The Courts Are Speaking: Who Has The Power, Who Has The Rights, And Who Will Draw The Line?

Hot Topic Bold Talk | Rule Of Law

 

Democracy relies heavily on our collective commitment to the rule of law, ensuring that no individual or government entity is above the legal system. When we examine high-profile legal battles, understanding how the rule of law operates in human terms becomes essential for preserving our constitutional boundaries. In this episode, host Jackalyn Rainosek takes a deep dive into several major court decisions spanning voting rights, immigration policy, interstate extradition, and parental rights. By looking past the political headlines, we explore how ordinary citizens use the judicial system to check government power, why losing a court case is not the same as losing our democratic framework, and how the continuous process of constitutional government functions to protect our collective freedom.

Episode Summary Points:

  • The Supreme Court and Voting Rights: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court’s injunction regarding an executive order on mail-out voting, basing its decision on the legal concept of “ripeness” rather than determining the policy’s constitutionality.
  • Interstate Extradition Dispute: A federal judge ruled that Minnesota’s effort to compel Texas to extradite ICE officer Christian Castro was premature, highlighting the friction between state authority and interstate legal obligations.
  • Surrogacy and Parental Autonomy: A high-profile Texas custody dispute over a critically ill newborn named Rumi underscores the complex legal and ethical intersection of surrogacy contracts, parental fitness, and bodily autonomy.
  • Executive Immigration Limits: A federal court struck down the executive branch’s suspension of visa processing for nationals of 75 countries, asserting that the broad pause exceeded authority granted by federal statutes.
  • Antisemitism and Civil Rights Enforcement: A Title VI lawsuit against Harvard University was dismissed because the federal government failed to adequately plead an ongoing, institutional policy of noncompliance.
  • Citizen-Led Checks and Balances: Job Corps students successfully halted the closure of 99 vocational centers through a class action lawsuit, showing how ordinary citizens can hold executive agencies accountable.
  • Preserving the Rule of Law: Dr. Rainosek warns that reducing judicial outcomes to political identities threatens democratic institutions, noting that the rule of law requires all government power to remain subject to legal limits.

—

Watch the episode here

 

Listen to the podcast here

 

The Courts Are Speaking: Who Has The Power, Who Has The Rights, And Who Will Draw The Line?

I want to welcome you to my show. Those of you who regularly tune in to this show know that when we examine important court decisions, Attorney Richard Wilson often joins me. Richard brings his legal knowledge, his experience, and his ability to help us understand what a court is actually saying when they decide something regarding what is going on in the court rather than simply reacting to a headline. I want you to understand that.

Too many times we’re reacting to headlines, not even reading what the court has said. That’s what I think is the danger point. We must read them to understand, not pay any attention to the headlines. Now Richard is tied up in a very important case for a client of his. He is not able to join this episode. I decided that we should not abandon the examination of courts simply because Richard is not here. I found a new way to provide you with information about courts. It is a very legitimate one.

 

We must read them to understand, not pay any attention to the headlines.

 

In fact, an extraordinary number of cases are moving through the courts right now. That’s the reason I want to go through and provide some really good information to you. Many of them reach far beyond the individual names that are on these court cases or the legal documents. They involve voting. Authority of a president, power of governors. They involve immigration. They involve the rights of parents. They involve the rights of a woman who carries a baby for another couple. They involve young people whose education and vocational futures depend upon a federal program.

Throughout all of them, one question simply appears over and over again. Who has the power? Who has the authority to make the decision? What limits have been placed upon that authority? When may a court intervene? How do constitutional protections operate when different government powers collide? Where does an ordinary citizen go when the government itself may have exceeded the authority granted to it? I’m not going to pretend to be a lawyer.

I am a mental health professional. I am also a professional coach and an organizational development consultant. I’ve worked with many lawyers for a major portion of my career. My contributions to the conversation are really different. It’s because what I want us to understand is what these court cases mean in human terms. I want us to understand the legal issues. Certainly, I want us to distinguish between what a court actually decides and what a political headline may suggest it’s decided.

 

Hot Topic Bold Talk | Rule Of Law

 

Voting By Mail And The Supreme Court: What Did The Court Actually Decide?

Most of all, I want us to recognize something essential about American democracy. A court’s ruling is often not the end of this disagreement. It may be one stage in the continuing process through which constitutional government operates. This is particularly important in the first case we’re going to discuss. The first case involves voting by mail in the Supreme Court. What did the court actually decide? On August 24th, 2026, the United States Supreme Court entered an important order in David Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, versus California. This case concerns President Trump’s executive order affecting elections and mail-out voting.

 

A court’s ruling is often not the end of this disagreement. It may be one stage in the continuing process through which constitutional government operates.

 

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia had challenged portions of that executive order. A lower federal court had issued an injunction preventing certain provisions from taking effect. The government asked to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument that the injunction is causing irreparable harm and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place. The Supreme Court agreed, and it granted the stay. Of course, the six conservative judges allowed the stay just as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented together, and Justice Brown Jackson filed a separate dissent.

This is precisely where a headline can create a serious misunderstanding. Someone may say or hear that the Supreme Court sides with Trump on mail-out voting. That person may conclude the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s mail voting plan is constitutional. That is not what the court decided. The Supreme Court granted a stay of the lower court’s injunction while the case continues through the appellate process. That’s what they decided. That’s the only thing that they decided.

The court concluded that the lower court had acted too early in blocking portions of the executive order because some of the federal agencies involved had completed the rules that would put the president’s directive into practice. The Supreme Court’s own documents and docket showed that the stay remains tied to further proceedings in the First Circuit and any later petitions seeking Supreme Court review. The legal concept used in this case, which I had to study quite a lot myself. Do you understand me? It’s really quite easy. The legal concept, which has been called on here, is rightness.

Are the facts such that a decision can be made? They’re not in this case yet. Let me state that, in ordinary language, courts ordinarily decide actual disputes. The courts generally do not decide hypothetical disputes. That’s what’s going on here. If an executive order directs an agency to develop a policy and the agency has not completed that policy, a court may conclude that it does not yet know precisely what government action it is being asked to judge. That’s what happened in this case. The majority essentially concluded that parts of this dispute had reached the courts before the final governmental action existed.

This is very different from declaring the policy constitutional, and the distinction really matters. The Supreme Court specifically did not resolve the ultimate legality or constitutionality of the executive order. Campaign Legal Center, which is involved in the litigation over the order, emphasises exactly that point in its description of the August 24th ruling. Let me ask and make you realize what the most important question is. What did the Supreme Court decide? What did any courts decide about a case? We need to ask that question.

The Supreme Court decided that the lower court’s injunction could not remain in place at this stage of the case. What did the Supreme Court not decide? It did not finally decide whether the president possessed the constitutional or statutory authority to impose these male voting restrictions. That question remains alive. Immediately, something very important happened. The legal landscape changed.

Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund announced another legal action challenging a new United States Postal Service rule connected with the president’s executive order. Their clients include the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Arizona Students Association, Secure Families Initiative, the city of Madison, Wisconsin, and Travis County, Texas. The challenges argue that the Postal Service’s new rule could delay ballots, create barriers for voters, and improperly implement the president’s directives concerning mail voting.

This is where the opinion and the advocacy of Austin Weatherford become especially relevant. I recommend that you read these materials because they’re excellent. Weatherford’s largest point is that losing one stage of a legal fight does not necessarily end the fight. The Supreme Court said, in essence, that the earlier challenge had arrived before final agency action existed. Final government action began to emerge. The challengers responded. That is how litigation often works. A court identifies a procedural problem. The fact is developed. An agency takes a final action. A new legal challenge becomes ripe.

Another court examines the completed government policy. This is one of many important things. I want you, as an audience, to realize what happens in court cases. Our judicial system is not a single dramatic moment in which nine judges announce who wins forever. Cases move, issues narrow, orders are stayed. Rules are finalized, new plaintiffs appear, new injuries occur, and appeals are filed. Questions are returned to the court in different legal forms. That brings us to the larger constitutional issue. The Constitution gives states substantial responsibility for administering elections.

 

Our judicial system is not a single dramatic moment in which nine judges announce who wins forever. Cases move, issues narrow, orders are stayed.

 

Congress also possesses extensive authority over federal elections. The president’s role is different. The central issue eventually becomes, how far may a president go in directing federal agencies to reshape election procedures that Congress and the states have historically administered? That is an important question that has not been resolved. We also need to consider what is at stake beyond legal theory. Mail voting is extremely important to elderly Americans. It’s used by people who have disabilities. They are citizens of the United States. It’s used by military personnel.

Are Americans living overseas? It is used by people whose work schedules make Election Day voting difficult. It is used by Republicans, Democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, and people who would rather never discuss politics with anyone. Therefore, when the government changes the rules governing mail ballots, the question is not merely who gains political power. The more fundamental question is what procedures protect the ability of eligible Americans to cast a lawful ballot and have that ballot counted? That is the democratic issue underlying this litigation.

Texas, Minnesota, And An ICE Agent: Can One State Prevent Another State From Prosecuting a Crime?

The next one I want to talk about and give you some previews too. Is a case that involves Texas and Minnesota about an ICE agent. The question is, can one state prevent another state from prosecuting a crime? You’ll hear where the conflict really occurs. It sounds like a dispute between two governors. It is much more serious than that. It is much more serious than a conflict between two governors. An ICE officer named Christian Castro has been charged in Minnesota with assault and falsely reporting a crime arising from a January 14th incident in Minneapolis.

According to the charges, Castro fired through the door of a home and injured Julio Cesar Sosa Celis. Authorities also alleged that Castro falsely described what happened during the encounter. Minnesota once Castro returned to the state to face those charges. Castro was arrested in Texas. Minnesota wants him by extradition. Texas Governor Greg Abbott did not immediately approve the request. Watch what he does. Minnesota went into federal court seeking an order that would force Texas to move forward. On August 26, the US judge, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., rejected Minnesota’s request.

He said that the federal intervention was premature. Abbott had not formally refused the extradition request. Texas officials maintained that they were still examining whether Castro legally qualified as a fugitive. The judge realized something else. He concluded that he could not compel Texas to go through the process of extradition since they had not finished their investigation. This led to another thing that happened. Under Texas law, Castro could not remain jailed indefinitely without completion of an extradition process.

After 90 days in custody, he was released. Associated Press reported on August 27th that Castro had been released after the extradition remained unsolved. Minnesota officials have expressed concern that he could leave the country. Think about what this means. A man has been charged with crimes in one state. He is physically located in another state. The first state says, “Send him back so that our criminal justice system can determine whether he is guilty.” The second state governor says, “We are still examining the request.” The clock runs out. This takes us directly to the Constitution.

Article four contains what is commonly called the extradition clause. The basic principle is that a person charged with a crime in one state should not be able to avoid prosecution simply by entering another state. Imagine the alternative. Imagine that a person is charged with murder in New York and travels to Florida. Imagine that someone is charged with fraud in Texas and travels to California, or imagine that someone is accused of assault in Minnesota and travels to Texas, which is what this case is about.

If governors could routinely refuse extradition based upon political agreements or disagreements with another state’s prosecution, the United States could begin functioning as 50 separate criminal sanctuaries. The Supreme Court addressed this principle decades ago and recognized federal authority to enforce interstate extradition obligations. The Texas-Minnesota confrontation raises an extraordinary question. What discretion does a governor actually possess when another state presents a lawful extradition demand?

Another question is, when does legitimate review become unlawful obstruction? Again, consider this question. When does legitimate review by the Texas governor become unlawful obstruction? Castro is out of jail. The federal judge has not ruled that Texas may permanently refuse Minnesota’s request. The judge concluded that Minnesota’s efforts to compel action were not ready for federal jurisdiction intervention while Texas continued to characterize itself in the process. It’s not in process since he’s out of jail. They may be saying they’re in process and review. He is out of jail.

That distinction is really important. Once again, the court did not necessarily decide the ultimate issue. It decided what could be ordered at that moment in time with the facts they had. Now consider another troubling element. The underlying allegations involve an ICE officer acting during a period of aggressive federal immigration enforcement. Federal authorities initially accused two Venezuelan men of assaulting an officer. A later investigation of the video evidence raised serious questions about Castro’s account of what occurred, and the federal charges against those two men were dropped.

Now Castro himself faces state criminal charges. I want us to stay very grounded in this case. A criminal charge is not a criminal conviction. Castro is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He has the right to counsel. He has the right to challenge the evidence. He has the right to a trial. Those protections are part of the rule of law. At the same time, the existence of those protections strengthens the argument that he should appear in the jurisdiction where the charges have been filed. A courtroom is where evidence is tested. A courtroom is where witnesses are challenged.

 

A courtroom is where evidence is tested. A courtroom is where witnesses are challenged. A courtroom is where a state, the state itself, must prove its case.

 

A courtroom is where a state, the state itself, must prove its case. A courtroom is where a defendant may demonstrate that the government’s case fails. Ask yourself, what happens when the political power of one state, Texas, prevents another state’s court, Minnesota’s, from even reaching that stage of having a court case about a criminal action? What does it mean? This case may eventually tell us much more about the question. Castro does have the right to be tried in a court, to be well represented. The court ultimately decides based on the facts.

One Woman Conceived A Child. Another Carried Him. Who Is The Mother?

We have to remember that the governor of Texas decided to outweigh a law in Texas, so they have released Castro at this point. They may act as though they’re continuing to investigate. He is out of jail. The next case is one where a woman conceived a child, carried him, the child. The question now is, who is the mother? We’re now moving from federalism and criminal law into one of the most painful and emotionally complicated cases that I’ve encountered in some time. I’ve been in family practice as a therapist. I’ve testified in family cases.

In this case concerning a baby named Rumi, there is a real problem since who has the right to Rumi? Is it his genetic parents? A California couple. The woman is Gilkar, and the father is Ahmed. They entered into a surrogacy agreement with McKinney West, a nurse from Alaska. Gilkar and Ahmed are the child’s genetic parents. West carried the pregnancy.

During the pregnancy, doctors identified and discovered that the fetus had hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital condition in which the left side of the heart is critically underdeveloped. The condition requires major medical intervention. The parents considered terminating the pregnancy. West ultimately refused to undergo an abortion, so she traveled to Texas. Texas has probably one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws. She gave birth in Dallas on August 12th.

What do we do? What’s going on in this case? Who has the authority over this job? It’s a very painful reproductive conflict that has now become a custody fight since Rumi was born here. West sought authority over the child, arguing she had acted to protect his life, she had acted to protect his life and questioning whether the genetic parents would pursue the treatment he needed. Gilkar and Ahmed maintained that they are the child’s parents, that they love their son, and that a prior discussion about terminating a medically dangerous pregnancy does not erase their parental rights once their child has been born.

August 25th hearing in Dallas, the judge did not issue a final custody determination. The existing restraining order prevents West from exercising authority over the baby. It remains in effect. Rumi remains critically ill following treatment for his heart condition. This case is difficult precisely because human emotions are real on both sides. A woman carried a seriously ill fetus. The genetic parents confronted devastating medical news about the child they hoped to have. Doctors describe difficult medical realities.

A surrogacy contract contained expectations concerning reproductive decisions. The woman carrying the pregnancy made a decision different from the decisions sought by the intended parents or anything that happened agreed to in the contract. The baby was born. At that moment, several areas of law collide all at once. Contract law, surrogacy law, reproductive autonomy, parental rights, medical decision-making, interstate jurisdiction, Texas abortion laws. Perhaps one of the oldest questions about a human being is what we’re talking about.

Who is the human being who needs to be the parent? What makes someone a parent? Is it genetic? Is it pregnancy? Is it birth? Is it the intent of the individuals? Is it a contract? Is it the care of Rumi? What legal recognition do we need? What combination of things do we have to consider? There are Texas lawyers who have been interviewed about the case and have warned that the dispute could have far-reaching implications for surrogacy arrangements.

The Texas Tribune reported that attorneys are closely examining what this conflict can mean for the security of the intended parents’ rights and for contractual provisions involving abortion. Consider the implications. If a surrogate can acquire parental rights over a genetically unrelated child simply through giving birth, intended parents may have no certainty that their legal agreement will be honored. At the same time, if a concrete force can force pregnant women to terminate a pregnancy against their wishes, we encounter a profound question about bodily autonomy.

 

If a contract can force pregnant women to terminate a pregnancy against their wishes, we encounter a profound question about bodily autonomy.

 

Those two principles collide directly. A contract matters, while the autonomy for rental rights matters, the child’s medical needs matter, and state law matters. That is what makes this case very hard. There may not be one principle that resolves everything cleanly. Now, another troubling question has entered the case. West’s authorities have argued that Gilker and Ahmed’s earlier desire to terminate the pregnancy raises questions about their commitment to their son’s medical care.

However, the parents strongly reject that suggestion. This requires enormous care. A decision concerning whether to continue a pregnancy after a devastating fetal diagnosis is not identical to the decision concerning whether to care for a child after birth. Those are legally and ethically different moments. Once Rumi was born, his genetic parents authorized medical treatment. The Texas Tribune reported that the child underwent heart surgery under the care of these biological parents. Another legal question becomes, can an earlier reproductive decision be used later as evidence against someone’s parental fitness? Think about the implications beyond this family. A woman receives a catastrophic prenatal diagnosis.

She receives a very dramatic prenatal diagnosis. She considers abortion. She ultimately continues the pregnancy. Could someone later argue that merely considering abortion makes her less qualified to be a parent? A couple discusses every possible medical option with the doctors. Does that conversation later become evidence against them? That’s the extraordinary proposition that we’re dealing with. We need to watch what this court ultimately decides. We also need to remember something very important. There is a critically ill baby at the center of all this. He is not a constitutional theory. He is not a political slogan, which is happening.

Seventy-Five Countries And A Federal Judge: How Much Immigration Power Does A President Possess?

He is not an abortion talking point, which is another thing that is occurring. He is a child receiving intensive medical care. Whatever the courts ultimately determine, his welfare must remain central in this case. Another case involved 75 countries and a federal judge. How much immigration power does a president possess? We’re going to turn to immigration. The Trump administration’s spending on immigration visa processing for nationals of 75 countries. The administration’s stated concern involves the federal government’s public charge rules.

The concept that immigration officials may consider whether an applicant is likely due depends substantially upon public assistance. The administration adopted a broad suspension affecting people from dozens of countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Somalia, and many others. On August 21st, the US District Judge Jeanette Vargas in New York struck down the policy. She concluded that the policy was contrary to law and exceeded the authority provided by federal immigration statutes. The ruling required the administration to resume processing affected immigrant visas.

Here again, the legal distinction matters. This was not primarily a case about illegal border crossing. These are people who are attempting to use the legal immigration system we have in the United States. Some were seeking immigrant visas to reunite with their spouses or family members. Some were pursuing lawful pathways authorized by Congress. The administration had effectively created a broad nationality-based pause.

Judge Vargas concluded that federal law requires consular officials to perform individualized visa determinations rather than having the State Department categorically halt processing for nationals of dozens of countries under this policy. This takes us to a recurring issue. In the Trump era litigation. What is the difference between presidential authority and congressional authority? The president possesses substantial power in immigration and foreign affairs. Congress also writes immigration law. Congress determines visa categories. Congress creates legal standards.

Congress delegates specific authority to executive agencies. A president, therefore, cannot always transform broad executive authority into permission to rewrite statutory requirements. This is a separation of powers issue underneath this case. Again, we ask an important question. When Congress establishes a legal immigration policy and process, may a president effectively close that process for entire nationalities without new congressional authorization?

 

A president cannot always transform broad executive authority into permission to rewrite statutory requirements. This is a separation of powers issue.

 

Judge Vargas said that this particular policy went too far, and this dispute also demonstrates something frequently lost in our political arguments about immigration. There is a big difference between crossing a border unlawfully versus asylum, holding a temporary visa, applying for permanent residency, or seeking immigration. A visa from abroad or becoming a naturalized citizen. We damage public understanding when we throw every one of these legal categories into one word, immigration. The law does not treat them as identical. Courts do not treat them as identical. Therefore, you and I should not do it.

Harvard, Antisemitism, And Title VI: What Must The Government Prove?

Another case is Harvard, anti-Semitism, and Title VI. What must the government prove? Now, when we examined this case, the federal government’s case was against Harvard University. The Trump administration accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment. No responsible discussion of this case should minimize anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is real. Jewish students deserve the right to be saved.

Jewish Americans deserve equal protection. Universities have obligations under federal civil rights law to protect these individuals. The legal question in this particular case was narrowed. Had the federal government adequately alleged an ongoing institutional violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act? On August 13th, the US District Judge Richard Stearns dismissed the government’s lawsuit. His ruling focused heavily upon what the government actually pleaded. The government pointed largely to incidents from the 2023 and 2024 academic years following the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel.

Judge Stearn was very clear in his decision. He concluded that the four recent instances identified by the government were too isolated and too episodic to plausibly demonstrate that Harvard continued to maintain an anti-institutional policy of noncompliance with Title VI. He also noted that Harvard had undertaken reforms addressing campus conduct and anti-Semitism. His decision was narrow. He did not debate that anti-Semitism had never existed at Harvard. He did not declare that every university response was appropriate. He did not declare that the Jewish students had no legitimate grievances.

He concluded that the federal government had failed to adequately plead the ongoing Title VI violation required for the enforcement action it brought. That distinction is enormously important. A court case is not being decided until we ask, did something bad happen? A court must ask, what laws apply? What elements does that law require? What facts has the plaintiff alleged? Do these facts satisfy those legal elements? This is one of the areas where public reaction and legal analysis are often separate. Someone can believe that the hard and mishandling of anti-Semitism and still conclude that this particular federal lawsuit is going to fail.

Someone can believe that Jewish students experienced unacceptable treatment and still recognize that the government must satisfy the statutory requirements Congress established. This is not indifference to anti-Semitism. This is how laws work. The government must prove the case it filed. Judge Stearns also explained an important principle about civil rights enforcement. The purpose of an enforcement action is fundamentally to bring an institution into compliance with federal law.

If an institution changes practices and remedies the violation, that matters. According to the court, Harvard had adopted reforms before the federal government filed this lawsuit, including changes addressing demonstrations, discipline, viewpoint diversity, and antisemitism. That gives us another large question. What is the purpose of the government’s enforcement? What is the administration trying to enforce? Is it a correction? Is it compliance? Is it punishment for what Harvard does as an institution? Is it political pressure to make them do something that the president wants them to do?

Job Corps: When Going To Court Changes Thousands Of Lives

Courts are often asked to distinguish among those motives through the neutral application of law. Let me repeat that. Courts are often asked to distinguish among these motives I’ve listed through the neutral application of law. Neutral, not political reaction. Judicial scrutiny is essential no matter which political party controls the government. Another case is about the Job Corps. Where going to court changes thousands of lives.

The Job Corps, I want to talk about it, because it is one of the most outstanding things that was established in 1964. It provides a clear picture of what courts can mean in ordinary people’s lives. Listen carefully because whatever happens with the case matters to all of us. If people can get away with eliminating the rights of individual human beings who are benefiting from the Job Corps because Trump wanted to close 99 Job Corps centers around the country. Please know what happened in 1964. The program provides education and vocational training to young people, particularly young adults facing significant economic barriers.

For some participants, Job Corps is more than a training program. It provides housing, education, and career preparation, and makes their lives much more stable. It may represent the first genuine effort a young person has made to build an independent life. I’m very familiar with this program. I’m amazed at the results they’ve had over the years of creating really fine citizens from this program. Seven Job Corps students were represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Department of Labor’s efforts to shut down the centers. The federal district court had already stayed the closure directions, finding that the students were likely to show that the government’s actions violated provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Something significant happened. In August of 2026, the Trump administration entered into a settlement. The Department of Labor agreed to fully and unconditionally rescind the termination notices sent through the operators of the 99 Job Corps Centers and to abandon its nationwide suspension of contractor-operated centers.

Think about those words. Fully and unconditionally rescinded their actions. This is what a lawsuit can accomplish. The students did not have the political power of a governor. They did not have the authority of a cabinet secretary. They did not control Congress. They went to court. Their lawyers argued that the executive branch was trying to dismantle a program in a manner Congress had not authorized. The court intervened. The program survived. That is one of the reasons organizations such as Public Citizen really matter to us.

They certainly matter to me. I keep up with them, Public Citizen, because they help establish and support our constitutional system. They provide legal representation in disputes where the person affected may possess very little institutional power. This is also where I want us to widen our understanding of the phrase checks and balances. We often talk about checks and balances as the Congress checks the president, the president vetoes the Congress, and the Supreme Court checks both.

That is part of the structure. There are many other layers to this, though. Citizens themselves can activate the system. A worker files a lawsuit, a student files a lawsuit, a state files a lawsuit, a city files a lawsuit. A civil rights group files a lawsuit. A university challenges the government. A parent seeks an injunction. A person accused of a crime demands due process. A voter challenges an election rule. The judiciary does not ordinarily roam around our country seeking constitutional violations. Someone has to bring the case.

Austin Weatherford’s Message: Fighting Back Through The Law

Someone has to say, “The government’s actions injured me. This law exceeds constitutional authority. This agency did not follow the statute. This official is preventing me from exercising a right.” The judicial system begins to operate. Now I’ve included Austin Weatherford’s message, fighting back through the law, because I believe his commentary in this fits very well with this episode for many important reasons. His organization is not responding to judicial setbacks by declaring the judicial system useless, which is what I hear a lot of people saying. It is responding by using the system that distinguishes matters that are extremely important.

After the Supreme Court lifted the earlier injunction involving the mail voting executive order, Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund persuaded another challenge directed at the Postal Service’s developing rule. The new action followed a very logical step that the Supreme Court identified. The earlier court challenge had encountered a problem of timing. A more concrete policy existed. The challengers attacked the concrete policy. Campaign Legal Center reported on August 25th that the new complaint seeks to prevent the implementation of what is argued as unlawful new barriers to mail voting before the November midterm elections.

This is something I want you, as an audience, to realize about political perspectives you hear. There are times when you will agree with the person suing the government. There are times when you will disagree. There will be cases filed by liberals. There will be cases filed by conservatives. There will be cases filed by religious liberty groups. There will be reproductive rights lawsuits, there will be gun rights suits, there will be voting rights lawsuits, there will be immigration lawsuits, there will be lawsuits challenging Democratic presidents, and there will be lawsuits challenging Republican presidents.

The constitutional principles cannot depend upon whether we like the plaintiff. If we believe courts should restrain presidential power only when the president belongs to the party we oppose, we do not actually understand or believe in limited presidential power. If we support federalism only when our preferred state is resisting Washington, we do not actually have a principle of federalism. If we support due process only for people we admire, we do not have due process. Constitutional principles become meaningful precisely when they protect people we may not choose to protect personally.

What These Cases Have In Common

Again, constitutional principles become meaningful precisely when they protect people we might not choose to protect personally. That is the test for us. You can ask yourself, what do these cases have in common? At first glance, these cases seem totally unrelated. A mail ballot has very little in common with a critically ill newborn. A university civil rights lawsuit seems far removed from an ICE extradition dispute. Job Corps’s students seem far removed from the immigrant waiting for a visa overseas. If the same fundamental questions run through every case, what authority did the government receive?

In the voting case, we ask whether presidential authority reaches into election administration in the manner attempted. In the immigration case, we ask whether the executive branch may suspend congressionally created visa processes for entire nations. In the Job Corps case, we asked whether an executive agency may effectively dismantle a program Congress created. What happens when the government disagrees? Minnesota says Texas must return a person charged with crimes. Texas says its governor has more to review in the conduct. Yet the person is out of jail.

Federal courts have been asked to determine where one state’s authority ends and another state’s authority begins. Where does the other state’s authority have obligations? Where do they begin? What happens when legal rights collide? The surrogacy case presents bodily autonomy, parental rights, contractual obligation, medical decision-making, and the welfare of a newborn all at once. I’ve stood for many years for the right to choose what happens to their anatomy. Yet I can look at this case and say the genetic parents have rights as well. What was in the original contract?

Now the decisions by this child have been made by the genetic parents. Where is the welfare of the child being considered? There’s no slogan large enough to resolve all these complex interests. What must the government prove before imposing consequences? The Harvard case reminds us that accusations, even accusations involving serious wrongdoing, still must satisfy the requirements of the law being enforced. The government is not relieved of its burden simply by identifying conduct that shocks or creates anger in its political supporters.

Courts Are Not Supposed To Make Us Comfortable

What happens when ordinary people challenge powerful institutions? Job Corps students sued, voting organizations sued, states sued, universities fought back, and parents went to court. These cases are reminders that legal standing is more than a technical phrase. It is the doorway through which individuals and organizations ask judges to look at the law and the facts of the case and determine where governmental power exists. Courts are not supposed to make us comfortable. There is one more important thing that I want to address.

We increasingly talk about court decisions the same way we talk about elections. Our side won. Their side lost. “That was a conservative judge. That was a liberal judge. That was a Trump judge. That was an Obama judge or a Biden judge.” Those descriptions tell us something about who appointed the judge. They do not tell us whether the legal reasoning is sound. If every court decision is reduced to political identity, we risk destroying the very institution we later expect to protect us. Of course, we’ll make decisions we dislike. They will sometimes make decisions we believe are profoundly wrong.

 

If every court decision is reduced to political identity, we risk destroying the very institution we later expect to protect us.

 

The Supreme Court has made terrible decisions in American history. It upheld racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. It upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. United States. It produced Dred Scott, which is a dreadful case. It’s one of the darkest decision-making of the Supreme Court in our constitutional history. Courts are human institutions. Judges fail. Judges can interpret law badly. Precedents can be overturned, yet the answer to flawed courts cannot simply be, “Ignore the court whenever we lose.”

The constitutional answer is, “Challenge the decision, appeal, support those who are litigating the next case, pass legislation where Congress has authority, amend laws, organize, vote, educate people, support legal organizations, protect independent courts, demand ethical conduct from judges, insist that presidents obey court orders, and continue participating in our system.” This is what constitutional democracy requires.

The Difference Between Losing A Case And Losing The Rule Of Law

The difference between losing a case and losing the rule of law is a dramatic thing to consider. It’s probably the most important distinction I’m going to ask you to consider in this show. Losing a case is not the same as losing the rule of law. A party goes to court, the judge rules against that party, and the losing side appeals. This is a legal system operating. The danger begins when someone says, “The court ruled against me. Therefore, the court has no authority over me,” or “I’ll obey the judge only if I agree with the outcomes.” The Constitution gives me power. Therefore, no one may review how I exercise it. That is different.

The rule of law requires that government power remain subject to law. Presidents are subject to the law. Governors are subject to the law. Cabinet owners are subject to the law. Universities receiving federal funding are subject to the law. Police officers are subject to the law. Immigration officers are subject to the law. Citizens are subject to law, and judges themselves are subject to constitutional limits. No one is supposed to be above the law. That citizen has become so familiar that sometimes we stop hearing it. It’s important for you to hear it. No one is above the law.

 

The rule of law requires that government power remain subject to law. Presidents are subject to the law. Governors are subject to the law.

 

What would those words mean if they were real? They would mean that an ICE officer accused of assault receives due process and still must answer for criminal charges. This would mean that a president with enormous immigration authority still cannot exceed the authority that was given to Congress. It means that federal civil rights enforcement must satisfy federal civil rights laws. It means that a federal agency cannot erase a congressional program merely through administrative action if the governing statute does not permit it.

It also means that voting rules remain subject to constitutional review. It means that even the Supreme Court’s temporary orders can lead to later litigation or a completed government policy. That is the rule of law in action. It looks messy sometimes, it looks slow, it’s frustrating, it’s sometimes inconsistent. It remains infinitely preferable to allow one person to decide what the law is. Where do we draw the line?

Who Will Draw The Line?

Let’s return to the title of this episode. Courts are speaking. Who has the power, who has the rights, and who will draw the line? The answer is not simple. The Supreme Court is the answer is much larger. The Constitution draws the lines. Congress draws the lines through legislation. States exercise authority within constitutional boundaries. Presidents exercise executive power within constitutional boundaries. Judges interpret those boundaries when genuine disputes reach them. Attorneys bring cases, organizations finance litigation, citizens serve as plaintiffs, and voters elect lawmakers.

Journalists investigate what the government is doing, and all of us have a reasonable need to understand enough about our system to recognize when those boundaries are being tested. That is what connects every story we have discussed. In the mail voting case, the Supreme Court did not settle the ultimate constitutional question. The fight is going to continue. In the Texas-Minnesota extradition dispute, a federal judge declined to force immediate action while Texas continues its review. The underlying criminal charges remain.

In Dallas, a critically ill baby’s future has brought surrogacy, reproductive autonomy, parental rights, medical care, and interstate law into one courtroom, and no final custody determination has yet been made. In New York, a federal judge told the administration that its 75-country visa processing suspension exceeded the statutory authority Congress had provided. In Massachusetts, a federal judge dismissed the government’s anti-Semitism lawsuit against Harvard after concluding that the government had not adequately alleged an ongoing Title VI violation.

In Washington, Job Corps students and their attorneys used the courts to stop the attempted closure of 99 Job Corps centers. The administration ultimately agreed to rescind that effort entirely. Different people in each, different courts, different laws are involved, and different political consequences. There is one fundamental principle. Power must have limits. I want to leave you with something else. Democracy is not protected only on election day. Democracy is protected when a citizen files a lawsuit. It is protected when an attorney challenges an unconstitutional action.

It is protected when a judge requires the government to produce evidence. It is protected when a defendant receives due process. It is protected when an appellate court corrects a lower court. It is protected when Congress writes clear laws. It is protected when organizations such as Public Citizen, Campaign Legal Center, and many others use the judicial system rather than surrendering when government power appears overwhelming. Democracy is protected when ordinary Americans refuse to stop paying attention. Austin Weatherford’s response to the mail voting decision represents the final point that I’d like to make.

The message was not “We lost, so democracy is over.” The message was that the facts have changed. The government has acted. There’s another legal avenue. We continue. That is resilience. That is citizenship. That is what participation in a constitutional democracy looks like. We do need rules. We need evidence. We need due process. We need independent courts. Need public officials who understand that authority is not ownership. We need public officials to understand that authority is not ownership. We need citizens asking these questions. What is happening?

What law applies? What authority does this official possess? What limits exist on that authority? When should the courts intervene? How can citizens respond lawfully? Where do we go when the government exceeds its power? Those questions belong to all of us. This is not merely the work of lawyers. It is the work of citizenship. Perhaps that is the greatest lesson that these cases offer us. These cases are speaking to us. The question now is whether we are listening closely enough to understand what they are actually saying. My name is Dr. Jackalyn Rainosek. Thank you so much for joining me for this special court focus of the show.

 

Important Links

Voting, Mail Ballots, and Presidential Authority

Texas, Minnesota, ICE, and Interstate Extradition

Surrogacy, Parental Rights, and Reproductive Autonomy

Immigration and the 75-Country Visa Processing Suspension

Harvard, Antisemitism, and Title VI

Job Corps and the Power of Citizens to Challenge Government Action

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *