In this episode, Jessica Levinson unpacks the major legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze on federal research funding that impacts vital medical studies. Harvard argues the cuts violate its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming they're being punished for not complying with federal demands related to antisemitism policies. The Trump administration insists it’s merely a contract dispute, asserting their right to cut funding if Harvard doesn’t align with federal priorities. Jessica highlights that the judge in the case seems skeptical of the Trump administration's stance and notes that the outcome could have sweeping effects on academic freedom and federal funding for universities across the country.

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

The Legal Battle Over Federal Funding and Academic Freedom: The episode centers on the case of Harvard University vs. the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze in federal research funding to Harvard. Jessica Levinson explains that this legal clash is significant because it questions the extent of federal power over universities and touches on core issues of academic independence and freedom.

Harvard's Arguments: First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act: Harvard argues that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights—claiming it’s being punished for not complying with federal demands that affect speech and institutional governance. Additionally, Harvard contends the Trump administration failed to follow the correct legal processes outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, making the funding cuts arbitrary and lacking proper justification.

The Trump Administration’s Position and Judicial Skepticism: The Trump administration frames the dispute as a simple breach-of-contract issue, saying grant contracts allow for cancellation when an institution’s actions don’t align with federal priorities. In court, however, the judge sounded skeptical of the administration’s position, questioning whether the funding cut was improperly suppressing speech and whether there was enough evidence to justify such a drastic move.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson interviews Chris Stein, senior politics reporter for The Guardian US, about the "big, beautiful bill" driven by President Trump and congressional Republicans. Stein explains that the bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, primarily benefiting high earners, while also introducing new deductions and extending some relief for select groups. He highlights significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, noting these changes are delayed until after the midterms, while increased funding for immigration enforcement and the border wall takes effect more quickly. The episode also addresses the bill’s large projected impact on the federal deficit and the political strategy behind delaying the most controversial cuts. Levinson and Stein wrap up with insights into House Democrats’ push for Trump-related Epstein files, illustrating the limited tools available to the minority party.

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

Tax Changes: Immediate Relief, Long-Term Effects: The bill makes the Trump-era tax cuts permanent, creating significant (and expensive) relief that primarily benefits top earners, while also introducing temporary new cuts for working-class voters. However, not everyone qualifies, and the flipside could mean fewer resources for government programs.

Social Safety Nets: Delayed Pain, Lasting Impact: Major changes to Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps) are built in—including work requirements and shifting costs to states. Crucially, these cuts are delayed until after the next midterms, affecting rural and Trump-leaning areas the most, but the full consequences won’t be felt until later election cycles.

Immigration and Deficit: Shifting Priorities, Bigger Budget: The bill pours billions into border enforcement—including ICE, deportations, and the border wall—while still adding an estimated $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, eclipsing even the emergency pandemic-era spending.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court’s two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court’s ruling that sharply limits federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent’s focus on equal protection for transgender youth.

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

Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.

Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.

Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary’s role as a check on legislative overreach.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica