{"id":218873,"date":"2025-12-17T13:42:19","date_gmt":"2025-12-17T18:42:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/?post_type=podcast&p=218873"},"modified":"2025-12-17T13:42:19","modified_gmt":"2025-12-17T18:42:19","slug":"whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing","status":"publish","type":"podcast","link":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s On The Docket: A 2026 SCOTUS Briefing"},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2018Tis the season ... to stay ready. A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau. Join us as we reflect on this year's civil liberties work, celebrate our wins, and prepare for the fight ahead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":218877,"template":"","series":[],"class_list":["post-218873","podcast","type-podcast","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":{"date":"20251212","audio":218874,"transcript":"Kamau:<\/b> [00:00:00] Hey, everyone. It\u2019s me, W. Kamau Bell. Welcome back to the ACLU\u2019s podcast At Liberty. We\u2019ve made it to the holiday break\u2026 almost. We\u2019re recording this on Thursday, December 4th. As we look ahead to 2026, a busy Supreme Court term is already underway\u2014with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket.\r\n\r\nAnd the ACLU is representing clients in many of this year\u2019s banner cases. So today, for our final episode of the year, we\u2019re turning our focus to\u2026 dun, dun dun: the judicial branch. We have a very special guest joining us in studio. I\u2019m so happy we\u2019re doing it in studio. She needs no introduction, but I\u2019m gonna give her one anyway:\r\n\r\nCecillia Wang is the National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. She\u2019s a voice of reason and authority in an increasingly uncertain time, and we\u2019re [00:01:00] so glad to have her back on the show.\r\n\r\nWe\u2019ve spoken three times since the presidential election, today\u2019s number four. And at various points, the country has been in different states of reckoning with what\u2019s going on in the country. And your advice has consistently been: stay ready, that the ACLU stays ready. Where are you at right now with that idea of staying ready?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So, it\u2019s not just a matter of staying ready for what comes in the future, but, for the last 10 months, 11 months, we\u2019ve actually been carrying out our plans, we\u2019ve actually been responding to the federal government taking away people\u2019s rights in the most drastic and extreme ways possible.\r\n\r\nSo, it\u2019s just a matter of actually acting<\/i> to protect people from the government when it\u2019s trying to make incursions into their most basic rights and [00:02:00] liberties. So, since January 20th, our case count now\u2014just against the Trump administration\u2014is 118 lawsuits and 97 other legal actions, including things like amicus briefs that we file in support of others who are challenging the Trump administration, Freedom of Information Act requests, and administrative complaints that, might be a prelude to further lawsuits. \r\n\r\nSo we\u2019re still\u2014throughout this whole time, we\u2019ve got a success rate of about 80% where we have asked courts to step in and protect people from what the federal government is doing. So I\u2019m quite proud of the work that we\u2019ve been doing at the ACLU in going into courts as a matter of, rapid response in order to protect people\u2019s rights and liberties. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> So, like, I think, to the average person, things seem [00:03:00] hectic and fast moving and dynamic. I\u2019ll use as the nicest [words] for what\u2019s going on in politics in this country right now and how it\u2019s affecting either your life or the people or the lives of people around you. Does it feel that way inside the ACLU? Does it feel like, and not to say hectic, I know you\u2019re all very sound and rational people, but, like, this is a lot. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> It is a lot. And we\u2019ve, built up this track record, and feel an obligation\u2014a professional obligation and a moral obligation\u2014to step in to protect our communities. So we\u2019ve been able to do that because people are working around the clock and doing the work of three people. But we\u2019ve also been able to do it thanks to the support of all of our ACLU members.\r\n\r\nPeople are supporting us financially, people are supporting us through giving their time to volunteer, to do calls to members of Congress, or to hit the streets with the No Kings March. So it has [00:04:00] been a lot, as you said. This federal government is really, I think, unprecedented, certainly in my lifetime\u2014\r\n\r\nIn the ways that it is not only going after politically vulnerable minority communities, which everyone expected. But also in making these broad scale attacks on the foundations of US democracy. I think when we last spoke on this podcast, he had already started going after private law firms, started criticizing federal judges who ruled against him.\r\n\r\nBut since then we have seen kind of the worst things that we were planning for, in anticipating sending the National Guard into Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC\u2014really going against [00:05:00] one of the founding principles of our country. \r\n\r\nOur founders, for all their flaws and all the structural problems with the original Constitution prior to Reconstruction, one thing that they really saw clearly was that you don\u2019t want the executive to be able to use the military against the people. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Hmm. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And Donald Trump has blown through that\u2014that founding norm, that founding principle of our country. We\u2019ve also seen the government become really unleashed, in large part due to a Supreme Court order in an ACLU case called Vasquez Perdomo, which put on pause the lower court orders that we had won, preventing the federal government, ICE agents, immigration agents from racially profiling people in Los Angeles, using a four-part [00:06:00] profile that included being Latino or appearing to be Latino as a factor.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And so you see the unraveling, right? Now, you see the Trump administration now\u2014I think, encouragingly\u2014coming under fire from bipartisan members of Congress for, killing people in the Caribbean and the Pacific. all these areas where the president, once again, as he did in his first term, but even more in a second term, putting on the mantle of national emergency or national security as an excuse, a flimsy excuse, for him to engage in the most lawless behavior. Literally killing people. Literally locking Americans up. In the name of our national security. So it is a lot. But we\u2019re out there. We\u2019re out there.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I just love\u2014you said \u201ca lot,\u201d and then get back [00:07:00] to, \u201cIt\u2019s, uh, it is a lot.\u201d It is a lot, yeah. I just wanna say, that is really helpful for people who are maybe listening to the podcast or people like myself. \u2019Cause I think sometimes we can be gaslit into thinking that we just perceive it as a lot as individuals, but actually this is just business as usual.\r\n\r\nI think being gaslit by the Trump administration or even other politicians to sort of say, like, \u201cNo, everything\u2014this is just what happens.\u201d But to hear someone who\u2019s in the trenches like you say, \u201cYeah, this is a lot.\u201d It\u2019s actually very helpful. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Yeah, I mean, the thing is, it\u2019s a lot, but we are a lot as well in response. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yes. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Right? We saw the largest day, single day of protest by the American people back in October at the No Kings rally, which the ACLU helped to put together.\r\n\r\nAnd we\u2019ve got, so many tens of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of people as members, tens of thousands of people who are joining in to take action against these incursions into our [00:08:00] individual rights and freedoms. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Can you\u2014well, thank you for bringing up No Kings, \u2019cause there are many people who want to go, \u201cWhat did that solve? So the big crowd showed up on that one day for a few hours that had a start time and an end time. What did that solve?\u201d Can you give those people, as a lawyer, a proper defense for why those, why the No Kings rallies? \u2019Cause there will be another one, I\u2019m sure at some point, right?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So the No Kings rally\u2014I mean, those critics have a point. But I would say in response that no one action, no one lawsuit, no one protest, no one meeting with a member of Congress is a loan going to stop the Trump administration from violating people\u2019s rights. It\u2019s the combined impact of all of this work that we\u2019re doing, every one of the millions of people who showed up and who need to show up again.[00:09:00] \r\n\r\nNot just to protest, but to be in community with others taking action. I think one of the silver linings of how unleashed the Trump administration has become, just, 10 months in, is that more and more people find something to oppose in what this president is doing as he blows past all of the constraints\u2014structural constraints, legal constraints, moral constraints on presidential behavior\u2014more and more people are saying, \u201cHey, this affects me.\u201d\r\n\r\nYou know, your person who lives in a Chicago suburb who suddenly has armed federal troops coming into their neighborhoods and trying to just disappear people off the streets, that person might not have had immigration as their top issue that they care about when they go to the polling place, or, when they [00:10:00] take action. \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBut now it\u2019s become real for more and more people. So I think the silver lining is that as we see millions of people taking the streets, those millions of people are also taking other actions in order to defend our democracy and our free country. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Well, thank you for that, \u2019cause I think that\u2019s the important thing, is that this is a potpourri of actions. It\u2019s not just\u2014\r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>That\u2019s right. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> \u201cYeah, I showed up that one day, mission accomplished.\u201d I appreciate you even giving credit to the people who criticize, \u201cFine, criticize it, but here\u2019s what it is,\u201d you know?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Right. And if you\u2019re gonna criticize it, then do something. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> That\u2019s the other part. That\u2019s the other way. So I\u2014that\u2019s how I tend to respond in my mentions. If people, if I sort of feel the need to, it\u2019s, like, \u201cOkay, what\u2019s your plan?\u201d \u201cFine, great, that\u2019s not good? What\u2019s your plan.\u201d And that\u2019s generally when they\u2014\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> The other thing I think about No Kings is there were 2300 separate events associated with the No Kings protest that day.\r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Yeah, right. [00:11:00] \r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>And so people may be thinking about the hundreds of thousands of people who take to the streets in New York or DC or in large cities, but the power of, 500 people marching on Main Street in a small town, that is powerful.\r\n\r\nBecause it\u2019s not only aimed at Donald Trump or people who work for him. It\u2019s aimed at the mayor of that town. It\u2019s aimed at the sheriff of that town, to say, \u201cThis is what we the people believe in, and we don\u2019t want you to participate in this machinery of oppression that the president is trying to roll out.\u201d \r\n\r\nThe president needs the power of local and state officials in order to roll out his plans. And as more and more states and municipalities are joining in opposing the president\u2019s actions, in order to protect their people\u2019s freedom, I think [00:12:00] that\u2019s really significant. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm. So we\u2019re gonna talk about the Supreme Court, and some Supreme Court cases. Are we still calling it the Supreme Court or are they just a court now? That\u2019s a\u2014it\u2019s a cheap joke. It\u2019s a cheap joke, but\u2014\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> They are indeed the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>I understand. Yes, I understand. So before we talk about upcoming cases, can we do, like, a look back on some of the cases that have happened recently? Like, remember when you were a kid and they\u2019d say, \u201cPreviously on\u2026\u201d \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Yes.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, we\u2019re doing, yeah\u2014\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Okay, here\u2019s the recap of the last season. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. The last season! \u201cOn the last season of SCOTUS\u2026\u201d\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> \u201cOn the last season of the ACLU at the Supreme Court of the United States.\u201d So last term we had three merits cases, cases that were on the Supreme Court\u2019s, main oral argument calendar. And those cases were Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, Skrmetti, and Callais.\r\n\r\nSo we had an interesting lineup last term. We [00:13:00] ended up with two losses, in Skrmetti and Free Speech Coalition. Free Speech Coalition was a case where we joined in a challenge at the Supreme Court level to a Texas state law that\u2014in the name of protecting children\u2014really targeted adult content, including non-pornographic content on websites in a grossly overbroad way.\r\n\r\nAnd because we believed that the Texas law was infringing on many people\u2019s First Amendment rights, and could be used in a targeted way by Texas state officials against content they dislike\u2014for example, LGBT content or sexual health content, women\u2019s rights content, as well as their avowed target of pornography.\r\n\r\nWe joined with the lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition in the Supreme Court. And the [00:14:00] Supreme Court said that this law, even though it targets based on viewpoint or content, was subject only to what\u2019s called \u201crational basis scrutiny,\u201d which is not the usual standard that applies when First Amendment rights are at stake.\r\n\r\nAnd so there\u2019s an interesting and a really unfortunate parallel with the second case that I mentioned from last term, which is called Skrmetti. This was a case where we challenged a Tennessee state law that took away transgender teens\u2019 rights\u2014anyone under the age of 19\u2014any, all of their rights to access gender affirming healthcare in the state of Tennessee.\r\n\r\nAnd again, this was a case where the state was claiming that they needed to protect children from decisions that those children\u2019s parents made with their medical providers, with [00:15:00] their physicians, that this was medically necessary healthcare. And Tennessee was one of 26 states that had suddenly passed these laws, taking away essential healthcare from transgender youth.\r\n\r\nSo that was a case where we\u2014you know, the Supreme Court could have taken even worse and more drastic action. But the Supreme Court did not actually change\u2014the worst case scenario that could have come to pass in the Skrmetti case was that the Supreme Court would say, \u201cTransgender people do not have the same rights, the same protections against sex discrimination as other people, as other Americans.\u201d\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court, fortunately, did not do that. The worst case scenario did not happen. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yay!\r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>Yay. But, you know\u2014and that\u2019s a doctrinal victory. That\u2019s a legal victory. But the impact on transgender youth in these [00:16:00] states that have bans on essential healthcare is really dire, particularly for people who can\u2019t afford to travel out of state for this healthcare. \r\n\r\nAnd the third case was the Callais case. This was Louisiana\u2019s congressional redistricting. And the procedural posture of the case is a little bit unusual. We were coming in, basically, to defend a remedial map that the state of Louisiana had enacted in response to our litigation victory, in another case called Robinson. \r\n\r\nSo to give the background, after the 2020 census in 2022, the Louisiana legislature, redraws the congressional districts, and we went in and sued under the Voting Rights Act and argued that the new map illegally diluted the voting power of Black Louisianans. [00:17:00] And we won a preliminary injunction in that case, including an affirmance of the preliminary injunction in the very conservative US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. \r\n\r\nSo after their preliminary stages of the case, we win twice in the district court. And in the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana legislature basically says, \u201cOkay, we see the writing on the wall. We are gonna draw a new map.\u201d And that map drew a second district in which Black voters had a shot, an opportunity, to elect their representatives of choice. That was a map that was used in the 2024 election. And we saw two Black representatives in the Louisiana Delegation of Congress for the first time in a long, long time.\r\n\r\nAnd so, at that point, the Callais case starts. So a group of self-described [00:18:00] \u201cnon-African American voters\u201d in Louisiana sue in a different district in Louisiana. And they claim, now under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution legal protection clause, that the fact that the Louisiana legislature drew a second Black opportunity district was a racial gerrymander. That is, basically it\u2019s a reverse discrimination claim.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh, \u201creverse racism.\u201d\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Exactly, yes. So that case was argued in the Supreme Court last term, and we were expecting a decision on it at the end of the term. Now, just a couple terms before this, we and LDF had another congressional redistricting case at the Supreme Court, out of Alabama, and the case was called Milligan, and we won that case in the Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nAnd the Supreme Court said, \u201cLook, state legislatures, in drawing congressional maps or legislative maps, [00:19:00] are, you know\u2014it\u2019s a sausage making. There are a lot of political considerations. They\u2019re trying to protect incumbents. They\u2019re doing all kinds of partisan maneuvering. And we are gonna give states breathing room, we\u2019re gonna give legislatures breathing room, to draw maps.\u201d\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So in Callais, now last term, we said, \u201cLook, the Louisiana legislature gets breathing room. They had multiple goals here.\u201d They wanted to protect a bunch of incumbents, including Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. They wanted to\u2014and they wanted to comply with the court order that we won in the Robinson case.\r\n\r\nSo at the end of the term, we\u2019re all expecting this ruling, and the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t decide the case. Instead, they kick the case to this term and set it for free argument. And they add another question that they want the parties to address. And the question, an ominous [00:20:00] one, is: did Louisiana\u2019s drawing of a second Black majority district violate the Equal Protection Clause?\r\n\r\nAnd so that was one of the first cases argued this term, in October. And we are now waiting to see what happens in that Louisiana redistricting case. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I mean, that case sounds like it has so much of the challenge of righting the wrongs that have been done in this country, in the name of this country, by the people in charge of this country.\r\n\r\nLike, you take it all the way over here, which we all go, \u201cIt seems like it\u2019s wrong that it\u2019s all the way over here.\u201d We try to do things to correct that. And suddenly, now you\u2019re saying it\u2019s unfair? To the fact that, like, it\u2019s just\u2014yeah. It\u2019s, like, how\u2014so we can\u2019t correct the wrongs, you know?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And it\u2019s not just about correcting past wrongs, though it is very much about that. It\u2019s also trying to deal with one of the structural problems with [00:21:00] American democracy. Right? The people should be choosing their representatives. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yes. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And this kind of redistricting\u2014that, it does, either dilutes minority voters, partisan gerrymandering, all of that\u2014gets it backwards. Instead of the people choosing the representatives, representatives are choosing their voters.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Representatives are choosing who they want to vote for them. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Exactly. They draw the districts in a way that is diluting people\u2019s voting strength. That is making my vote less, way less than other people\u2019s. And so it\u2019s a serious issue. And, I think this was the cliffhanger, right? From last season. And we\u2019ll see what the Supreme Court does if they\u2014I just think it\u2019ll be a real challenge for them to\u2014and by the way, Louisiana switched sides. Which I think the question, the supplemental question, was [00:22:00] aimed at getting the state to change sides. Because they were defending the map\u2014 \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> \u2014Last time around. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> They were defending the new map. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> They were defending their new map, yeah. That they drew. And then this term, after the Supreme Court asked this supplemental question, the state says, \u201cYeah, you should hold that. This is unconstitutional.\u201d Yeah, so it\u2019s a real test for not only our democracy, but for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Did they mean it a couple terms ago when they said in the Milligan case, in the Alabama case, that state legislatures have breathing room?\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I mean, you just snuck in the middle of that, \u201cThis is a real test for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.\u201d Like this, like\u2014just \u201cthat little Easter egg in there.\u201d\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Yeah, I think, many of the cases this term, we\u2014now, this is shaping up, by the way, we\u2019re on pace to have our busiest year at the Supreme Court ever. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> We have three other cases already in the Supreme Court and there are a few [00:23:00] others in the pipeline that might make it for this term.\r\n\r\nAnd the other cases we have are, again, key cases about transgender Americans\u2019 rights to be free from discrimination, like everybody else. These are the BPJ and Hecox cases, where we are defending the rights of trans girls and women to participate in sports, in schools K through 12 and higher education.\r\n\r\nAnd so, these are cases where the Supreme Court, really, if they applied their ordinary rules, shouldn\u2019t have taken these cases last term. They should have sent them back and said, \u201cHey, take another look at this, lower courts, in light of what we said in the Skrmetti case on healthcare.\u201d\r\n\r\nBut instead they took them. And now our opponents\u2014the states of West Virginia and Idaho, kind of fomented by these anti-LGBT activists\u2014are [00:24:00] trying to introduce all kinds of so-called \u201cevidence\u201d going to athletic advantage that were not decided, were not presented in the lower courts.\r\n\r\nSo it\u2019s, like, really procedurally improper from the get-go. And we\u2019ll see what the Supreme Court does. We\u2019ve actually asked the court not to credit these disputed facts that our opponents are relying on, and asking them to send the cases back and let the lower courts weigh the evidence\u2014which is the role of the lower courts\u2014and go from there.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Since we did \u201cPreviously on\u2026,\u201d and now you\u2019re sort of leading into the upcoming season. What other cases are coming up for the ACLU? \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So, we have the fourth case where we\u2019re already on, I\u2019m breaking news here, probably, for a lot of folks.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh, wow. Oh, good. We don\u2019t do that that often on this podcast.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So, we have a Second Amendment case in the court this term.\r\n\r\nSo we\u2019ve just joined the attorneys for\u2014in\u2014a criminal case called [00:25:00] US v. Hemani. And this is a case challenging, in the context of a criminal prosecution, a federal statute that makes it a felony to possess a firearm if you are, and I quote, \u201can unlawful user of a controlled substance, or you\u2019re addicted to a controlled substance.\u201d\r\n\r\nAnd our client, Mr. Hemani, was charged in a Texas federal court with possessing a gun. And he admitted when he was questioned by federal agents that he uses marijuana. So the question, really is: can the government make it a federal crime to own a gun\u2014which is a right everybody else has\u2014when you use marijuana or even if you are addicted to a controlled substance, which of course encompasses people who don\u2019t use drugs.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, yeah, so if you\u2019re in recovery, but you have, you\u2019re [00:26:00] known to be an addict. You have publicly announced yourself as an addict to that substance.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Right, and whether the law is applied in that way will depend on the whims of a federal prosecutor. And so we\u2019ve joined the attorneys, the legal team, for Mr. Hemani. Interestingly, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, remember I said they\u2019re a conservative court? On Second Amendment issues, they are very liberal, in the sense that they\u2019re in favor of individual rights. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Everything goes.\r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>And they struck down this federal law, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3) in Mr. Hemani\u2019s case.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Did you say that off the top of your head? 18 U.S.\u2014you just rattled it off!\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> I just rattled\u2014I know the numbers!\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Okay! I was, like\u2014you didn\u2019t even look down. 18 U.S\u2014okay, alright.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So, I think the case is really fundamentally about whether the federal government can take away a core constitutional right, based on its [00:27:00] categorical and irrebuttable presumption that you\u2019re dangerous because you use marijuana or you\u2019re addicted to marijuana. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> It just seems weird to me when at the same time, many Second Amendment advocates don\u2019t even wanna hold against people who want guns, like, their past criminal records or their past mental health issues.\r\n\r\nLike, you don\u2019t wanna hold those against people, but you wanna hold, \u201cI smoke weed,\u201d against people. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Right. Well, I think the Second Amendment advocacy community is on the right side of this issue. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> No, that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying. But there seems to be, like\u2014it\u2019s funny, on this, it just, yeah\u2026\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Well, you raise a good point, Kamau, because this statute, so I\u2019ll rattle off the numbers again.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Okay, yeah. Please. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3), which is the federal law that makes it a crime to own a firearm if you are in certain categories. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, right. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And this is one of them. Unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance. There are other subsections that make it a crime to own a firearm. If you are, and I quote [00:28:00] again, \u201ca prohibited alien\u201d or, and I quote again, \u201ca mental defective,\u201d oh, and the big one that is the, one of the most commonly prosecuted federal crimes is if you have a felony conviction. Any felony conviction, state or federal.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, yeah.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And so if I have a felony conviction for, I don\u2019t know, pirating music online. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And I never served any time in jail or prison. I got probation. I now can\u2019t own a firearm because of that felony conviction. And to your point, this statute is vastly, disproportionately used against people of color. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, oh, yeah.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And so, it\u2019s a trap, right? It\u2019s\u2014no pun intended, really\u2014it\u2019s a loaded weapon in the federal criminal code for prosecutors to use.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> It\u2019s a way to throw something else, another crime on the fire, when they\u2014\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> That\u2019s right. It\u2019s a major driver [00:29:00] of federal incarceration.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> It\u2019s like the laws in LA, like, it\u2019s like loitering and vagrancy. Like, \u201cOh, well, we will get you for something,\u201d you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. [Big exhale] What else have we got?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Okay, the rest. So those are the four cases we know are gonna be argued in the Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nWe\u2019ve obviously filed a lot of amicus briefs, but we have at least three other cases that are in the pipeline that might end up being ACLU cases at the Supreme Court this term. There are two more redistricting cases, cases we won below where the states are the ones filing an appeal in the Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nOne is Mississippi\u2019s state legislative redistricting map where we won our case, challenging the preexisting map after the 2020 census\u2014 \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yes. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And got five more Black opportunity districts in the Mississippi State legislature. And remember I talked about the Alabama Congressional [00:30:00] redistricting case? That one\u2019s back. Because the state of Alabama, after we won in the Supreme Court\u2014\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Did so many nice things! They were so excited. \r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>They were so excited! \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>They decided to be nice to everybody and especially to Black people. Is that what they did? My dad\u2019s home state? Is that what they did?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> They were so excited that they drew another map that illegally diluted Black voting power. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, that\u2019s about right. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And this time, it was so blatant that the district court found that they engaged in intentional race discrimination, which wasn\u2019t the case the first time around. So, Alabama has now filed a direct appeal in our case. And the third one is a very major case. It\u2019s Trump\u2019s effort to ban birthright citizenship. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> [Big exhale]\r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>So, as we won two cases challenging Trump\u2019s birthright citizenship [00:31:00] executive order. We filed our first case within two hours of his issuance of the executive order on chance.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Why\u2019d it take so long! Why\u2019d it take so long! Come on, we gotta move quickly! I\u2019m a hard boss.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> We filed a lawsuit on behalf of individual expecting parents. A couple dozen states filed challenges to birthright citizenship. And various other nonprofit organizations were filing cases challenging birthright citizenship.\r\n\r\nThat law has never taken effect. So not one single baby has been born subject to Trump\u2019s executive order, thanks to court orders. So the Trump administration has now filed a cert petition trying to get the Supreme Court to reverse the decisions in our second case, the class action, and in Washington state\u2019s challenge to the birthright citizenship order. \r\n\r\nSo that case [00:32:00] was considered, their cert petitions were considered by the Supreme Court the Friday before Thanksgiving. And they issued an order saying they\u2019re gonna look at it again tomorrow, this Friday. Oh, wow. So we\u2019ll find out soon whether\u2014\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> So by the time this airs, I might not be a citizen anymore.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Your citizenship is safe. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Okay, okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> But actually, this is important. The fact that the court takes the case will not put anyone\u2019s citizenship in jeopardy. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Well, that\u2019s good to know. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> It just means they will hear the case. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> But just to be clear, just to put a fine pin on this, birthright citizenship is one of those things that is, like, one of the founding principles of this country.\r\n\r\nThe way I think about it, we wouldn\u2019t have a country without birthright citizenship because there wouldn\u2019t have been enough people to have a country. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> That\u2019s right. With one caveat. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>I\u2019m ready for the caveat. \r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>One slight correction. It\u2019s part of the second<\/i> founding. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Okay, alright, yeah.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> It\u2019s part of Reconstruction.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh, okay. This is\u2014[00:33:00] surprise, we didn\u2019t cover Reconstruction that much in any of the schools I went to. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Surprise, surprise. But you\u2019re right.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I mean, yeah, yeah\u2014feel free to correct me.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> You\u2019re right that the concept that you\u2019re a citizen of a country where you\u2019re born is a concept that the founders brought from Britain.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Right? That\u2019s a British concept, unlike other countries in Europe where the historical practice was that the fact that you\u2019re born in the country doesn\u2019t mean you automatically have citizenship. Your citizenship flows from where your parents are citizens. The English, the British tradition was that you have birthright based on where you\u2019re born.\r\n\r\nSo the founders, you\u2019re right, the founders did bring that concept to the United States, but of course, at the founding of the country, people who were enslaved, African Americans did not have citizenship. And it was not until after the Civil War and the\u2014when Congress [00:34:00] is writing the Reconstruction amendments in the 14th Amendment\u2014that they now clarify that everybody born in this country, not just white people, have citizenship.\r\n\r\nAnd so the big fight is, Donald Trump, in this cynical move says, \u201cWell, the 14th Amendment, which begins with this promise of birthright citizenship, before it gets equal protection. It says everyone born in the United States is a citizen.\u201d Donald Trump\u2019s cynical argument is that only applies to African Americans, that the only point of the birthright citizenship clause was to confer citizenship on formerly enslaved people.\r\n\r\nBut that\u2019s just simply wrong because we know from the congressional record and the history of the ratification of the 14th Amendment that both the proponents and the [00:35:00] opponents of birthright citizenship understood that it meant that everyone<\/i>, regardless of race. In fact, the opponents said, \u201cHey, if you, if we ratify this birthright citizenship clause, it\u2019s going to mean that the children of Chinese people,\u201d or the opponents said, \u201cYou can\u2019t, we can\u2019t ratify this because we\u2019ll have other people of color, Chinese people are gonna be citizens.\u201d\r\n\r\nAnd that was debated. And the 14th amendment, including the birthright citizenship, was written with that in mind.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> So they fought about it. They could have actually narrowed it, if they wanted to. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And they did not. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> They did not. If we were to lose that, that feels like a real, like, kicking out like a real pillar of the country. Like a real, like\u2014we\u2019re not the same anymore. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Absolutely. Right. And that would be a real\u2014I just don\u2019t see how the Supreme Court can be seen as a legitimate institution at that [00:36:00] point.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. [Big exhale] So I\u2019m gonna try to look at other cases. Are there other cases that we haven\u2019t talked about for next season of Supreme Court Live?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So, I would say one of the things that I think will be a bridge between last season and this season of Supreme Court\u2014the ACLU and the Supreme Court Show\u2014is the cases where we represented a party in the Supreme Court were by and large these sort of hot button cases. The rights of trans youth to have medical care, and the redistricting case, et cetera.\r\n\r\nThere were a number of kind of below the radar cases that really were significant for people\u2019s civil rights and civil liberties where we filed amicus briefs. And they were, many of those were by sort of cross-ideological, right-left coalition briefs. And the Supreme Court reached the right decision in [00:37:00] many of those cases that were sort of below the radar, not hot button cases.\r\n\r\nAnd the same is true this year. We have signed on to several sort of cross-ideological briefs that will be interesting. And where I think there\u2019s a really good chance the Supreme Court is gonna reach the right decision and protect people\u2019s rights, protect people\u2019s access to the courts as an avenue for protecting their freedoms.\r\n\r\nTo give one example there is a case that was just argued, called First Choice Women\u2019s Center v. Platkin. This is a case kind of similar to a couple seasons ago, a couple terms ago, when we represented the National Rifle Association in its effort to defend itself against New York State financial regulators who were targeting them because of their viewpoint.\r\n\r\nSo in this case, the Attorney [00:38:00] General of New Jersey Matt Platkin issued this very invasive subpoena against the First Choice Women\u2019s Center, which is a nonprofit that runs a crisis pregnancy center, right, one of these anti-abortion outfits. And even though the ACLU has raised a lot of serious policy concerns about crisis pregnancy centers and the ways in which they might be misleading consumers, this was a case where we joined across ideological brief to raise the First Amendment problems.\r\n\r\nSo what happened was the crisis pregnancy center gets a subpoena that asks for all kinds of invasive information, including their donor\u2014not only the identities of their donors, but their communications with their donors. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh, wow. So, like, the emails and\u2014\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Right. You know who brought a case like this and first established that the First Amendment prevents this? The NAACP.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yep, [00:39:00] yep. Right. That tracks, yeah.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So during the Civil Rights era, the federal government was trying to investigate the NAACP\u2019s donors and supporters. And the whole point of it was to chill people, to scare people off. So that they wouldn\u2019t join the NAACP.\r\n\r\nAnd the NAACP sued and ends up winning this precedent in the Supreme Court. So this is that case. So the Crisis Pregnancy Center goes into federal court, says, \u201cHey, we got this subpoena from New Jersey and this violates our First Amendment rights.\u201d \r\n\r\nAnd the federal district court said, \u201cYou don\u2019t have a ripe claim. Come back later.\u201d Because you haven\u2019t\u2014the state hasn\u2019t done anything to you. They haven\u2019t held you in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena and turn over your donor records. \r\n\r\nAnd so we signed onto a brief in support of the crisis pregnancy center, saying, [00:40:00] \u201cThis violates the First Amendment and they do have a ripe claim because the mere fact that the attorney general of the state has sent the subpoena is probably enough to create a chill for people who want to donate money to this nonprofit.\u201d \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So that\u2019s one of the cases where, like last term, we are signing onto a cross-ideological brief. Just to give one more example, there\u2019s a case that\u2019s already been argued called Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, this case with horrible facts. \r\n\r\nMr. Landor is Black, he is Rastafarian, and he was incarcerated in a Louisiana state prison. And he wears his hair in dreadlocks, as his faith requires. And the prison officials told him they were gonna, that he had to cut his hair because of the prison\u2019s general grooming standards.\r\n\r\nAnd he prints out a copy of a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, [00:41:00] which I keep mentioning today. And it says that people have a religious\u2014if you have a religious reason, you have a First Amendment right and a right under this federal statute to have an accommodation.\r\n\r\nAnd the prison officials literally throw his printout of this legal ruling from the federal court into the trash. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh, wow. \r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>They hold him down and forcibly shave his head. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Ah, yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>And then he\u2019s released. So the question is, can Mr. Landor file a damages case in order to vindicate his religious freedom rights?\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I\u2019m gonna rule on that: yes, you can. That\u2019s my rule. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> I think the court is gonna reach the right decision. We signed onto a brief, led by the Christian Legal Society and mostly sort of conservative-coded, self-identified right wing religious freedom groups in support of Mr. [00:42:00] Landor. \r\n\r\nSo I think there are a number of cases that raise important civil rights and civil liberties issues where everyone can agree, from right to left, that that the court should protect people\u2019s rights.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I mean, I wanted to ask you if there are any other wins that we need to talk about from the year, but I think even\u2014I think many of us had given up on left-right coalition building. You know, in sort of\u2014in the broad terms\u2014in the ways, especially, at the high levels.\r\n\r\nI think maybe generally we all sort of know, in our lives, \u201cYeah, that guy votes differently than I do, but we also work to\u2014,\u201d whatever. \u201cWe may not see it that way, we may be able to build those coalitions.\u201d But I don\u2019t think we thought of, like, at the high levels that there was a lot of left-right coalition building happening.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> There is a ton of left-right coalition building happening when it comes to nonprofit organizations who are litigating cases or filing briefs in the federal courts of this country. So I [00:43:00] would say, now more than ever, we need to make coalitions with people who have a shared goal.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And I\u2019d point to the case where we represented the NRA as a key example of that. Two years ago, when we said we were gonna represent the NRA in our First Amendment case in the Supreme Court, we had a lot of internal disagreement about that. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And there were our colleagues in the ACLU and members of the ACLU who didn\u2019t like the fact that we were representing the NRA. And I remember saying at the time, \u201cFirst of all, the ACLU stands on principle.\u201d And when it comes to freedom of speech, religious freedom, et cetera, we have to stand up for principle. \r\n\r\nBut, I also said at the time to people who were expressing concerns, I said, \u201cDonald Trump may be president again next year. And it\u2019s [00:44:00] really important that we stand up for the right of the NRA against the right financial regulators in New York State. Because if the NRA loses this case, then Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis, or Greg Abbott or anyone who\u2014any officials, government officials\u2014who don\u2019t like what the ACLU does or what Planned Parenthood does, or fill in your favorite organization, can do the same thing.\u201d\r\n\r\nAnd lo and behold, it\u2019s actually true that this year, as we\u2019ve brought 118 lawsuits, in these First Amendment cases, we are citing the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in NRA v. Vullo\u2014that we won\u2014in order to prevent government officials, state and federal, from violating people\u2019s First Amendment rights.\r\n\r\nSo, we don\u2019t bring those First Amendment claims and cases in order to benefit ourselves alone. We do them because we [00:45:00] believe in the principle. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> But it goes to show that one reason it\u2019s important to do that is because we can\u2019t let government officials decide what we say, what we advocate for, and what we believe. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Amen. Am I allowed to say amen on the ACLU podcast? \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Absolutely. Absolutely. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Freedom of speech, freedom of speech! So are there other, any other wins that you wanna talk about from this year? Think court cases, lawsuits, we can celebrate.\r\n\r\nI see something about a Defending Our Neighbors Fund. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Yes. So there are a lot of litigation victories, but I\u2019ll talk about the Defending Our Neighbors Fund first. So the ACLU joined with United We Dream and the Abundant Futures Fund to start this effort to make sure that people who are caught up in the Trump administration\u2019s immigration dragnet are able to defend themselves. \r\n\r\nSo many non-citizens in this country [00:46:00] are being arrested. People who may have a legal right to be here, because let\u2019s be clear, he\u2019s going after legal\u2014people who are lawfully in the country\u2014as well as people whose visas have expired or who came in without authorization.\r\n\r\nAnd you don\u2019t have a right to appointed counsel, if you get caught up in the deportation system, unlike if you get caught up with a criminal charge where the government is obligated to provide you with a lawyer. You don\u2019t have that [with] immigration. And so we knew that the president was gonna be casting this dragnet across American communities going after immigrants and putting them in detention and trying to deport them.\r\n\r\nSo we helped to start this fund that is meant to provide lawyers for people who can\u2019t afford lawyers with a goal of raising $30 million for people. And so far we\u2019ve gotten a third of the way there. So thanks to all of our members who\u2019ve supported that work.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> [00:47:00] Beautiful. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Yeah, \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> And I just like the title, the name: Defending Our Neighbors Fund. That just seems, like\u2014who can\u2019t, who doesn\u2019t want to donate to that fund? \u2019Cause you have a neighbor, or you are somebody\u2019s neighbor. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> That\u2019s right. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, more coalition building. Any other wins or lawsuits or cases that you\u2014your top, your favorites?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Well, like I said, we\u2019ve brought 118 actions against the Trump administration since January 20th.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Even that\u2019s a win.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> That\u2019s a win! \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Just that level of busyness and attention.\r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>You\u2019re right, you\u2019re right. Because resisting\u2014you bring lawsuits, of course, to win and to get concrete relief for people whose rights are being taken away. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> But you also bring lawsuits in order to show the world what is happening here. And so, you\u2019re right, it is a win. But we\u2019ve got about an 80%, 80 to 85% success rate, like I said, in those cases. So there are a lot of wins to talk about. \r\n\r\nBirthright citizenship, of course, is one we\u2019ve already talked about. There are a number of immigration policies where we\u2019ve scored wins, where the Trump administration has basically shut [00:48:00] down asylum in this country. And there, again, we\u2019ve blocked or delayed implementation of those federal policies. \r\n\r\nThere is a whole spate of wins in cases where we are challenging the Trump administration\u2019s threats or efforts to defund\u2014to take away federal funding\u2014based on people engaging in \u201cdisfavored\u201d advocacy.\r\n\r\nSo we\u2019ve stopped or blocked the Nnational Endowment of the Arts from defunding arts organizations that engage in what Trump calls \u201cgender ideology.\u201d Or other DEI-related activities. We\u2019ve blocked book bans in K-12 schools that are operated by the Department of Defense. I guess he calls it the Department of War now.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> There were hundreds of books that were banned by the Trump administration from, you know, public school libraries operated on military bases in the United States and around the world. [00:49:00] We stopped the government from taking down scientific and medical research from a government-run website called PSNet. \r\n\r\nFor not only things, like, things that government would tag as a DEI\u2014for example, research into racial disparities in medical outcomes. But also on the list of disfavored terms for those takedowns was COVID vaccine hesitancy.\r\n\r\nWe\u2019ve scored wins against the Department of Education\u2019s so-called Dear Colleague Letter, where the Department of Ed was threatening to defund educational institutions around the country that engaged in efforts relating to DEI, gender, ideology, et cetera, other disfavored topics that the president doesn\u2019t like.\r\n\r\nWe have challenged various immigration policies, including the use of abominable conditions in human conditions [00:50:00] at ICE detention centers, the deliberate cruelty. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Mm-hmm. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> We\u2019ve challenged\u2014and ACLU state affiliates have brought so many, habeas corpus petitions challenging the ways in which Trump is blowing past all norms and laws in detaining people who show up for their immigration court proceedings as, again, an act of cruelty, as a show of force. \r\n\r\nSo I could go on and on. One important one that I do wanna call out is in Los Angeles. In addition to the racial profiling case Vasquez Perdomo that I mentioned already, where the Supreme Court issued this terrible order, we brought another case where we\u2019ve won so far and prevailed, challenging what the government\u2014federal government\u2014was doing in LA when they used these really excessive, violent measures to go after protesters, journalists who are covering protests, and legal monitors, [00:51:00] people who were observing protests and crowd control response.\r\n\r\nIn a case that was, where our lead plaintiff is the LA Press Club. So there are so many cases where we have stopped or delayed Trump administration actions in federal courts, and I\u2019m just so proud of the work that my colleagues are doing around the country. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I\u2019m proud of you.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Thank you, Kamau.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Am I allowed to be proud of you? \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> You are, of course.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> It really does make me feel very happy to know that you\u2019re out there doing this work and you do it with such a warm spirit, but also fierce, determined sense. I can feel that in your core, and you corrected me very gently, which I also appreciate.\r\n\r\nYou didn\u2019t have to do it. But you corrected me very gently, and I appreciate that. So I actually do appreciate that. So, my last hard-hitting question is what are you gonna do in the interim between seasons of Great British Bake Off? What are you gonna watch, what are you gonna do?\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> I think I\u2019ll, uh\u2026 watch some re-runs of your show [00:52:00] \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> That does the same exact comfort food, casual viewing, United Shades of America. Yeah, if only we could get those people, I\u2019d be back on the air if I could get the same numbers as that show.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> I think on a serious note, I think it is really important that those of us who are doing this work, in all the ways we\u2019re doing it\u2014you as well as me\u2014that we find ways to enjoy the arts, to enjoy comedy, to enjoy the things that sustain us through these hard times.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Thank you for this. Now the ACLU\u2019S got your back heading into the new year, but this podcast feed is gonna look and, well, sound<\/i> a little different in 2026. For one, this is my last episode of the host of At Liberty, and there are actually some major changes coming to this podcast feed. Don\u2019t go anywhere. Stay subscribed. Stay tuned. Things are coming. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> I\u2014wait, hang on. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh, oh, we\u2019re done!\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> I\u2019m turning the [00:53:00] tables on you. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>No, I\u2014my thing says we\u2019re done!\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> No, we have a lightning round where I\u2019m turning the tables on you. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Okay, alright. \r\n\r\nCecillia: <\/b>So you always end\u2014this is your last episode as the host of the At Liberty podcast, brought to you by the ACLU. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yes. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And so\u2014\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I closed it. I closed it. I shut it down. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> You\u2014it was a mic. It\u2019s a mic drop moment! Okay, so, you\u2019ve closed, I think, every episode by asking guests three questions. I\u2019m gonna ask them to you. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Oh, wow. It\u2019s like Inside The Actors Studio.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> So the first question is, what do you want our listeners to do? \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> So, no matter what form and function this podcast takes, and I feel the same way about me, continue to be involved with the ACLU, continue to be connected to your local community organizations that the ACLU does a great job of connecting people to. \r\n\r\nStay in the fight, like\u2014this season of the podcast may end, or this\u2014but [00:54:00] the fight continues. So continue to stay involved with the ACLU. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> What do you want our listeners to know? \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> We who believe in freedom cannot rest. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Can you sing it? \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Yes, even thought\u2014not well, but\u2014[singing] we who believe in freedom cannot rest.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Thank you. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> There you go. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> And finally, I think the most important question. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> What gives you hope? \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Huh. It\u2019s one of the questions where if I think too much about it, I\u2019ll start to fall apart. So, I got three kids: 14, 11, 7\u2014for now, they get older. So, but, sort of looking them in the eye at the beginning of the day and the end of the day and tracking what they\u2019re doing and also explaining them what I\u2019m doing. And going to one of them recently going, like, \u201cI think we have to [00:55:00] stop using this music streaming platform because I think they do bad things.\u201d\r\n\r\nAnd having that kid go, \u201cCan I keep it as long as I don\u2019t go to that coffee shop that does bad things?\u201d I was just like, \u201cWhat a great kid this,\u201d that\u2014you know, she\u2019s saying, \u201cI\u2019m gonna miss that, but I promise I will also support in this way.\u201d And I thought, \u201cI don\u2019t think I was that sophisticated at 14, to be able to sort of negotiate my boycotts.\u201d So, knowing that my kids seem to have some understanding of what I do in the world, and also have an understanding of what it is to be a good person in the world.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> Yeah. That gives me hope, too.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. \r\n\r\nProducer:<\/b> Before we let you go, Kamau, we actually have a couple of listener questions and messages for you.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Uh oh!\r\n\r\nPadma Lakshmi:<\/b> Hi, Kamau. It\u2019s Padma. I\u2019m so glad I got to be on the podcast when you were interviewing me. You\u2019re such a great interviewer, as we all know, but as you reflect on your work\u2014\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh my God.\r\n\r\nPadma:<\/b> \u2014with the ACLU\u2019s podcast, I was wondering: what [00:56:00] is the hardest thing about doing a podcast for the ACLU? And also what was your hardest interview and why?\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> That\u2019s so funny. That\u2019s\u2014it\u2019s so funny to think, like, I just, so I just talked to Padma at the City Arts and Lectures about her new cookbook. And there was a moment on stage I had that was, like, \u201cI used to be on my wife\u2019s, my wife\u2014then girlfriend\u2019s\u2014couch watching this lady on TV.\u201d And now we\u2019re sort of, like, bantering back and forth.\r\n\r\nSo it just, it\u2019s just a very\u2014there\u2019s always this moment about being outside myself whenever, like, Padma\u2019s, like, \u201cKamau\u2026\u201d I\u2019m like, \u201cThe TV\u2019s talking.\u201d \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> She probably feels the same way about you. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> No, she doesn\u2019t. She\u2019s not, she knows who she is. Talk about a person who uses their privilege in ways that they could get away with not doing.\r\n\r\nI think, as we talked about\u2014so did I answer her question? [Laughter] I think I answered!\r\n\r\nWhat is the hardest thing about doing the ACLU podcast? I mean, I just always want to be clear. So, like, just recently, like, we were talking, you went, \u201c18-27-92,\u201d [00:57:00] to not pretend like I know what that is. Not pretend, \u201cOh, yeah. 18-22-97.\u201d Like, to actually be open to being, like, \u201cI don\u2019t know what that is or be clear.\u201d\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> It\u2019s not your job to know what that is.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> But, you know how interviewers can get. Yeah, they can get, like, \u201cOh yeah.\u201d And I would hate for somebody to watch this and think that I was, that I was pretending or to\u2014they not understand what it is, \u2019cause I didn\u2019t feel comfortable saying, \u201cI don\u2019t know what that is.\u201d\r\n\r\nSo I think that\u2019s the thing that makes it, reminding myself it\u2019s okay to be, like, \u201cI don\u2019t know what this person\u2019s talking,\u201d which I\u2014in life, it\u2019s fine, but you know how you lawyers get, you just go so high-level sometimes. \r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> That is so interesting, because I feel like every\u2014this is the third time I\u2019ve been a guest on your podcast, and I come nervous. \u201cWhat are you gonna ask me? Am I gonna stumble on something?\u201d\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah, you\u2019re always worried about, like, \u201cCan we re-record?\u201d I don\u2019t know if we\u2019ve ever had to.\r\n\r\nCecillia:<\/b> But if you don\u2019t know, then the listener is not gonna know. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> That\u2019s [00:58:00] literally the thrust of my entire career.\r\n\r\nLike, you just described my entire public career as a person on TV and in podcasting. Like, I\u2014my whole thing is, like: \u201cIf I don\u2019t know, somebody else doesn\u2019t know.\u201d But I think sometimes with this, like, it could get, I could sort of, because I think I\u2019m here for the ACLU, I could just be like, \u201cUhhuh. Sure, yeah, that makes sense.\u201d\r\n\r\nAnd then not know what\u2019s\u2014so I have to make sure that I\u2019m\u2026. So that\u2019s the most challenging thing about.... The hardest interview? None of them have been, they\u2019re all their own different challenges. I think sometimes I just wish we were all in the room together.\r\n\r\nLike, this is great to be\u2014this is really great. So that\u2019s the only thing is the\u2014but there\u2019s nobody, I\u2019m trying to think, is there ever an interview in the ACLU where I was, like\u2014no, \u2019cause even when there\u2019s\u2014no. I mean, yeah, this is a different, like, if it\u2019s my thing, there\u2019s different things I\u2019d put\u2014\r\n\r\nBut my hardest interview in life? I don\u2019t know if she\u2019s asking that question. But anyway\u2026 \r\n\r\nBen Wizner:<\/b> Hey, Kamau, it\u2019s Ben Wizner. Congrats on an amazing run. Thanks for all you\u2019ve done to spread the gospel with wit [00:59:00] and joy. Best wishes for a great holiday and happy new year. \r\n\r\nEsha Bhandari:<\/b> Kamau. It was great to be in conversation with you. Thank you for providing the space to talk about the importance of civil rights and civil liberties issues of the day and for making it fun and funny.\r\n\r\nMaribel Hern\u00e1ndez Rivera:<\/b> Hi, my name is Maribel Rivera. Thank you, Kamau, for all your work to keep our listeners informed, and also thanks to all our listeners for being with us as we do all that we can to protect our civil rights and civil liberties. 2025 has been challenging, but we are resolute in our commitment to protect our democracy and to protect our communities.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yay. Maribel always understands the assignment.\r\n\r\nJess Weitz Herman:<\/b> So, yeah\u2014I\u2019m gonna take a little privilege for a second. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Okay, alright.\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> I\u2019m Jess Weitz. I am the National Director of Artist and Entertainment Engagement for the ACLU. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I know who you are. You don\u2019t have to tell me.\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> I\u2019m telling [01:00:00] all your listeners.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Oh yeah, yeah. \r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> What you have done over this past year has just opened up this work that we do in a way that, to your point, you are our voice, you are our eyes, and you\u2019re also the one who holds us accountable sometimes. But it has been the utmost privilege to work with you in this way. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>What\u2019s happening?\r\n\r\nJess: <\/b>Beause I\u2019m gonna make you cry, my friend. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> What are we doing this? \r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> So we have a few things that we did for you.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Was I diagnosed with something that nobody told me about?! \r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> We didn\u2019t tell you. Melissa didn\u2019t wanna be the one to break it to you. I drew the short shot. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Did she get the results from my physician? What\u2019s happening? Like, what is happening? What this\u2014why? I was, like, \u201cWhy is Jess flying out here?\u201d Just, what is happening? \r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> We love you, Kamau. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Thanks!\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> This is on behalf of Sam and Erica and Myrriah and me and everyone at the ACLU. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>You know I\u2019m not retiring, right? I still have to, like, work and provide for my family.\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> Oh God, you are most definitely not retiring. Let me\u2014let me actually put this in the [01:01:00] record. You continue on as our Racial Justice Ambassador. You continue on doing the work. And I continue to call on you\u2014\r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>Of course.\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> \u2014on fairly regular basis.\r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>What is happening!\r\n\r\nJess: <\/b>But you did something really important this year. \r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>I didn\u2019t! I didn\u2019t do anything!\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> You were busy. And you did this too.\r\n\r\nKamau: <\/b>That\u2019s \u2019cause you asked me to. \r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> Well, I don\u2019t ask you to do\u2014\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I know, that\u2019s why I did it. \u2019Cause you asked me\u2014\r\n\r\nJess: <\/b>Unimportant things. \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Well, no, I was\u2014you were, like, \u201cWe\u2019re looking for a host.\u201d And I was, like, \u201cWhat about me?\u201d And you said, \u201cOkay.\u201d And I said, \u201cOkay, then I\u2019ll do it.\u201d Like, I don\u2019t understand what is\u2014\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> I texted you under a table during a meeting.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Yeah. I don\u2019t understand why we\u2019re acting like this is a big deal.\r\n\r\nJess:<\/b> It was a big deal for me. And it was a big deal for us. And just say thank you.\r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> I mean, I\u2019m happy for\u2014I\u2019m happy for everyone I\u2019ve met. I\u2019m happy to have new people that are like this. I\u2019m happy to know that, like, I can call, I can send up the bat signal if I have problems and that these people think I\u2019m worth a damn. You know, that\u2019s great. But what is happening!\r\n\r\nJess: <\/b>Shall we have some cake? I guess so! [01:02:00] \r\n\r\nKamau:<\/b> Thanks again to our guest, Cecillia Wang and to you for listening. And remember, friends. Friends, help friends stay in the fight. Join us!\r\n\r\nThank you so much for listening. If you enjoyed this episode of At Liberty, please subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you haven\u2019t already, rate the show and leave us a review and you can also tell us what\u2019s giving you hope right now.\r\n\r\nAt Liberty is a production of the ACLU, in conjunction with Who Knows Best Productions, which is Melissa Hudson Bell, PhD, and me! \r\n\r\nFor the ACLU, our senior executive producer is Sam Riddell. Our executive producer is Jessica Herman Weitz, and our intern is Madhvi Khianra.\r\n\r\nAt Liberty is produced and edited by Erica Getto and Myrriah Gossett for Good Get. And this episode is recorded at the Great Skyline Studios in Oakland, California. Bryan! \r\n\r\nUntil next time, I\u2019m your [01:03:00] host, W. Kamau Bell.\r\n\r\n ","components":[{"acf_fc_layout":"text","text":{"text":"\u2018Tis the season ... to stay ready. A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau. Join us as we reflect on this year's civil liberties work, celebrate our wins, and prepare for the fight ahead."}}],"we_want_to_hear_from_you":"","participants":[132234,1088],"links":{"spotify":"","apple_podcasts":""},"related_news_articles":"","issues":[46529,46799,46781,46567],"related_content_cases":"","related_affiliates":""},"yoast_head":"\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"What\u2019s On The Docket: A 2026 SCOTUS Briefing | American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@aclu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing\",\"name\":\"What\u2019s On The Docket: A 2026 SCOTUS Briefing | American Civil Liberties Union\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-17T18:42:19+00:00\",\"description\":\"A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png\",\"width\":1080,\"height\":1080},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/\",\"name\":\"American Civil Liberties Union\",\"description\":\"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"What\u2019s On The Docket: A 2026 SCOTUS Briefing | American Civil Liberties Union","og_description":"A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing","og_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","og_image":[{"width":1080,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@aclu","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing","name":"What\u2019s On The Docket: A 2026 SCOTUS Briefing | American Civil Liberties Union","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png","datePublished":"2025-12-17T18:42:19+00:00","description":"A busy Supreme Court term is already underway, with trans rights, redistricting, birthright citizenship, and more on the docket. And this week, Cecillia Wang is back to break it down with Kamau.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/podcast\/whats-on-the-docket-a-2026-scotus-briefing#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AtLiberty_HolidaySendOff-1.png","width":1080,"height":1080},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/","name":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.","inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast\/218873","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/podcast"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast\/218873\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":218961,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast\/218873\/revisions\/218961"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46567"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46781"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46799"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46529"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bios\/1088"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bios\/132234"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/218877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=218873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}