[SPEAKER_03]: Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.

[SPEAKER_03]: In this episode of 5-4, Peter, Reannon, and Michael are talking about the Department of State VA's vaccine advocacy coalition.

[SPEAKER_03]: This is a recent case about the Trump administration's efforts to block foreign aid that has already been funded by Congress.

[SPEAKER_03]: The beginning of his term, Trump signed an executive order to halt all foreign aid that did not align the administration's goals.

[SPEAKER_03]: response, the AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition, along with other nonprofits, sued the government and said that the president cannot unilaterally block foreign aid funding.

[SPEAKER_03]: The Trump administration is announcing more steep cuts this time for an AIDS relief program.

[SPEAKER_00]: The South African Lab may be close to a breakthrough in the fight against HIV, but its researchers have had to stop work after U.S.

[SPEAKER_00]: President Donald Trump hit pause on [SPEAKER_03]: The Supreme Court, in yet another shadow-docket decision, ruled in favor of President Trump, stating that at least for now, the non-profits do not appear to have standing to sue.

[SPEAKER_03]: This is 5-4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

[SPEAKER_06]: Welcome to 5-4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have revised our nation's trajectory downwards, like the latest job's numbers.

[SPEAKER_06]: I'm Peter.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: I'm here with Rianan.

[SPEAKER_02]: Hey.

[SPEAKER_05]: And Michael.

[SPEAKER_05]: So are we in a recession yet?

[SPEAKER_05]: Are we free recession?

[SPEAKER_05]: No.

[SPEAKER_02]: I don't know.

[SPEAKER_02]: We need to revise the numbers, Michael.

[SPEAKER_02]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: There's no conclusions yet.

[SPEAKER_02]: We're revising.

[SPEAKER_06]: What continuously happens now?

[SPEAKER_06]: Usually like there are jobs reports and then they will occasionally be revised upwards or downwards, once we have a little more information.

[SPEAKER_06]: And we've just seen a series of downward revisions.

[SPEAKER_05]: That's what's going on.

[SPEAKER_05]: But to negative numbers sometimes, I think it's like reviving from adding 55,000 jobs to revives to adding negative 3,000 jobs.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's like, okay.

[SPEAKER_02]: Awesome.

[SPEAKER_06]: As a whole, the nation needs to work harder.

[SPEAKER_06]: And I think it's obvious.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, that's right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Nobody wants to work anymore.

[SPEAKER_06]: Three years ago, I had one job.

[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, now I have three.

[SPEAKER_06]: Uh-huh.

[SPEAKER_06]: Two podcasts, newsletter.

[SPEAKER_02]: Eating avocado toast.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's four jobs.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Keep up.

[SPEAKER_06]: Keep up, folks.

[SPEAKER_06]: Oh, I was laid off.

[SPEAKER_06]: Start a podcast.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_05]: Go and wealth.

[SPEAKER_05]: Start another.

[SPEAKER_05]: Not go and wealth.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: You take your podcast.

[SPEAKER_06]: You roll it into more podcasts.

[SPEAKER_05]: maybe get a job at Syracuse teaching about how to make a podcast.

[SPEAKER_02]: Oh yeah, Michael is referring to a new department.

[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, that's right.

[SPEAKER_02]: Department that Syracuse University is opening about podcasting and influencing.

[SPEAKER_05]: That's right.

[SPEAKER_05]: Getting a degree in influencing.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: You want a professor who's got two podcasts in the Patreon top 15 right now.

[SPEAKER_06]: Whoever they're hiring, I bet he doesn't.

[SPEAKER_06]: Alright, folks, as you can hear, Michael is still in the process of moving and recording from a tin can, but we are marching onward.

[SPEAKER_06]: This week's case, Department of State, the AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition.

[SPEAKER_06]: This is a case about the Trump administration's efforts to block foreign assistance USAID, etc.

[SPEAKER_06]: One possible point of confusion here will be talking about the AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition, the plaintiffs here, and also foreign aid.

[SPEAKER_06]: AIDS, AIDS, everyone was yelling at me saying that this is confusing.

[SPEAKER_06]: I don't personally think it is, but I'm just going to clarify.

[SPEAKER_06]: Those are different things.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Now, early in his term, Donald Trump issued an executive order stating, quote, no further United States foreign assistance shall be dispersed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the president of the United States.

[SPEAKER_06]: And this is interesting because foreign aid, generally speaking, determined by Congress, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Nonetheless, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio froze all foreign aid funding through the State Department and the U.S.

[SPEAKER_06]: Agency for International Development, USAID, while the government carried out a review of the foreign aid to make sure that it was fully aligned with the policy of the President [SPEAKER_06]: This is all what's called impoundments.

[SPEAKER_06]: impoundment is the process whereby the president does not spend money that has been appropriated by Congress.

[SPEAKER_06]: Historically considered a no-no as are many things that Donald Trump does.

[SPEAKER_06]: So the AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition and some other non-profits sued.

[SPEAKER_06]: I said, hey, this is illegal.

[SPEAKER_06]: The president cannot unilaterally halt foreign aid funding.

[SPEAKER_06]: But the Supreme Court, in a six to three decision, said that they don't think those nonprofits have standing to challenge the claim.

[SPEAKER_06]: This should sound relatively familiar.

[SPEAKER_06]: Donald Trump does something that is patently illegal.

[SPEAKER_06]: Just, it's so obvious that it's illegal, that there shouldn't be any discussion of it.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's challenged in court.

[SPEAKER_06]: The Supreme Court takes it on the shadow docket and they find, say, yay, yay!

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I mean it's you have to admit it's good for us that they do it We haven't had we haven't had to come up with a new case to do from like 20 years ago all year Yes, because they are firing off three paragraph little memos to us.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah And yeah, and they're all so short.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, it's kind of sick [SPEAKER_06]: Then this Supreme Court finds some technicality to allow Trump to keep doing what he's doing at least for now, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: This has been the court's ammo all year and here they are doing it once again.

[SPEAKER_06]: Three, I'll hand that off to you for background.

[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, lots of shenanigans going on.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think it makes sense actually to reverse a little bit.

[SPEAKER_02]: Let's back up, let's go back in time to the 1970s.

[SPEAKER_02]: To another crank, crony, corrupt, fucking loser president, Richard Nixon.

[SPEAKER_02]: Because right now, 2025, this isn't the first time that impoundment has been an issue where the president withholds the disbursement of funds that have been allocated by statute, by Congress, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: So after getting reelected in 1972, President Nixon declared he's gonna reduce government spending.

[SPEAKER_02]: He's gonna real in big government.

[SPEAKER_02]: Sound familiar and how's he going to do that?

[SPEAKER_02]: In part he's going to impound funds.

[SPEAKER_02]: Now over the course of history various presidents have used impoundment to varying degrees, but Nixon really put the impoundment thing on steroids.

[SPEAKER_02]: And what this puts a magnifying glass on, what the tension is here for backing up a little bit is the relationship between Congress and the executive.

[SPEAKER_02]: Congress passes laws that create federal agencies direct them to use public monies and then what is the power of the executive when the executive branches over those federal agencies is over that amount of money that has been appropriated by Congress.

[SPEAKER_02]: So, I'll give an example.

[SPEAKER_02]: Congress passed amendments to the Clean Water Act in the early 1970s, directing the Nixon administration through the EPA, the environmental protection agency, to disperse funds to states to help them address water pollution.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is cleaning up sewage systems, you name it, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And President Nixon refused to disperse those funds, as well as tons of other categories of funds like, [SPEAKER_02]: subsidize housing, federal transportation, stuff, roads, construction, disaster relief.

[SPEAKER_02]: Nixon's just saying, like, I oppose these programs.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm in control of the budget here.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm not dispersing those funds.

[SPEAKER_02]: So the city of New York and other cities across the US sued the Nixon administration.

[SPEAKER_02]: And they're saying, like, we're do these funds under federal law, and Nixon can't just withhold like this.

[SPEAKER_02]: Congress passed these laws allocating for us to get these funds.

[SPEAKER_02]: And so, there's a Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called City of New York V-Train that under those clean water act amendments, the president could not impound those funds.

[SPEAKER_02]: The statute, the Clean Water Act, says sums of money need to go to XYZ grantees, so the president needs to make sure those sums of money go where they need to go.

[SPEAKER_02]: So you literally have a Supreme Court case addressing this controversy of impoundment.

[SPEAKER_02]: Now that was just narrowly decided like just under what the clean water act says, but you see where the court at least was leaning in terms of this balance between congressional and executive power.

[SPEAKER_02]: Then right after this Supreme Court case comes down.

[SPEAKER_02]: Congress itself.

[SPEAKER_02]: response to President Nixon and his fuck shit by passing a law literally about impoundment.

[SPEAKER_02]: The next year in 1973 Congress passed the impoundment control act and it basically says that the president can't just withhold funds completely up to the administration's discretion.

[SPEAKER_02]: The power of the purse lies with Congress, the statute says, and if the president doesn't want to disperse funds that are mandated by federal law, well there's a process for [SPEAKER_02]: basically he'd be allowed not to.

[SPEAKER_02]: So let's fast forward to 2024.

[SPEAKER_02]: Congress appropriates more than $30 billion for foreign assistance.

[SPEAKER_02]: And on Trump's first day in office in January 2025, he froze all of that funding.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like we all remember, right, the firing and closing down of USA aid offices all around the world, all of that, and also there are organizations in foreign countries that are recipients of this aid.

[SPEAKER_02]: And in fact, rely on this aid quite heavily.

[SPEAKER_02]: And so, [SPEAKER_02]: Some grants and disbursements have happened out of this $30 billion, but at issue in this case, that we have here, decided on the shadow docket, is a remaining $4 billion of foreign aid appropriations.

[SPEAKER_02]: Trump recently requested that Congress rescind Trump making the request to Congress that he be allowed to impound that he doesn't have to allocate this $4 billion, but Congress hasn't acted on that request.

[SPEAKER_02]: So the appropriation of those funds by statute is still active, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: This is still live and many, many of these intended recipients, including the named plaintiff, the AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition, are we're going to talk about the impact of this later, literally at risk of like not just having to close down, but you have to think about the impact of all of the services that they provide all over the world, not being able to do any of that.

[SPEAKER_02]: So some of these organizations sued and that's how we get to the Supreme Court.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, so the big picture legal issue here is that Congress passed legislation appropriating these foreign assistance funds.

[SPEAKER_06]: President cannot unilaterally nullify an active Congress, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: At least under shall we say more traditional understandings of our Constitution, that would violate the basic separation of constitutional powers.

[SPEAKER_06]: It would probably violate the impoundment control act, right?

[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: But.

[SPEAKER_06]: As usual, as we've seen a lot this year, the Trump administration does not argue before this court that what they're doing is legal.

[SPEAKER_06]: They argue instead that the plaintiffs here, these non-profits, do not have standing to sue.

[SPEAKER_06]: Their argument is a little bit technical.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's based on what's called a preclusion.

[SPEAKER_06]: Sometimes Congress will pass a law about something or other and in a law it will say, here are the people who can sue about this.

[SPEAKER_06]: Sometimes it will also say, no one else can sue about this.

[SPEAKER_06]: But sometimes it just says, here are the people who can sue about this and then courts infer.

[SPEAKER_06]: that no one else can sue.

[SPEAKER_06]: So basically what happens is that Congress is identifying an area of concern and they're saying, here is the vessel for addressing that concern.

[SPEAKER_06]: There's this one law and only certain people can sue.

[SPEAKER_06]: Everyone else is precluded.

[SPEAKER_06]: So that's what's happening here.

[SPEAKER_06]: There's the [SPEAKER_06]: But I want people to hear it.

[SPEAKER_02]: The controller is leaving us alone.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: The controller general can sue when the executive branch illegally impounds can gradually appropriated funds.

[SPEAKER_06]: So the court doesn't provide much reasoning, but the argument is basically look.

[SPEAKER_06]: Congress passed a law about impoundament that allows the controller general to sue over this.

[SPEAKER_06]: And that implicitly precludes anyone else from suing about it.

[SPEAKER_06]: basically arguing that when Congress created the impoundment control act, they meant for that to be the exclusive method for challenging illegal impoundments.

[SPEAKER_06]: Now, the obvious counterargument [SPEAKER_06]: is that if Congress wanted to make the impoundment control act, the exclusive method for challenging illegal impoundments, they could have just said so in the law, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: But they did not.

[SPEAKER_06]: The even better counter argument is that in the law itself, the impoundment control act says that it is not the exclusive method for challenging impoundments.

[SPEAKER_06]: The law says, quote, [SPEAKER_06]: Nothing contained in this act shall be construed as affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's just a clear statement that other people besides the controller general can sue.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's just a sentence that says other people can sue.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, right.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's a sentence that says this does not preclude anything for any more.

[SPEAKER_06]: And it's basically what you would describe as a non-proclusion provision, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: And yet, the justices are saying that preclusion applies.

[SPEAKER_06]: Six justices of the Supreme Court are arguing that this law precludes the lawsuit when the law itself expressly says that it does not.

[SPEAKER_06]: A level of shamelessness that you rarely see, [SPEAKER_06]: Except now all the time you see it actually, but before recently I wasn't that used to it.

[SPEAKER_06]: Let's up.

[SPEAKER_06]: I'll put it that way this is very this is another situation where it's interesting that the court.

[SPEAKER_06]: doesn't provide a full opinion.

[SPEAKER_06]: And they expressly say, this is a preliminary finding.

[SPEAKER_06]: This is shadow doc, it's procedural.

[SPEAKER_06]: It is technically not a final decision about this law.

[SPEAKER_06]: All they're doing is ruling on whether or not like a lower court ruling will stay in place and keep the funds flowing or halt the funds for now and technical procedural shit.

[SPEAKER_06]: So they're like, look, this is just a preliminary finding.

[SPEAKER_06]: We're kind of guessing here.

[SPEAKER_06]: making room for themselves to change their mind later and be like, maybe you're right, or maybe not, maybe they're just doing the same thing that they've been doing all year, which is you say you won't reach the merits, but you make a preliminary finding that benefits Donald Trump, a preliminary finding that allows him to continue doing whatever he's doing.

[SPEAKER_06]: And I don't know, I guess in this case, it's just sort of extra obscene because they are sort of interpreting the statute a little bit in other cases they have basically been like we're not even going to touch the law we're not going to talk about what we think the law says we're just making this like procedural finding or whatever, but here they seem to be at least implicitly interpreting the statute and [SPEAKER_06]: That's just an extra layer of absurdity because one, the statute is very clear.

[SPEAKER_06]: That preclusion is not applied.

[SPEAKER_06]: And then also, too, it's just like, well, if we're going to go this far, then like, you're looking at statute just through on the merits.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right, can't we talk about the fact that, like, this is obviously illegal?

[SPEAKER_06]: Like, like, can that at least be mentioned in the opinion?

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's just one of those things where you're reading it, just being like, you fucking kidding me, dude.

[SPEAKER_06]: Like, how long are we going to have to keep doing this?

[SPEAKER_06]: How many times do I have to read a shadow doc at a opinion where Donald Trump has, like, just, like, out and out, cut and dry, violated the law, shot a dog in the middle of the street.

[SPEAKER_06]: And then, [SPEAKER_06]: The Supreme Court is like, hmm, I don't know, we've sort of, we need to hold off on this for another six months.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, we need to hold off on this for another six months, but I will say that I don't think shooting a dog in the street is illegal.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's the bullshit dance.

[SPEAKER_06]: We can't say for sure what happened here, but I've heard that was a piece of shit dog.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_05]: I mean, to Peter's point about shamelessness, I feel like, [SPEAKER_05]: But they've pulled this move so many times, they can't really think people are buying this, right?

[SPEAKER_05]: Like, they can't be that delusional.

[SPEAKER_05]: Who's that stupid?

[SPEAKER_05]: Who's that gullible?

[SPEAKER_05]: Who's like, yeah, on the 70th time they do this being like, yeah, I guess it's just a procedural.

[SPEAKER_05]: That's so weird how every time the procedure gets in the way of ruling on the merits and Trump gets through whatever he wants.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right, like there's only so many times you can pretend to be flipping a coin and land on Donald Trump, you know what I mean, yeah, and we're working on like 25 times in a row, and it's sort of like, okay, come on, like, can you can you just stop it?

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, it's like it's so frustrating, it's so shameless and to your point, Michael, it's like they can't think everybody is this stupid, like really believing what they're doing, but I think it's like the delusion of [SPEAKER_02]: victory and power her.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is just a wild victory lap that they're taking on top of all of our heads.

[SPEAKER_02]: You know, like I don't think they care.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's like anybody is like quote unquote falling for it.

[SPEAKER_06]: Well, they're very close to a political orgasm, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: And they're heads fuzzy.

[SPEAKER_06]: They're politically coming.

[SPEAKER_06]: And they're very close and they've lost their ability to reason.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's the, I think the most accurate metaphor for what's going on here.

[SPEAKER_06]: And then maybe after the political orgasm, they'll be like, oh, they regret it a little bit.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: That was very shameful.

[SPEAKER_06]: But for now, they are furiously jacking.

[SPEAKER_05]: Right now, they're just pumping wildly.

[SPEAKER_02]: they're not having intercourse.

[SPEAKER_02]: Let's be real because they don't.

[SPEAKER_02]: The justice is don't fuck.

[SPEAKER_06]: But the point is right wing legal ideas right wing legal theory.

[SPEAKER_06]: Let's make this metaphor robust.

[SPEAKER_05]: Really to get into it.

[SPEAKER_05]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_05]: Well, I think that's a good time to change topics.

[SPEAKER_06]: I would say, I would say.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, there is a descent.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's by cake and it's joined by the other two liberals.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's it's good.

[SPEAKER_05]: It is I would say appropriately condescending, which are quite liked.

[SPEAKER_05]: I don't [SPEAKER_05]: find Kagan to be particularly prone to things like italics for emphasis, but she does use them here in a way that makes you think she's mad.

[SPEAKER_05]: She thinks she's talking to like a three-year-old.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm going to say this very slowly like that.

[SPEAKER_05]: Right, yeah.

[SPEAKER_05]: So that's sentence that Peter read, nothing contained in this action.

[SPEAKER_05]: I'll be construed [SPEAKER_05]: in the ICA.

[SPEAKER_05]: And then parentheses neither it's process is for considering proposed decisions.

[SPEAKER_05]: Nor it's creation of a comptroller general, suit, effects, and italics in any way, the claims of any party to litigation about any impoundness.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, it's like, okay, you know, like, [SPEAKER_06]: It's one of those things where it's like, I don't know what you're supposed to argue when there's like a single sentence in the law that's just like very clear your wrong.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: What do you suppose to do beyond just like throwing it in their face with italics?

[SPEAKER_05]: Right.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's just like, this is it.

[SPEAKER_05]: And so a good portion of her opinion is just dedicated to this and how that answers everything.

[SPEAKER_05]: You know, it's like the long and short of it.

[SPEAKER_05]: But she does talk [SPEAKER_05]: why the president is not likely to win on the merits since that's part of the state considerations.

[SPEAKER_05]: She talks about some of Trump's arguments.

[SPEAKER_05]: She makes the point that essentially his complaint that, well, I'll be harmed by having to negotiate with countries and give foreign aid that I don't want to give and engage in negotiations.

[SPEAKER_05]: I don't want to engage in.

[SPEAKER_05]: She's like, well, yet tough shit, that's part of being in a divided government.

[SPEAKER_05]: Like Congress who did it, said it, like that's over.

[SPEAKER_05]: Like that's just the division of power.

[SPEAKER_06]: The majority has said a precedent this year, where if the Trump administration claims that something will make their lives more difficult in any way, [SPEAKER_06]: been like they win.

[SPEAKER_06]: And they're just like, oh, I don't want to negotiate.

[SPEAKER_06]: I don't want to have to do the job of president.

[SPEAKER_06]: That would be a lot.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: And the court's like, you're right.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Anything that gets between you and manifesting your will in its perfect formulation, that is an undue burden on the president.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: Nothing should be hard for you, King.

[SPEAKER_02]: You know?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: King literally.

[SPEAKER_02]: Little kisses.

[SPEAKER_05]: Unless it's firing someone at the fed, which might affect our [SPEAKER_05]: for a one case.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, yeah, except for except for our beautiful children at the level of reserve.

[SPEAKER_05]: So that's pretty much it for Kagan's descent.

[SPEAKER_05]: That's I mean, it's short, like much like the opinion itself.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's just a few pages.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, it's typical Kagan very sharp on the law.

[SPEAKER_06]: And I would have liked a couple of paragraphs.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's just like, we all see what you're doing.

[SPEAKER_06]: A little Peggy's, you're a bunch of little disgusting rats.

[SPEAKER_06]: And one day, we will smoke you out of your hole.

[SPEAKER_05]: So there'll be a big mallet waiting for you when you do pop your head out of that hole.

[SPEAKER_06]: you're going to get burnt.

[SPEAKER_06]: If a Cagan clerk is listening, if you could send her the politically jerking metaphor, I think that would be really helpful for her understanding and then maybe she could drop out of the footnote.

[SPEAKER_05]: That's like 5-4.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Some observers have called this [SPEAKER_06]: Let's pivot from this to talking about the material consequences we've got to get for an aid because we have talked about a lot of these cases, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: These shadow docket cases that have come up under the Trump administration where like Trump is flagrantly violating the law and the court aids in a bets.

[SPEAKER_06]: That is true here too.

[SPEAKER_06]: This is like an egregious violation of the constitutional order where Trump is just unilaterally halting foreign assistance.

[SPEAKER_06]: And, you know, doubly so where the court is just ignoring the words of the controlling statute.

[SPEAKER_06]: But, [SPEAKER_06]: We should pause for a second here, because this isn't like about some abstract notion of constitutionality, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: This isn't about like the firing of a department head where Trump ignored procedure, like he was supposed to give notice and wait 90 days or whatever, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: The human cost of the cuts to foreign aid are like unbelievably.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes, massive.

[SPEAKER_06]: There is a peer-reviewed paper.

[SPEAKER_06]: publish this summer, finding that if USAID were to be defunded, the result would be 14 million deaths globally, including 4.5 million children through 20-30, so just five years.

[SPEAKER_06]: Think about the scale of that, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: I mean, the sheer volume [SPEAKER_06]: of human suffering being perpetuated by these Ivy League nerds talking about a preliminary finding of the impoundment control act.

[SPEAKER_06]: Like, you know, of their analysis of the impoundment control act.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's just it's hard to like speak about this stuff appropriately because like how do you talk about someone who facilitates [SPEAKER_06]: in suffering that vast, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: What's the appropriate response to someone who kills 14 million people?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: How do you then conceive of that from a moral perspective?

[SPEAKER_06]: What's the appropriate punishment for someone who does this?

[SPEAKER_06]: Those are questions I genuinely don't know the answer to, because it's human suffering on a scale that the mind cannot comprehend.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, it is really hard to conceive of the scale really, really kind of like incalculable and it's so disgusting the way the Supreme Court here like it's completely ignoring that and ignoring that.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think on purpose to just, you know, on the shadow docket, whitewash this as some procedural decision, you know, it's so vast that the problem the injustice is so vast that I do think it's worth mentioning then [SPEAKER_02]: One example of an organization that now is defunded because of this decision, and we can talk about the plaintiff here, AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition.

[SPEAKER_02]: The executive director of AVAC said about this shadow docket ruling quote, with this ruling the Supreme Court has given the administration a free pass to run out the clock on the disbursement of foreign aid that Congress appropriated.

[SPEAKER_02]: Since foreign aid was frozen on the first day of this administration, we have seen, we he's talking about AVAC.

[SPEAKER_02]: We have seen thousands of clinics close, hundreds of thousands of communities lose access to essential services and medications and thousands of lives lost.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is Mitchell Warren over at AVAC, talking about obviously all over the globe, what this organization does for AIDS prevention, AIDS research, birth control, testing the provision of, you know, actually literally giving services to people who have AIDS and HIV.

[SPEAKER_02]: These are life-saving services.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is how many organizations all over the world are funded.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is how they carry out.

[SPEAKER_02]: the services that they provide and they are now defunded by the Trump administration's actions and that has been, you know, rubber stamped here by the Supreme Court.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think this question of like what you're hitting on Peter of like the scale of this.

[SPEAKER_02]: is important and because it's related to a frustration that I have a lot of the times with Supreme Court cases across the board, but especially I have this reaction when it's a Supreme Court case around a foreign policy issue, which is that the Supreme Court in these decisions, [SPEAKER_02]: It's so narrow, it's so specific, it's so like granular in its scope, that you miss constantly the massive impact of actually what they're deciding and what they're allowing here the Trump administration to do you know actually like if we're backing up totally and I'm not [SPEAKER_02]: recording a podcast right now about the Supreme Court and this decision, you actually are not going to catch me like politically defending the system that is created by USAID.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is actually a system and a structure I would argue and many people do of American imperialism, of American control and hegemony around the world.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is part of America's role right now on the globe.

[SPEAKER_02]: that USAID in so many countries creates economic and social dependency on U.S.

[SPEAKER_02]: foreign aid and who has the power to control that U.S.

[SPEAKER_02]: foreign aid?

[SPEAKER_02]: Well, it's officials in the United States, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And those control levers and mechanisms are exercised in the way that serves U.S.

[SPEAKER_02]: interests.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, it's frequently used as leverage in foreign policy.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, that's exactly right.

[SPEAKER_02]: You know, the countries in the global south that receive the most US foreign aid are the countries that have to say how high wind Trump says jump, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And so like we can get into the details of this.

[SPEAKER_02]: However, however, you have a Supreme Court case like this.

[SPEAKER_02]: And what it has everybody focused on, [SPEAKER_02]: which is so enraging to me, is little tiny procedures, little tiny procedures, and while Congress said this, not this, and who can sue anyway, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And it's so narrowing I think to all of us politically, [SPEAKER_02]: just in terms of conceptualizing what actually we are talking about on these big, big, big issues of federal law, federal policy, and the power, literally, the power of the United States, not just domestically around the world.

[SPEAKER_02]: And you don't get an understanding or like any nuance, or any complication here.

[SPEAKER_02]: You get a fucking ridiculous harmful.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is harmful, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: a fucking ridiculous harmful stupid case in three paragraphs that Justice Alito, I'm sure, shit out, right, in five minutes.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, the foreign aid stuff is very interesting because they're all these really nuanced arguments about what our foreign aid regime should look like.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, there are a lot of liberals who basically say, and I'm actually relatively compelled by this argument, [SPEAKER_06]: It's true that foreign aid is used as leverage in American foreign policy, but that trade office worth it because of the good that is done.

[SPEAKER_06]: And like trying to undo that is so difficult that like this regime is sort of like the a reasonable compromise, right, where we you pay out foreign aid, but the State Department is using it to manipulate other countries that like, [SPEAKER_06]: you know, it's not the ideal situation, but it's a workable one.

[SPEAKER_06]: There's like an argument between that and people that think that we should be sort of working towards a different style of regime.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: None of that argument is taking place here.

[SPEAKER_06]: Instead it's like, this is like just like a baby at the control panel.

[SPEAKER_00]: You know what I mean?

[SPEAKER_06]: Just like pressing buttons, like these absolute morons tinkering with this shit on like these really weird, narrow, [SPEAKER_06]: you get the worst of every world and you have the aid that has the fewest strings attached is what's getting ganked first.

[SPEAKER_06]: You know what I mean?

[SPEAKER_06]: When we talk about the cutting of foreign assistance, aid to Israel still going out, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Well, that's how we're talking about.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: We're still funding warlords across the globe, but like I assure you that stuff is untouched.

[SPEAKER_06]: You know, it's so frustrating to have to engage with these issues through [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, no conception at all of like, why is there a system in which, you know, the appropriation and the withholding of billions of dollars leads to 14 million people dying?

[SPEAKER_02]: We're not even thinking on the scale of being justice here, you know?

[SPEAKER_02]: We can't, not with a fucking decision like this, not with the level of the debate being where it's at.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is a problem of American politics, you know?

[SPEAKER_02]: And it's a problem that is greatly, greatly contributed to by the Supreme Court.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: We're talking about the big picture stuff to return to some of the narrower questions, slightly narrower questions.

[SPEAKER_06]: Whenever the court was like disciplining the Biden administration, it'd be like, you know, the court has weighed in on this Congress has weighed in on this, the Biden administration needs to operate within those confines, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: And then you have Trump.

[SPEAKER_06]: and suddenly like the constitutional order is like this very fluid thing to them, where it's like, hmm, yeah, I don't know.

[SPEAKER_06]: Maybe Congress doesn't appropriate funds, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Maybe all these like really fundamental principles of our constitutional order, [SPEAKER_06]: don't really exist right like maybe we just have a king yeah they're all legal realist now right they're like you isn't isn't power sort of what we will it to be like aren't we sitting on all the guns right now you know you have a situation where Nixon tried to do something both Congress and the Supreme Court stepped into restraining him.

[SPEAKER_06]: And then 50 years later, Trump comes along and like, you know, in many ways, Trump is just sort of like the Omega to Nixon's Alpha, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, a real grotesque.

[SPEAKER_06]: We always talk about the modern conservative political movement as something that didn't start with Nixon exactly, but Nixon was their ascendance into power and Trump represents this just sort of preposterous and result of it.

[SPEAKER_06]: And the conservative legal project was always like [SPEAKER_06]: of the resistance to that political movement, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: The rejection of the anti-nixon political order.

[SPEAKER_06]: A lot of the things that they temporarily conceded [SPEAKER_06]: after Nixon, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: The idea that Nixon committed a crime, that he should have been punished for that crime, those were concessions that were politically convenient for them at the time, and are no longer politically convenient for them, and so they have rescinded all of those concessions.

[SPEAKER_06]: They have rescinded their apologies for Richard Nixon, and all that he raw.

[SPEAKER_06]: Now you have Trump the avatar of [SPEAKER_06]: like unapolitic, Nicksonian politics.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: And AI creation, if you put it into chat GPT, you know?

[SPEAKER_06]: Right, right, and it's just like more asshole.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, more asshole.

[SPEAKER_02]: More disgusting, more asshole, more loser.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, weirder look.

[SPEAKER_02]: Even weirder look.

[SPEAKER_06]: Less natural.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, even weirder voice.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, make the, make the skin unusual.

[SPEAKER_06]: Next week, INSV Lopez Mendoza, a case from the 80s that basically said that in deportation proceedings there are fewer constitutional rights, a little bit less constitution in the deportation context, helping pave the way for the modern ice hellscape.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, we're going to be returning to our roots, talking about how cases from 40 years ago have set the table for the disgusting tyrants of the modern day.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, classic stuff.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Follow us on social media at 5.4 pod and subscribe to our patreon patreon.com slash 5.4 pod all spelled out for access to premium and ad free episodes, special events, our slack, all sorts of shit, our merch on sale now.

[SPEAKER_06]: five four pod dot com slash merch yeah it rules it check it out it's highbrow shit you won't believe you won't believe it a bunch of weirdos like us came up with merch this beautiful about this is a brick or not up this is how you sell shit read you don't understand you don't understand that I'm always hustling [SPEAKER_01]: His fifth job is saying go to the website and buy merch.

[SPEAKER_06]: I feel like the what you want me to say is We have merch on our website Peter signing off No one's gonna go You have to entice them All right, we'll see you next week bye y'all bye everybody [SPEAKER_04]: Five to four is presented by true log projects.

[SPEAKER_04]: This episode was produced by Dustin Disoto.

[SPEAKER_04]: Leon Nefock provides editorial support.

[SPEAKER_04]: Our website is designed by Peter Murphy.

[SPEAKER_04]: Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks, That Ships, NY, and our theme song is by Spacer Relations.

[SPEAKER_04]: If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode.

[SPEAKER_04]: To get exclusive Patreon only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more join at patreon.com slash five four pot.

[SPEAKER_06]: I'm going to go right down.

[SPEAKER_06]: My thoughts on that politically jerking metaphor before I forget it.

[SPEAKER_02]: Dear diary, I'm thinking about six conservative justices jacking off right now.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_05]: Got a journal that one.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.