rationally BASED

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, cover everything Voting Rights Act in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Why was the Voting Rights Act enacted, and how does it relate to the Fifteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? What did the VRA accomplish? What did the Supreme Court do with Section 5 of the VRA in Shelby County, and was that case rightly decided? Is redistricting even covered by the language of the VRA? If it is covered, would that even be constitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment covers only civil rights, rather than political rights? How has the VRA been interpreted since it was held to cover redistricting? Ilan and Kathryn talk about the "Democrat Movement Lawyer" theory of the VRA, which required what Kathryn calls "Dem Maxxing" -- maximizing the political power of Democrats. The Supreme Court in Callais, Ilan argues, merely scuttled this crazy interpretation of the VRA, restoring it to its original and intended purposes.Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, get a full hour with Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist and author of the new New York Times bestseller, Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution. They touch on several themes in the book and connect them to current issues and news. Is Alito an originalist? What is a "practical originalist"? Why did he make fun of Justice Scalia, saying he wanted to know what James Madison thought about video games? What do the attacks on Alito show us about the Left's strategy and tactics more broadly? What is "demosprudence"? The "Greenhouse effect"? And what's the Shadow Docket? Our hosts then talk with Mollie about the recent Voting Rights Act decision, about election integrity more generally, and here takeaway from the birthright citizenship oral arguments, which she attended. Enjoy and please like and subscribe!Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, revisit the issue of Trump's ballroom after the recent assassination attempt. Ilan sticks to his guns and thinks Congress has to approve the ballroom; Kathryn is skeptical. Both agree, though, that the District Court case against the ballroom is ridiculous because the plaintiff doesn't have standing. Our hosts pivot to the Democrats' plan to pack the Supreme Court and make D.C. a state. They talk about the history of circuit riding and the need to increase the number of lower court judges after Biden shamefully vetoed a bipartisan bill in 2024. They talk about Congress's power over and duties toward the other branches through the Necessary and Proper Clause. Their longest discussion is about the Fifth Circuit's ruling allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in Texas classrooms. The audience can join Kathryn as Ilan tests her on the application of the infamous "Lemon test" for religious establishment. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, take a deep dive into the ongoing January 6 lawfare, and particularly the civil lawsuit against President Trump brought by capitol police officers and lawmakers in D.C. Did you even know that such a lawsuit was going on? Our hosts break down the 2024 immunity decision, talk about the Independent Counsel statute from the Watergate era, and break down the causes of action against Trump in the civil case. Did Trump "direct" others to assault and batter capitol police officers? Did he "aid and abet" the attacks? Or is the civil lawsuit another outrageous attempt by Movement lawyers to abuse the legal process to harass their political opponents? The hosts round out the episode with discussion of the lawfare against the ordinary citizens who served as "alternate electors" in 2020 and the recent disbarment of Trump lawyer John Eastman. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, rave about the Supreme Court's shadow docket. The shadow docket allows the Court quickly to rein in rogue district judges and their crazy opinions. Our hosts in particular talk about Justice Kavanaugh's shadow docket decision involving "Kavanaugh Stops," Justice Sotomayor's personal attack on Kavanaugh, Judge Boasberg's TdA ruling, and the D.C. Circuit's benchslap of his recent attempt to hold Trump officials in contempt. They also talk about exit taxes, and their most academic topic to date: What is the object of legal interpretation? Does the intent of the legislature matter? Only the text? Something else?Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, explore a series of issues involving both executive and judicial "lawmaking." Would the President have the power to "wipe out" Iranian civilization without Congress? Can the President on his own initiative order the postal service to deliver only certain kinds of election-related materials to advance his election integrity agenda? Can the President order the destruction of an entire wing of the White House pursuant to a statute authorizing the making of "alterations" and "improvements"? Our hosts discuss the Constitution's distribution of power between Congress and the President more generally before turning to the threat district courts currently pose with their judicial lawmaking. Do judges have a right to stop the building of the new ballroom? Who even has "standing" to bring such a suit? And why are district courts exercising jurisdiction over immigration decisions where Congress's statute specifically divests courts of jurisdiction? Finally our hosts talk about the First Amendment and the 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which invalidated a crazy Colorado law prohibiting talk therapists from discouraging gender transitions. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, devote their episode to election integrity and the meaning of "election day." Does a federal "election day" preempt state laws providing that ballots can still be received days after the election? Is someone "elected" once the final selection is made by the voters, or when those selections are transmitted to election officials? Or perhaps it's only when the count is done? Our hosts penetrate this thicket of possibilities, and discuss the surprising history of the uniform election day -- voter fraud! Our hosts explore the "great frauds" that were committed in the Election of 1840, how Congress responded, and how many election laws exist to prevent opportunities for fraud. Our hosts also break down some recent legal immigration news -- including what it means to "arrive in" the United States for purposes of seeking asylum -- before tying the topics together with their guest, Mateo Forero from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who talks about FAIR's blockbuster report on the connection between illegal immigration policies and proven instances of voter fraud. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, break down what they just heard at the Supreme Court oral argument over President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They prognosticate on the result. Wong Kim Ark will not decide this case. Justice Barrett will be the critical vote: what is her theory of what connects ambassadors, invaders, and Indian tribes? What is the government's theory of domicile? What is the plaintiffs' theory of extraterritoriality? They are joined in the second half by guest Theo Wold, one of the architects of the executive order when he worked for the first Trump administration. What is at stake? Why does this issue feel so existential? What's next if the Supreme Court rules against Trump? Tune in and enjoy this emergency pod.Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, finally take their promised deep dive into the birthright citizenship case that the Supreme Court will hear next week. Ilan recently testified in Congress on the issue, and has a lot to get off his chest. He and Kathryn discuss Peter Schweizer's testimony about Saipan, an island north of Guam for which there is statutory birthright citizenship and lax visa rules for Chinese citizens. Schweizer estimates that upwards of hundreds of thousands of children might have been born in Saipan to Chinese parents who would now be American citizens if the conventional wisdom prevails. They talk about legislative solutions to problems that might occur if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump Administration, including using Congress's naturalization power. They observe how the Democrats had mostly emotional arguments at the hearing. Ilan talks about his argument: how at common law, the test was not birth alone, but rather birth to parents under the sovereign's protection. He explains how consent was a precondition to protection, and protection was necessary to jurisdiction. Ilan talks about his disagreement with Chuck Cooper, who thinks Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Our hosts then talk about the government's argument about temporary sojourners, and whether we're allowed to cite as evidence sources written by people in the past who held racist views. They talk about some amicus briefs, including Akhil Amar's "under the flag" brief, which obscures more than it helps. Finally, they talk about Adrian Vermeule's post in the New Digest, arguing that the nature of republics and general principles of jurisprudence answer the question at hand better than originalism can. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!Subscribe to our Substack!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!Show Notes/Resources:Listen to Ilan's opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.Ilan's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.The Invisible Coup by Peter Schweizer.National security amicus brief by Joshua Steinman.Akhil Amar's amicus brief.Adrian Vermeule on birthright citizenship and originalism.

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, are joined by conservative law students at the podcast’s first ever live taping, at ASU. The hosts tackle one of the most important and controversial legal issues of the day: the asymmetrical lawfare and “barfare” against Trump and Republicans. Does the left play by the rule of law? Do they like the rule of law for themselves, but not for others? Should conservatives start playing by their rules? In terms of legal doctrine, should they embrace an aggressive version of substantive of due process? Common good constitutionalism? Our hosts tackle the recent Korean Spa case out of the Ninth Circuit with the now famous “swinging d—-“ reference. Finally, they talk more about birthright citizenship and take questions from the audience. 

In this bonus episode, our host, law professor Ilan Wurman, gives a talk to a conference of conservative law students on Trump vs. the courts. Are we in a constitutional crisis? Is it because the executive is disrespecting the courts, or because the courts are disrespecting the executive? Can the President ever ignore a court order? What if the court doesn't have jurisdiction? Who decides that question? And what can courts do better to respect the President and ensure they have jurisdiction? Our host makes some suggestions about causes of actions and injunctions. Please enjoy this special bonus episode of Rationally BASED.Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, are joined by special guest host Will Chamberlain. They take a deep dive into the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case and study it as a microcosm of immigration law and the immigration bar. What is the difference between asylum and withholding of removal? Can Kilmar be deported to a third country? Why can't the government detain him? Are district judges playing interference and engaging in lawfare against the Trump Administration? Do immigration lawyers coach their clients to lie? What are the Supreme Court's leading precedents about "due process" and detention? They also discuss a crazy case out of the Third Circuit where the lower courts held not only that the Biden Administration couldn't detain illegal aliens pending deportation even if they had committed serious crimes, but also that the U.S. taxpayers had to pay their attorney's fees. Finally, our hosts talk about Trump's crusade against big law -- and why they think big law does need to be brought to heel.Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson and Grace Keating, take a deep dive into the legal questions surrounding the military strikes in Iran and the earlier capture of Maduro. What is international law? Is it really "law"? What is "law" anyway? Hear our hosts talk about the surprising connection to basketball. But even if it's law, should we care about it? What does that have to do with the President's constitutional authority? Our hosts investigate the Office of Legal Counsel's modern framework for engaging in military strikes without congressional authorization, which was used to justify strikes in Libya in 2011. If those strikes can be used to eliminate Libya's leader, why not Venezuela's or Iran's? But, is that modern legal framework consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution? Our hosts explore all that and more - including the political implications of the strikes. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED!New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, take a deep dive into the Supreme Court's recent decision invalidating many of the Trump Tariffs enacted under IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Are tariffs taxes? Or can they be used for regulatory purposes? Our hosts cover the question from the perspective of the American Revolution through the twentieth century. Putting the statutory question aside, what should we do now that the statute used to have a legislative veto, but such vetoes have been held to be unconstitutional? What about the nondelegation doctrine? The "Major Questions Doctrine"? Our hosts break it down. And are the three Democrat-appointed Justices hypocrites for ruling in favor of sweeping delegations to President Biden, but reading IEEPA narrowly? What's Gorsuch's beef with everyone? Finally, our hosts take a look at the origins of "originalism" and Jeffrey Toobin's NYT article about the American Constitution Society's radical plan to remake the Supreme Court. (Spoiler alert: there is no plan.)Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED:  @RationallyBasedPodcastNew Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson and Grace Keating, start this episode with major news out of the EPA: it has rescinded the Obama-era "endangerment" finding the supported the regulation of C02. Find out how EPA came to regulate this greenhouse gas in the first place, whether it's really a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and whether Massachusetts ever had standing to bring a lawsuit in the first place over claims that it might lose some coastline. Our hosts revisit the Fifth Circuit decision and some fallout, and address whether it violates due process or the Eighth Amendment. (It almost certainly doesn't.) Finally, our hosts continue their discussion of birthright citizenship, connecting the concept of "protection" to "jurisdiction." Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED:  @RationallyBasedPodcastNew Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, or TikTok

Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson and Grace Keating, start this episode with a lightning round of legal news. Learn why it's totally fine for the Supreme Court to be "secretive" (whatever that means). Our hosts discuss a DEI victory for the Trump Administration and a judge's concurring opinion to his own opinion, and why it seems so hard from some liberal judges to keep their politics out of their rulings. Hear about the constitutional distribution of power over elections. And our hosts break down a tentative Trump victory over whether California can require federal officers to wear face masks. The episode then takes a deep dive into the controversial Fifth Circuit ruling that held immigrants illegally in the country must be detained prior to deportation, the flood of habeas corpus petitions that the ruling my stanch, and why the Fifth Circuit is probably right but it's a hard question of statutory interpretation (even if it's not hard as a matter of common sense). Finally, as promised, our hosts begin their discussion of birthright citizenship. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED:  @RationallyBasedPodcastNew Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, or TikTok!

On this episode of rationally BASED, our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson and Grace Keating, discuss Don Lemon and the freedom of the press and what that also teaches us about Citizens United. They recall the famous State of the Union where Justice Alito made a face at President Obama, and discuss whether judges like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson should be allowed to be political and attend the Grammys. They trace the origins of the New Deal state and the expansion of the commerce clause and offer to defend Don Lemon if he’s willing to sacrifice the New Deal. They then turn to the Census and whether illegal aliens must count for apportionment. They throw in a dash of Norman Conquest to top it all off. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED:  @RationallyBasedPodcast New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube!Follow us on social media at: Instagram, X, Facebook, or TikTok!

In the first episode of rationally BASED, our hosts cover Minnesota’s lawsuit against the federal government’s ICE surge, which they deem dead on arrival. They explore the historical underpinnings of state-federal cooperation. The Insurrection Act explained. They even cover the attempted assassination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice by a former California Supreme Court Justice in the 1800s and what that tells us about executive power. Find out why everybody is wrong about administrative warrants. And why Don Lemon should read up on the First Amendment.Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE and follow us on socials:InstagramFacebookYoutubeTikTok

Who's excited for the very first episode of the Rationally Based Podcast feat. Ilan Wurman, Kathryn Johnson, and Grace Keating, presented by the American Experiment! Dropping tomorrow at 6am, here is a sneak peak at what we are covering: