In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson previews the Supreme Court’s most anticipated pending cases as the term nears its end. She highlights upcoming decisions on nationwide injunctions, Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, evolving standards in discrimination lawsuits, and major cases involving religious exemptions and parental rights in education. Jessica offers her predictions and insight on how these rulings could shape the law and impact daily life, setting the stage for a dramatic finale to the Supreme Court term.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

Nationwide Injunctions – Trump v. Washington/New Jersey/California: This case tackles whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, as opposed to limiting decisions to just the plaintiffs in the case. The backdrop is Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which attempts to limit who qualifies as a citizen by birth.

Transgender Rights and Equal Protection – Skrmetti: The Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The predicted outcome is that the Court may allow such state restrictions, but notes there could be future challenges regarding parental rights under a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Religious Objections in Public Schools – Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum: A Maryland case considers if public schools must offer opt-outs for parents whose religious beliefs conflict with LGBTQ-inclusive materials and lessons. The prediction: the Court may require such opt-outs under the Free Exercise Clause, but will need to write the opinion carefully to avoid overly broad exemptions.

Follow Our Host and Guest:

@LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson talks with Wall Street Journal tax reporter Richard Rubin to break down the GOP’s "big beautiful" tax bill. Richard explains what’s in the bill—from tax cuts and increases to spending shifts—and who will be most affected if it passes. They discuss how the bill squeaked through the House, the major sticking points, and what’s likely to change as it moves to the Senate. Join us for a clear, accessible look at what’s inside the bill and how it could impact Americans’ wallets and the federal deficit.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

What’s Inside the GOP Tax Bill: The bill primarily extends the 2017 tax cuts, including a higher standard deduction, lower rates, and business relief, while adding temporary cuts like a boosted child tax credit and tip or overtime exemptions. To offset costs, it includes tax hikes, mainly on clean energy and high earners, major cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, and increased spending on border security and defense.

How “Typical” is This GOP Bill?: Richard describes it as a “mishmash”—there are conventional GOP elements (like tax cuts for the affluent), but also some Trump-specific provisions, like the “Trump account” (a new children’s savings account), faster write-offs for American factories, and anti-immigration measures.

The Path Forward in the Senate: Richard explains that the Senate will likely alter the House version, focusing on issues like Medicaid changes and clean energy tax credits.

Follow Our Host and Guest:

@RichardRubinDC

@LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the legal controversy over James Comey’s deleted “8647” social media post and the ensuing federal investigation. Host Jessica Levinson analyzes whether Comey’s message amounted to an unlawful threat against former president Trump or was simply protected political speech. She guides listeners through the legal standards for incitement, fighting words, and true threats, concluding that the greater threat may be government efforts to silence political opponents.

Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:

James Comey’s Social Media Post: Jessica Levinson introduces the controversy surrounding former FBI director James Comey, who is under federal investigation for a now-deleted social media post featuring shells arranged as "8647" on the beach. The crux of the issue is whether this was a coded call to "get rid of" (86) President Trump, who is both the 45th and 47th president, or simply a form of political commentary.

The Legal Question: Free Speech vs. True Threats: Levinson dives into the central legal dilemma: Was Comey advocating violence, or exercising his First Amendment right to political speech? She explains the importance of distinguishing between punishable incitement or threats and protected political advocacy.

Historical and Contextual Perspective: The episode puts this controversy in a broader context, mentioning similar uses of "86" by other politicians, notably Matt Gaetz, without triggering federal investigations. Levinson argues that context matters—whether the intent is referencing a metaphorical political ouster or a literal threat.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica