The Supreme Court wrapped it's 2025-2026 term and headed off on summer recess, so we're running through the biggest decisions from the bench. What did the court have to say about our constitution, our federal government and our individual rights?
This year they got to everything from Birthright Citizenship to mail-in ballots to executive agencies, cementing some principles and throwing others into legal limbo. A lot can change in a year, especially when nine people have the power to profoundly affect constitutional democracy.
Transcript
Hannah: [00:00:00] This is Civics 101 from NHPR. I'm Hannah McCarthy.
Nick: [00:00:04] I'm Nick Capodice.
Hannah: [00:00:05] And today, while the robes are away, the civic's hosts [00:00:10] are gonna play. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say this year. Yeah, this year. But it didn't rhyme. The [00:00:20] 2025 2026 Supreme Court term wrapped up just before July 4th. A k a the 250th [00:00:30] birthday of America. Now the Supreme Court issues decisions about cases throughout the year. Just like July is the big blockbuster month for Hollywood, [00:00:40] June tends to be the blockbuster month for the biggest, most anticipated, often most consequential decisions from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: [00:00:48] Yeah, they do seem to wait [00:00:50] until.
Nick: [00:00:50] Like, the very last minute to tell us what they think about everything, whether or not some or all of our lives are going to change. [00:01:00]
Hannah: [00:01:00] What they don't tell us, Nick, is why we have to wait till the end of term to hear certain decisions. It's probably because those are the cases [00:01:10] that require the most deliberation. That and well, maybe they're saving major constitutional releases for the last minute so they can immediately pack their bags [00:01:20] and go on summer vacation.
Nick: [00:01:22] Well, it's easier to avoid the reviews. Anna, if you're on a private island drinking out of a coconut, I guess.
Hannah: [00:01:28] I mean, if I were writing scripts with [00:01:30] the power to profoundly change American constitutional democracy. I would probably take a little time away. All right, speaking of. Let's get into it. The major [00:01:40] releases of the 2025 2026 Scotus season. You ready?
Nick: [00:01:45] Got my popcorn. Hello [00:02:00] hello. Welcome back everyone. This is Civics 101.
Hannah: [00:02:04] I'm Nick and I'm Hannah. And we are going to start with one of the biggest things to come out of the court this year. [00:02:10] The Christopher Nolan's Odyssey of Cases. Trump v Barbara.
Nick: [00:02:18] A journey to the very [00:02:20] meaning of home.
Hannah: [00:02:26] This one came out on June 30th in the last batch of [00:02:30] the summer releases. The plot. Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children who are born in the United States to parents [00:02:40] who are not in this country lawfully. Three individuals, all non-citizens of the United States, challenged this order on behalf of both themselves and [00:02:50] all people with similar situations. These three challengers, Barbara, Susan, and Mark.
Nick: [00:02:57] All three of whom chose to remain anonymous. [00:03:00]
Hannah: [00:03:00] That is right. All three remained anonymous throughout this entire thing to protect themselves and their family, and their situations vary. Our titular character, [00:03:10] Barbara, is a Honduran immigrant with a pending asylum application living in New Hampshire. She was pregnant with her daughter when Trump's order came down in October of 2025. [00:03:20] Susan is a Taiwanese citizen living in Utah whose child, born while Susan was in the United States on a student visa, had a [00:03:30] pending passport application. And finally, Mark, a green card applicant living in Florida whose undocumented wife had given birth in the spring before [00:03:40] the Trump order. Their baby had a U.S. passport. And now the issue is, is that passport's validity in question.
Nick: [00:03:49] So we've [00:03:50] got stories from across the country, across the spectrum of immigrant and citizenship status. This ensemble cast class action case is all hinging on [00:04:00] one question. If you're born here, are you an American? Regardless of your parents story, with very few specific exceptions for children [00:04:10] of diplomats and kids born in unincorporated territories.
Hannah: [00:04:13] And in the end, the Supreme Court chose to stick with the authors of the past. Six of the nine justices [00:04:20] decided that Trump's order was unlawful and birthright citizenship remained intact.
Nick: [00:04:34] Well, [00:04:30] as big as this blockbuster decision was, though, Hanna, it pretty much instantly [00:04:40] spurred a bunch of sequels. There's a proposed bill for ending birthright citizenship in American territories, one that would classify undocumented people in the US as, quote [00:04:50] unquote, invaders to try and turn Trump's order into a law, and one that would change the Immigration and Nationality Act to get around birthright citizenship. [00:05:00] Also, two new executive orders from Trump attempting to narrow the definitions of birthright citizenship and prevent pregnant non-citizens from traveling to the U.S. [00:05:10] and giving birth.
Hannah: [00:05:11] Now see the trouble with retelling a story from an executive, or even a congressional perspective, is that you're [00:05:20] dancing into constitutional territory, which is why you have a lot of experts saying eliminating birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, [00:05:30] not just a law or an executive order.
Speaker 4: [00:05:34] In a world where nine people interpret the supreme law of the land, [00:05:40] several lawmakers are wondering, can we avoid doing that thing that's basically impossible and get away with it?
Hannah: [00:05:48] And who knows? [00:05:50] They are certainly going to try. We will have to see if that one somehow How gets the green light. All [00:06:00] right. Moving on. Because there were two other big releases that same day with majorly [00:06:10] different plots.
Nick: [00:06:11] Yeah. Real barbenheimer.
Hannah: [00:06:13] We had a political drama by the name of National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Federal Election Commission, [00:06:20] Nrsc v FEC.
Nick: [00:06:25] For those who are familiar with Citizens United and the widening gyre [00:06:30] of political spending that followed, this might be of some interest.
Hannah: [00:06:34] This case should be of interest to any American who cares about money in politics. Before [00:06:40] this decision, there were limits on how much a political party could spend when they coordinated with a presidential or congressional candidate, meaning the party [00:06:50] doesn't write the candidate a check, but they foot a portion of the bill for goods and services the candidate needs to campaign.
Nick: [00:06:58] Like paying for a campaign [00:07:00] ad, for example.
Hannah: [00:07:01] Yeah. Historically that has been the primary coordinated expense. But sometimes coordinating just means that a party will pay invoices of [00:07:10] various kinds for a candidate. And again, Nick, there used to be a limit on how much they could actually pay, a limit that the Supreme Court [00:07:20] upheld back in 2001. Now, here are the plot twists that helped this case [00:07:30] to get to the Supreme Court. The National Republican Senatorial and Congressional committees sued the FEC. They said campaign finance law has changed [00:07:40] since 2001. We have super PACs now, for one thing, superPACs that exist only because the Supreme Court changed the way it thinks about First [00:07:50] Amendment rights and campaign finance law.
Nick: [00:07:53] There's that Citizens United cameo.
Hannah: [00:07:55] When their First Amendment argument failed at the appeals court level. The Supreme [00:08:00] Court took it on. And here's the question Scotus had to answer. Do these FEC limits violate the First Amendment, [00:08:10] making our 2001 ruling on limits irrelevant? Now the answer. Yes, 6 to 3. The limits do not exist.
Nick: [00:08:22] Which [00:08:20] is what makes this one kind of rhyme with Citizens United and what followed. Back then, the Supreme Court did not get [00:08:30] rid of the limit on individual direct campaign donations, and this year they did not get rid of the limit on party direct campaign contributions. They just [00:08:40] made it possible for giant entities to spend unlimited money to get a candidate elected.
Hannah: [00:08:46] With an important addition. Super PACs [00:08:50] are forbidden from coordinating with candidates. They have to do their business totally independently. But political parties, they are very [00:09:00] much allowed to be in the editing room. All [00:09:10] right. Next on the list is a double feature. West Virginia V, B, p, J and little V Hickox.
Nick: [00:09:18] This is two cases in one.
Hannah: [00:09:19] Yeah. [00:09:20] These were two situations in which two transgender athletes in two different states experienced the same legal barrier to participating in girls and women's sports, [00:09:30] namely, their states prohibited trans women and girls from participating in women's and girls sports in grade school and college. Both of these girls [00:09:40] sued, and when both of their cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court combined them.
Nick: [00:09:45] And this happens a lot. Brown v Board of Education. The landmark case that [00:09:50] ruled segregation in schools, was unconstitutional. That was a combination of five cases. And in this one, it's because the legal question is the same in both.
Hannah: [00:10:00] Right? [00:10:00] Both cases sued on an equal protections basis, although one also included a title nine claim.
Nick: [00:10:08] Title nine being the law that prohibits [00:10:10] sex based discrimination in schools.
Hannah: [00:10:12] Bingo. The Supreme Court, in another 6 to 3 decision upheld these state transgender sports bans. So what that [00:10:20] means is that states do not have to enact these bans.
Nick: [00:10:24] But if lawmakers or voters want to, they can.
Hannah: [00:10:29] And the [00:10:30] Supreme Court was clear. This decision does not apply to other educational situations, only to sports. What this does mean, however, is that in states [00:10:40] like Arizona, Washington and Colorado, where state and gender based bans are on the ballot this year, at least portions of those bands will definitively [00:10:50] be lawful if the ballot measures pass.
Nick: [00:10:58] All right. So those were [00:11:00] the three final releases of this year.
Hannah: [00:11:02] Cases with major consequences across the civic, social and political genres.
Nick: [00:11:08] So you know, what I find interesting about [00:11:10] these cases is that all of them, in one way or another, relate to elections, right? You've got a case that changes who will and will not be given [00:11:20] citizenship, and therefore will be or will be not allowed to vote one day. How much money can be spent to influence a political campaign, and the validity of proposed [00:11:30] policy that some people will vote on this November?
Hannah: [00:11:33] Right. And even for the people who are not directly affected by these decisions, the outcomes of these cases may [00:11:40] change what your state and local candidates campaign on, what voter blocs they pay more attention to, what election laws they pass in the future, what ballot measures [00:11:50] they may introduce the next time around, and of course, which candidates actually get a shot at the big time, and which are [00:12:00] drowned out by the spectacularly funded candidates. A party wants to see in power. All right. [00:12:10] The court did a lot more over the course of last term, and I'm going to lay some more plot summaries on you, so stay tuned. That's coming up after the break.
Nick: [00:12:44] We're [00:12:40] back. You're listening to Civics 101 from Wnbr. And today we are looking back at the Supreme Court's major releases [00:12:50] while they are off on their summer recess, probably sitting in a spa, Eating cucumbers and listening to water sounds.
Hannah: [00:12:58] Have you ever been to a spa, Nick? [00:13:00]
Nick: [00:13:00] No, not per se.
Hannah: [00:13:03] You know, there are often cucumbers and there are often water sounds. I will give you that. I should also say that the justices [00:13:10] do often teach and give lectures, and have to chip away at the emergency docket, aka the shadow docket over the summer. And their clerks most definitely [00:13:20] do not get the summer off. But why not spa cucumbers?
Nick: [00:13:30] All [00:13:30] right, so let's get into it. You let us in on the last three decisions that the court released before they headed off into the sunset. What else did the Supreme Court get up to this year?
Hannah: [00:13:40] I [00:13:40] got a slasher for you, Nick. Trump v slaughter.
Nick: [00:13:47] That one's too easy. Hannah.
Hannah: [00:13:51] In [00:13:50] 2025, Rebecca Slaughter was working at the Federal Trade Commission.
Nick: [00:13:56] The agency that enforces antitrust law.
Hannah: [00:13:59] Right. [00:14:00] Antitrust is designed to protect consumers and stop businesses from getting involved in all sorts of hijinks that would mess with the market. Other businesses and [00:14:10] us, the consumers. Like all other independent federal agencies, the FTC was created by Congress. And like all other independent agencies, [00:14:20] it was designed to make high stakes decisions about high stakes issues without politics getting involved. So there [00:14:30] are five FTC commissioners and they get appointed to seven year terms. This board of commissioners is bipartisan by law. So out of five, you [00:14:40] can only ever have three commissioners of one party. And there is one important piece to this whole independent agency thing. Most of them, including [00:14:50] the FTC, specify three things that could get agency leadership fired by the president, inefficiency, neglect [00:15:00] of duty or malfeasance in office.
Nick: [00:15:03] And that's actually written into the act, the law Congress passed to create the FTC. [00:15:10]
Hannah: [00:15:10] Yeah. It is actually written in part of the law. These agencies are not just supposed to be protected from Partizan decision making. They are supposed to be protected [00:15:20] from presidential political whims.
Nick: [00:15:24] Supposed to be. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the spouses.
Hannah: [00:15:29] Sounds [00:15:30] like somebody has a guess where this is going.
Nick: [00:15:33] I have a feeling somebody revived his apprentice catchphrase for this case.
Hannah: [00:15:38] And you would be right. In 2025, [00:15:40] the two Democratic commissioners at the FTC, one of whom was Rebecca Slaughter, were fired by Donald Trump. And he was vague on [00:15:50] the reason why, except to say that these Democrats did not align with the administration's priorities. Slaughter sued, saying that Trump violated [00:16:00] the law. So this case goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and they ruled 6 [00:16:10] to 3 that the law is wrong. It violates the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. The president is in charge of the executive branch and [00:16:20] can fire at will. As the opinion reads, the president is the chief magistrate with whom the buck stops.
Nick: [00:16:29] So fire [00:16:30] anybody. There are a lot of people in the executive branch.
Hannah: [00:16:35] Well, we're not talking about every single executive branch employee, many of whom have [00:16:40] civil service protections. There are other ways, of course, to eliminate people in lower positions, for example, withholding federal funding, which this administration has done [00:16:50] to great effect. Now, Nick, here is the question. This is a decision about the FTC that applies to the FTC. But what [00:17:00] about the dozens of other independent executive agencies that have similar or identical for cause removal provisions for the people who lead [00:17:10] them?
Nick: [00:17:10] I mean, if the court is saying the FTC's for cause provision is unconstitutional, doesn't that suggest that [00:17:20] the for cause thing is unconstitutional across the board?
Hannah: [00:17:24] Well, Nick, on the very same day that the court released slaughter stripping [00:17:30] protections for the people in charge of one independent agency, they released another opinion that did the exact opposite thing for [00:17:40] another independent executive agency. This one is called cook.
Speaker 4: [00:17:48] One Chef's Journey to independence [00:17:50] in the high stakes world of the Executive kitchen.
Hannah: [00:17:56] In cook v Trump, the setup is similar. Trump tries to [00:18:00] fire a head of an independent federal agency, claiming without proof or due process that she committed mortgage fraud. Not a commissioner at the FTC, but [00:18:10] a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve by the name of Lisa Cook. Lisa Cook sued. A federal judge blocked her removal from the job while her [00:18:20] lawsuit progressed, Trump said to the Supreme Court, hey, just let me fire her. And the Supreme Court said, 5 to 4. No, you cannot randomly fire [00:18:30] a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve.
Nick: [00:18:32] As in the central Bank of the United States. Why is that an exception?
Hannah: [00:18:37] Yeah. Here is the strange [00:18:40] thing. Nick. Scotus says Trump cannot randomly fire her because the law that established the Federal Reserve includes [00:18:50] a clause that requires a firing to be quote for cause.
Nick: [00:18:56] Mm. So that is weird, Hannah, because [00:19:00] I'm pretty sure you just told me that on the very same day the Supreme Court said the for cause clause in the FTC law was unconstitutional. [00:19:10]
Hannah: [00:19:10] You heard me correctly. Yes, I did just tell you that. So what exactly is going on here? Some say that the logic in this latter [00:19:20] case extends to other independent agencies. Others say, well, hang on, if the court made an exception for the Federal Reserve, will there be exceptions [00:19:30] for other agencies too?
Nick: [00:19:32] Did the court explain what makes the Federal Reserve so special?
Hannah: [00:19:37] All right. So here is how Chief Justice Roberts sees [00:19:40] it. There's a line, in his opinion, for Trump v cook, where he says that removing the protections we have for the Federal Reserve leaders would be out of step with the [00:19:50] law and out of step with, quote, our nation's tradition of central banking. Protected from political interference. [00:20:00] Thing is, Nick, the whole point of independent executive agencies is to make sure that high stakes decisions are made by [00:20:10] people who aren't worrying about the politics of those decisions. They're not supposed to be worrying about whether the president and his party don't like it. They're supposed to [00:20:20] be worrying about the economy, the law, the American people. They're supposed to be playing the long game. So here on out, the question is going to be which [00:20:30] agencies are worthy of protection from politics and which aren't. And that is a question the courts are likely going to have to decide [00:20:40] and probably more than once. All [00:20:50] right. Let's pivot here. This next case is a vampire tale. So [00:21:00] Hawaii has some pretty restrictive gun laws, including [00:21:10] one that says concealed carry permit gun owners cannot bring their gun onto private property that is open to the public like a store, a restaurant, etc., [00:21:20] without permission from the owner.
Nick: [00:21:23] Oh, I get it. It took me a second to get why this is a vampire story.
Speaker 5: [00:21:28] Won't you invite me in? [00:21:30]
Hannah: [00:21:30] Exactly. This is known as a vampire rule.
Nick: [00:21:35] Really?
Hannah: [00:21:35] Yeah, really. Whether you're packing fangs or heat, you need explicit permission [00:21:40] to cross the threshold. By the way, California also has a similar set of even stricter vampire rules. And so what happened is this gun rights advocacy [00:21:50] groups and gun owners in both states. California and Hawaii sued, arguing that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The cases got consolidated [00:22:00] and ended up before a panel of ninth Circuit judges. Now, these judges said that Hawaii's law was consistent with its legal history and why he got to keep their [00:22:10] vampire law. California's, however, was inconsistent. Their vampire law had to go. So what ended up getting appealed to the Supreme Court was the [00:22:20] decision on Hawaii's law.
Nick: [00:22:23] Count Dracula versus state of Hawaii.
Hannah: [00:22:27] Wolford v Lopez.
Nick: [00:22:29] I tried [00:22:30] for.
Hannah: [00:22:40] The [00:22:40] Supreme Court agreed in a 6 to 3 ruling that vampire laws do indeed violate the Second Amendment. And to be clear, this decision is also [00:22:50] going to impact similar laws in Maryland, New York and New Jersey.
Nick: [00:22:54] I do have to ask an important question. In all seriousness, Hannah, did the majority [00:23:00] opinion use the word vampire?
Hannah: [00:23:03] It did not.
Nick: [00:23:04] Real missed opportunity there.
Hannah: [00:23:09] Okay, Nick, just [00:23:10] a couple more major cases for you here. Some political sagas, if you will, in what promises to be a high stakes midterm. The court established some [00:23:20] major direction for how things are going to play out. First, Watson, the Republican National Committee. What happened here is that the Republican [00:23:30] National Committee claimed that federal law says ballots have to be received on Election Day in federal elections. The majority, 5 to [00:23:40] 4, disagreed. Federal law. They said, only defines when a ballot must be cast, not when it must be received.
Nick: [00:23:48] And mail in ballots [00:23:50] are huge this season, and this is the court affirming that states can count mail in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, even if they arrive [00:24:00] after Election Day.
Hannah: [00:24:01] That is correct.
Nick: [00:24:02] So just to clarify, because I'm actually not sure about this. How late can ballots actually be counted?
Hannah: [00:24:08] That is what makes this a states [00:24:10] are in charge of elections case. This decision is not saying that you have to accept postmarked ballots after Election Day. It is saying that states are allowed to have laws that [00:24:20] say, for example, we will accept your postmarked ballot up to five days after the election. Okay, last full treatment here. And this is a big [00:24:30] one, Louisiana v Calais. And this is based on a true story that goes like this. Black voters in Louisiana have long [00:24:40] been fighting to change congressional maps, the tools that divide states into voting districts. The way these maps were drawn, black voters said, diluted [00:24:50] their vote.
Nick: [00:24:51] As in, black voters had less of a say in their elections. The maps were drawn without giving them as much of a say as the white [00:25:00] majority.
Hannah: [00:25:01] Right. And the Voting Rights Act, the landmark statute of 1965, is specifically designed to stop this from happening. States are not allowed [00:25:10] to have standards or practices that result in a citizen having their voting rights denied or abridged. Keep that part in mind because I am going to come back to it. [00:25:20] Black voters sued in Louisiana, and a new map with a new majority black district was created.
Nick: [00:25:27] Right. This essentially gave black Louisianans [00:25:30] an extra opportunity to elect the candidate that they wanted. And it worked, right?
Hannah: [00:25:35] By all appearances, yes. For the first time in history, two black Louisianans [00:25:40] won congressional seats in the same election, and then a group of self-described nonblack voters sued, claiming this new district was a racial gerrymander. [00:25:50] This case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed with the group of non-Black voters.
Nick: [00:25:59] As in [00:26:00] the Supreme Court agreed that this new district violated the Voting Rights Act.
Hannah: [00:26:05] Yes, but the court did not stop there. Justice Samuel Alito [00:26:10] wrote that in order to succeed with a Voting Rights Act challenge, you have to prove that a state had the intent to [00:26:20] discriminate.
Nick: [00:26:21] And you didn't have to prove that before.
Hannah: [00:26:23] Well, the Voting Rights Act, specifically section two, stops states from having standards and practices [00:26:30] that result in votes being denied or abridged. Remember I told you I was going to come back to that results in not [00:26:40] intends to, but after Louisiana v Calais, that is all over. You now have to prove that [00:26:50] your state is motivated by racial discrimination.
Nick: [00:26:54] But how do you prove that a state can give any number of reasons for drawing a district one way or another? [00:27:00]
Hannah: [00:27:00] Well, that might be what Justice Elena Kagan was asking herself when she wrote her dissent. She said, quote, the consequences are likely to be far reaching and grave. [00:27:10] Today's decision renders section two all but a dead letter in the states where that law continues to matter, the states still marked by [00:27:20] residential segregation and racially polarized voting. Minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. Now, [00:27:40] Nick, I have to say, there are plenty of other not quite blockbuster cases that the court took on this year as well, cases that are certainly a big deal. I [00:27:50] mean, they made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but with decisions that were narrow or even kind of ambiguous. Take the Colorado conversion [00:28:00] therapy case.
Nick: [00:28:01] Colorado banned conversion therapy. A conversion therapist sued. The court said the ban was unconstitutional.
Hannah: [00:28:10] This [00:28:10] was a narrow one. The therapist who sued was a talk therapist. So the court said, all right, come on guys. We are literally talking about speech here. [00:28:20] This is a cut and dry free speech violation. And Justice Elena Kagan even went on to say, you know, if the ban had been worded differently, [00:28:30] this might have been a much more difficult decision. And then there was a case that said that Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose [00:28:40] tariffs. But the decision did not stop Trump from using other paths to impose tariffs. There was a ruling that said that police can enter a home without [00:28:50] a warrant if they are doing it to provide emergency assistance. But the cops have to exercise, quote, objective reasonableness.
Nick: [00:28:59] Ou [00:29:00] objective reasonableness. What is that? Hannah, how do you define that?
Hannah: [00:29:05] Well, I mean, that's literally a case by case question, right? A lot of Supreme Court [00:29:10] decisions might be totally fascinating to law buffs or the courts slash businesses slash people it directly affects or to Civics 101 hosts, but not [00:29:20] quite grabby enough for the average citizen to sit through.
Nick: [00:29:31] All [00:29:30] right. Well, have we got anything major brewing for next year?
Hannah: [00:29:36] Oh yeah. There is a climate injury case that will probably decide [00:29:40] whether big energy companies can be sued by states for the costs of the damages from flooding and wildfires and drought, etc..
Nick: [00:29:48] Oh, wow. So it is literally [00:29:50] you guys cause climate change and it's messing up our state. Give us money.
Hannah: [00:29:54] Yeah. So one way or another, this will be a huge decision for the long term future of the country. [00:30:00] There's another case about a lawful permanent resident who was held by Ice for 21 months without a bond hearing. And the question is whether that was unconstitutional. The [00:30:10] court is first gonna decide whether they can even decide on this case.
Nick: [00:30:16] Why wouldn't they be able to? They tend to be able to [00:30:20] do a lot.
Hannah: [00:30:21] Well, the man who was held has since been released, so the court might decide the case is moot. Basically, no problem here anymore. But if [00:30:30] they do take up the case, that could have massive consequences for immigrant rights. So far, the court has agreed to take on [00:30:40] 25 cases. There will be more, and they will figure out what they're going to add to the list when they are finally back from feeling the sand between their toes and the wind in their hair.
Nick: [00:30:49] And eating [00:30:50] those spa cucumbers.
Hannah: [00:30:51] We are gonna get you a spa day ASAP. This [00:31:00] episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Dana Cataldo is our digital producer. Marina Henke is our producer. Taylor Quimby is our interim executive producer. Music [00:31:10] in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. If you have questions about America, democracy, the Constitution, the courts, the executive branch, Congress, or any of [00:31:20] the other stuff that really matters and has a lot of explaining to do, you can ask us about it at our website. Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR [00:31:30] New Hampshire Public Radio.