• The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt one of its first blows to President Donald Trump’s aggressive agenda to reshape how the federal government works. It was a minor decision: The justices rejected an emergency request from the administration to keep frozen some $2 billion in foreign aid payments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberals, raising questions about how the court will handle the waves of litigation crashing against the White House with Trump back in office. Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, helps us read the SCOTUS tea leaves.
• Later in the show, Missouri Farmers Union Vice President Richard Oswald joins us to talk about how Trump’s tariffs will hurt farmers.
• And in headlines: The Trump administration puts a one-month pause on auto tariffs for Canada and Mexico, some fired federal workers go back to work, and climate change might be making allergy season longer.

• Check out Jessica’s podcast – passingjudgementpod.com/
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8
• Support victims of the fire – votesaveamerica.com/relief
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast

Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Thursday, March 6th. I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day. The show that always thinks it’s kind of funny when President Donald Trump complains about someone else being rude. Like, come on, let’s just be real here. [music break] On today’s show, House Republicans want to punish Representative Al Green for interrupting the president during his joint session address. And some federal workers are getting their jobs back, hopefully permanently. But let’s start with the Supreme Court. You know, those nine unelected justices who, for many reasons, have a whole lot of power over our daily lives. Fun and cool I’d say. If you talk to any number of conservatives, they’ll tell you that the right leaning justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are supposed to be originalists, upholding a textual understanding of the Constitution. As Barrett said during her confirmation hearings back in 2020. In her view, that implies that the meaning of the Constitution doesn’t change over time. But if you ask Donald Trump, well, you might get the view that maybe the job of the Supreme Court is to do what he wants them to do. Listen to how he thanks Chief Justice John Roberts like an orange mafioso following his joint address to Congress on Tuesday night. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget. 

[clip of Justice John Roberts] So good. Yeah. It’s good. So good. Sir. 

Jane Coaston: Did you catch the, won’t forget. Huh. And yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor a bunch of times. Remember the presidential immunity decision from last summer? But not always. Late last month, the Trump administration rushed to the court, asking the justices to let them ignore a lower court judge who said, hey, you can’t block billions of dollars in foreign aid payments. On Wednesday, the justices refused to do it. They said the administration has to pay up while the case makes its way through the courts. It was a 5-4 decision in which Justices Barrett and Roberts joined the liberals. So what does this mean for the future of the court’s term? Should we welcome Justice Barrett to the resistance? Already, some of the biggest MAGA supporters around are demanding Trump fire her from the Supreme Court, which um he can’t do. And what’s next for Trump 2.0’s legal battles? To find out, I talked to Jessica Levinson. She’s a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Jessica, welcome to What a Day. 

Jessica Levinson: Thanks so much for having me. 

Jane Coaston: So walk us through the court’s decision Wednesday regarding USAID and foreign aid. What did the justices say? 

Jessica Levinson: So the justices said very little, which is typical when it comes to a case, which is an emergency appeal up to them. Essentially, the Trump administration had run to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis and said pause this one part of a lower court decision when it comes to this larger case dealing with USAID and a five to four majority of the court in a very short order, which is again typical, essentially said, no, we’re not going to. We’re going to let the case continue to play out before the trial court judge. The much lengthy part of the order was actually the dissent by Justice Alito, joined by three conservative colleagues, where he says, I think we did the wrong thing here, and I don’t think we should continue to let this case play out. 

Jane Coaston: So practically, for USAID, I mean, the Trump administration has already said it’s eliminating 90% of the agency’s contracts. This doesn’t change any of that, does it? 

Jessica Levinson: No. And this was never about that. So this was about, again, grants and contracts that were really based on work already completed, based on work that was already agreed upon. This is not forward looking in terms of what type of power the Trump administration has to say, we’re not going to go forward and spend this money on these various projects. That might be part of the bigger case, but it’s not what was at issue before the Supreme Court. 

Jane Coaston: Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett join the liberals in saying this money still had to be released. I know this isn’t the final decision on this case, but does it tell you anything about how this court could handle Trump 2.0? 

Jessica Levinson: I will say that I am always careful to look at each case individually, so I think we do need to be careful to say, oh, there’s a new coalition in town and it’s Roberts and Barrett and the liberals. I think that’s not what we’re looking at I think. What we see is that there are some cases where if there are conservatives who maybe are more likely to join with the liberals, then in some cases it is Chief Justice John Roberts and or Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And we saw that in a variety of different cases over the last year plus. But, you know, your question is a really good one. And I do think we need to be careful to say, well, here’s the new coalition. Um. Does this give us some indication that Justice Barrett, for instance, is willing to be um more of a swing justice, potentially. But again, let’s let’s be careful based on one order, based on an emergency appeal for relief. 

Jane Coaston: Changing gears a little bit. The court also heard a major case this week. Mexico is suing U.S. gun manufacturers for billions in damages, claiming that they aid and abet cartels who use those guns. The justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Why? 

Jessica Levinson: So the justices seemed skeptical of the argument because there is actually a federal statute in place that looks like it would protect gun manufacturers from these types of suits, number one. But then what you also heard the justices discuss is the larger implications. Meaning what if we allow for foreign countries to sue U.S. manufacturers when U.S. goods are used in another country in a way that U.S. manufacturers might not intend? What would what type of precedent would it set to allow those cases to move forward? 

Jane Coaston: Would a ruling in favor of the gun manufacturers change anything for gun makers here? 

Jessica Levinson: So, no, I think it would largely maintain the status quo, which is their understanding that they really can’t be sued based on this type of lawsuit. 

Jane Coaston: And late last week, the court also seemed poised to side with a straight woman in an employment discrimination case. The court seemed maybe even poised to side unanimously with her. What’s going on with this case? 

Jessica Levinson: So what’s going on with this case is that there is a straight woman who’s suing based on employment discrimination. And the question is whether or not somebody in that situation who’s a member of a majority group should have a higher burden when it comes to these types of employment discrimination cases. And I think where you see the justices united is the idea that it isn’t really based in the federal law or anything in the Equal Protection clause to create a different and higher burden for members of the majority group when it comes to these discrimination claims. That’s really Congress’s job if they want to change it. And then it’s the judges, the justices job, to look at any change and determine whether or not that’s constitutional. 

Jane Coaston: So we’re not talking about like a wholesale gutting of anti-discrimination laws with this case, right. Because I think people are worried about that with this court. But what you’re talking about is a narrow ruling that just says you can’t hold some people to a higher standard than others because they’re part of a majority group. 

Jessica Levinson: Yeah. This is a really important question because I think we hear discrimination, employment discrimination, Supreme Court case, new standards, and it can feel like it’s bigger than it is. And what I would offer is right now we’re looking at exactly what you said, which is what is the standard that a plaintiff claiming, I was the victim of employment discrimination. What is the standard that they have to use? And what it looks like the Supreme Court will say is that the standard is going to be the same, whether or not you are a member of a majority group or a minority group. 

Jane Coaston: It’s March, which means we’re a little more than halfway through the Supreme Court’s term. What are some of the other big cases on the horizon that you’re keeping an eye on? 

Jessica Levinson: I think at this point, one of the biggest cases of the term is the Skrmetti case, which was already argued. And that’s a case dealing with states ability to limit gender affirming care for minors. And that’s a case that obviously is not just a hot button issue, but it has serious implications for other states, um for individuals who want this type of care. And it will give us a little bit of an indication, I think, about the justices thinking when it comes to the Equal Protection clause. I will say the other thing that we’re looking for is actually the thing that we started talking about, which is when I looked at the cases that the justices decided to take this term, and many others did as well. It looks like maybe a little bit of a light term. Certainly they are continuing to hear important cases, but I think that they know this might not be the last Trump related case that they hear. 

Jane Coaston: Right. I think that that leads to my next question, which is, are there other cases making their way through the courts right now that the court will likely have to step in on? Because we’re already seeing there’s a lot of legal wrangling over DOGE, legal wrangling over any number of actions by the Trump administration. Are we going to see them step in like we saw with the USAID decision? 

Jessica Levinson: Yes. And we should be clear that the court hasn’t really stepped in on the USAID decision. They just looked at whether or not they were going to grant emergency relief. But in answer to your larger question, absolutely. I mean, there have been so many suits in response to these executive actions. Now, we should tell people who are listening and watching. It doesn’t mean that these cases will be heard this term. I mean, we should be looking at a horizon of a year or two for some of these cases. We know that they kind of bounce up and down through the federal court system. But, you know, if we look back to the first days of the Trump administration, we are still litigating birthright citizenship. We’re still talking about funding freezes and the Impoundment Act. We are looking at the firing of federal employees. We’re looking at DOGE and how DOGE is operating. So there are many issues that the court may have to at some point decide. And what I would just flag for everybody is in a lot of these cases, there’s kind of a two step process. The first is more of a procedural question. Did the federal government and specifically the executive branch, did they go about trying to undertake this action in the right way. For instance, is this the right agency and or is the executive order itself so vague that they need to go back and start again? And then there’s the deeper, more substantive question of things like does the chief executive, does the president have the power to say we’re not spending those funds, or does the president have the power to issue an executive order trying to um, in my mind, change our understanding of birthright citizenship? So long answer to yes, yes and absolutely yes. 

Jane Coaston: Jessica, thank you so much for joining me. 

Jessica Levinson: Thank you. 

Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. We’ll link to her podcast Passing Judgment in our show notes. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe. Leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today. 

[sung] Headlines. 

[clip of Karoline Leavitt] We are going to give a one month exemption on any autos coming through USMCA. 

Jane Coaston: The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it’s delaying tariffs on automobiles from Mexico and Canada for one month. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that President Trump spoke with the Big Three automakers Ford, General Motors and Stellantis about the issue Wednesday. USMCA is the free trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico that was signed during Trump’s first term. Leavitt read a statement from the president to reporters during a briefing Wednesday. She said that the president’s advice to the automakers was to use the extra time wisely. 

[clip of Karoline Leavitt] He told them that he, they should get on it, start investing, start moving, shift production here to the United States of America, where they will pay no tariff. That’s the ultimate goal. 

Jane Coaston: Yeah, they should just shift the global supply chain of major auto manufacturers in a month. Seems normal and reasonable. Canada didn’t take very kindly to the sentiment. Ontario Premier Doug Ford told reporters Wednesday that he and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will not be taking Trump’s advice. He said, quote, “we are not going to budge.” And let’s not forget. Trump still has those reciprocal tariffs coming down the pipeline. Those go into effect April 2nd. Some federal workers who were fired by the Trump administration are getting their jobs back. Federal officials on Wednesday ordered the Department of Agriculture to reinstate nearly 6000 workers it fired last month. The USDA must allow employees to work for 45 days, while legal challenges to the mass firings play out in court. The centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reinstated some of its employees. The health agency has asked nearly 200 staffers to come back to work. Folks who were laid off reportedly received an email Tuesday saying they could go back to work the very next day. You know how everyone loves a whipsaw employment experience. But it’s unclear if the return to work is permanent. The CDC, like every other federal agency, has been directed to make a plan for how to cut costs by March 13th. Last week, a judge ruled that the Office of Personnel Management overstepped its authority when it ordered several federal agencies to let go of nearly 200,000 employees. The office walked back its order Tuesday. 

[clip of Representative Dan Newhouse] The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, performed one of the most shameful acts that I’ve ever seen on this floor. 

Jane Coaston: January 6th would like a word. Republican Representative Dan Newhouse of Washington introduced a resolution to censure Texas Democrat Al Green Wednesday. The censure is in response to Green’s disruption during President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night. Green heckled Trump when he called his electoral victory a quote, “mandate.” Green was then removed from the House floor. Following the address, house speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that Green, quote, “made history in a terrible way.” Back on the House floor Wednesday, Green said he doesn’t feel bad about it. 

[clip of Al Green] I rise to explain why I did what I did, And I did it with intentionality. The president indicated that he had a mandate. I said to the president, you do not have a mandate to cut Medicaid. I have constituents who need Medicaid. They will suffer and some will die if they don’t get Medicaid. 

Jane Coaston: Democrats tried to table the censure resolution, a public condemnation of a House members behavior Wednesday, but fell short of the majority needed to stop it from advancing. The House could hold a final vote on the matter as early as today. A new study has found that allergy season is getting longer and climate change could be the culprit. The analysis published Wednesday by Climate Central, a research and communications group, found climate change contributes to earlier, longer, worse allergy seasons for millions of people across the country who suffer from seasonal allergies to pollen. Crooked climate correspondent Anya Zoledziowski said that’s because we’re seeing more freeze free days each year. 

[clip of Anya Zoledziowski Those are days that are above 32°F, increasing as manmade greenhouse gases warm the planet. That gives plants more time to grow and release allergy inducing pollen. 

Jane Coaston: Climate central studied nearly 200 cities. It found the freeze free growing season lengthened in 87% of those cities since 1970, with areas in the northwest and southwest experiencing the largest average change. And that’s the news. [music break] One more thing. During his joint address to Congress. Donald Trump spent a fair amount of time praising his tariffs against Canada and Mexico and excitedly describing potential agricultural tariffs he wants to aim at India, South Korea and a number of other nations. And he made sure to say that this was all going to be super great and awesome for American farmers. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] Our farmers are going to have a field day right now. So to our farmers, have a lot of fun. I love you too. I love you too. It’s all going to happen. 

Jane Coaston: This wasn’t Trump’s first tariff rodeo. Back during his first term, he launched a trade war with China and a number of other countries that led to retaliatory tariffs aimed squarely at U.S. agriculture. The result? More than $20 billion in agricultural export losses because millions of American farmers do tons of business exporting their crops overseas and with tariffs and retaliatory tariffs, that was impossible. The Trump administration even had to send billions of dollars in cash payments to farmers to try and make up for the damage. But on Tuesday night, Trump seemed to believe that the 2018 2019 tariff debacle was, you guessed it, super great and awesome. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] Then I said, just bear with me. And they did. They did probably have to bear with me again and this will be even better. That was great. 

Jane Coaston: So to learn more about how farmers are feeling in this moment, I spoke to Missouri Farmers Union Vice President Richard Oswald. He’s a farmer from Rockport. He planted his first corn crop on his family’s farm when he was 14 years old. He’s turning 75 this week. Richard, welcome to What a Day. 

Richard Oswald: Thank you. I’m glad to be with you, Jane. 

Jane Coaston: Richard, how did Trump’s tariffs impact you and other farmers during his first term in office? 

Richard Oswald: Well, the problem with tariffs is the same problem with embargoes as far as farmers are concerned. And that is that in the United States and in Missouri, farmers grow a lot of food and we grow more typically most years, just about every year, more than the United States and Missouri can use. So we rely on export markets to take care of any exports that we need to use up what we grew so that we don’t build a surplus. And surpluses have been one of the biggest problems that US farmers have had for years and years and years. So when we have policies that penalize buyers of our exports, of our excess food, then that drives down the prices for farmers and makes it tougher for us to pay our costs and to make a living. 

Jane Coaston: So now we’ve got a new round of tariffs on China, reciprocal tariffs for other countries starting next month, a freeze on USDA funding and foreign aid contracts have been revoked, for which many U.S. farmers provided crops. How are farmers in Missouri feeling right now? 

Richard Oswald: Uh. A little worried. This is something at my age that I’ve lived through before. I lived through it with Nixon and President Carter did some embargo things, and President Reagan did some things, President Ford. And each time this happens, it disrupts our markets. It drives our prices down. At a time like now. It’s spring. It’s time to plant. We have crops that we grew last year that we need to sell to finance, putting in this year’s crops. And right at the time when we need good markets to lock in prices for this year’s crop and to sell last year’s crop to pay for this year’s crops inputs, um we have all this uncertainty and we have lower prices, and it makes it really hard because farmers are small individuals. For the most part. We aren’t big corporate businesses. We’re individual people living on the land as families. And this is how we make our living. We work for ourselves. 

Jane Coaston: Trump asked farmers to bear with him. Do you think they’ll be able to? 

Richard Oswald: Well, you know, I’m sure that a lot of farmers voted for President Trump. But this is the wrong time of year. This is when we are obtaining operating loans. We are going to our banker and we are saying we need money to pay our rent. We need money to pay our farm payments, our mortgage payments. We need money to put crops into the ground to grow for this year. And bankers get nervous. And also here we’ve seen a sudden increase in interest rates the last couple of years. So the cost of borrowing is higher. So when issues like this arise and farmers are living hand-to-mouth year in and year out, paying bills on one hand, taking money in on the other and hoping that the two come together and match, it makes it hard. 

Jane Coaston: Richard, thank you so much for joining me. And also happy birthday. 

Richard Oswald: Well thank you. That’s going to be later on this week. But I guess any birthday is a good birthday right? 

Jane Coaston: I agree. 

Richard Oswald: [laugh] 

Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Missouri Farmers Union Vice President Richard Oswald. [music break]

[AD BREAK\

Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you liked the show, make sure you subscribe. Leave a review. Don’t brag about wiping your phone on a podcast if you’re under a criminal investigation, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how I do not want to help misogyny enthusiast Andrew Tate. But I will simply point out that going on podcasts and bragging about how you wipe your phone every night when the state of Florida is looking to indict you is probably a bad idea, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston, and what do I know? I’m just a woman. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Raven Yamamoto and Emily Fohr. Our producer is Michell Eloy. We had production help today from Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters, and Julia Claire. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our executive producer is Adriene Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. 

[AD BREAK]