In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks a significant federal court decision blocking the Trump administration from withholding or conditioning federal funds to UCLA in exchange for major campus policy changes. The discussion covers the court's reasoning under the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and 10th Amendments, and why the judge deemed the administration’s actions coercive. Join us for a breakdown of this breaking legal news and its broader implications for university autonomy.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

Federal Funding Leverage Challenged: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from freezing, terminating, or conditioning UC research funds—pointing out that the administration’s approach may violate legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedures Act, the First Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.

Academic Freedom & Speech Protected: The court found that forcing changes to speech policies, DEI efforts, gender healthcare, protest rules, and admissions could unlawfully coerce universities and chill free speech, especially among public university faculty and students.

States’ Rights and Spending Clause Limits: The judge ruled that federal conditions on funding can’t be so extreme they essentially take away states’ ability to decide their own policies—a “gun to the head” tactic that threatens economic stability and state sovereignty.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the escalating ICE raids and federal enforcement actions in Chicago, joined by Reuters reporter Renee Hickman. Together with Jessica Levinson, the episode explores fatal encounters involving federal agents, disputes over official narratives, and the controversies surrounding body camera requirements. We also discuss daily judicial oversight of law enforcement, its unique legal status, and challenges to the president’s order to deploy the National Guard. Tune in for a closer look at the clash between community resistance, federal enforcement, and ongoing legal battles on Chicago’s streets.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

1. Fatal Shooting Involving ICE Agents: The episode opens with the recent ICE raids in Chicago, focusing on a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent and Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, a Mexican national. The circumstances are contested, with DHS claiming agents felt threatened, while surveillance and police records suggest otherwise. This incident marks the most violent encounter since the start of the Trump administration’s Operation Midway Blitz.

2. Disputed Narratives and Lack of Accountability: Renee highlights the conflicting narratives between federal agencies and victims’ families, particularly in the cases of fatal shootings or injuries during enforcement actions. There’s an ongoing lack of clarity and accountability due to delayed or restricted investigations, including an internal probe that may be impacted by a government shutdown.

3. Judicial Oversight of Federal Agents: A rare level of judicial supervision has been imposed, compelling federal agents to report daily to a judge about any use-of-force incidents. This oversight stems from lawsuits by protesters, journalists, clergy, and others who allege excessive force during raids and demonstrations. The order has since been stayed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the future of this oversight is uncertain.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana’s redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what’s at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.

Here are three key takeaways from the episode:

Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.

Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana’s case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.

Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn’t just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.

Follow Our Host:

@LevinsonJessica