot of attention. Well, I think that we haven't talked about the so called shadow docket, the emergency docket. A lot of rulings on that there on that docket have given the president a authority to proceed quickly even while in theory, the cases are playing out, But the Trump administration has done quite well on the emergency dock at this term. Well, that is unfortunately all the time that we have today. I want to thank my guest, Jonathan Enton, professor in the School of Law at Case Western Reserve University. Thanks so much for being here. Thanks for having me. Sesar Garcia Hernandez, prorofessor of Law at the Ohio State University. Thanks so much for being here as well pleasure. And doctor Ali Masouud, Assistant prorofessor of politics at Oberland College and Conservatory. Thankk you so much for your time today That my pleasure If you miss any part of today's show, you can hear a rebroadcast tonight at nine on eighty nine seven WKSU. You can also find every episode of The Sound of Ideas wherever you get your podcasts and on the Idea Stream Public Media YouTube page To get the last word on today's topics, send an email to SOI at ideeastream.ot org or find us on Instagram We're at the Sound of ideas. Tomorrow, we'll discuss the major heat wave sweeping across Northeast Ohio. Experts will share tips on how to stay safe this fourth of July weekend and the rest of the summer. I'm Anna Huntman, Stephie Hany will be back tomorrow. Thanks so much The Sound of idedeas is produced by Rachel Rude, Libar, Drew Mazias, and Aya Kathy. Chris Dudley and Samon Al will provide technical assistance, and Jaye Nungesser andegul Kaffman are at the controls of the Ohio Channel broadcast. Our email is always open. send us your feedback SOI at ideatream dot org. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you soon. support for WKSU is provided by the Cleveland Orchestra, presenting a salute to America, performed by the Blossom Festival Band July fourth at Blossom. information at Clevelandorrchestra d. com