Last week, the Supreme Court handed down, as they usually do as the term comes to an end, a flurry of highly anticipated major decisions. Two of them made a lot of news: one effectively ended affirmative action in American higher education, and another ruled that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple. The mainstream media’s prevailing sentiment over the last week has been that these are the sorry consequences of a conservative majority court. This court overturned Roe v. Wade last year in a major setback to women’s rights; now they’ve undone decades of precedent that helped historically disadvantaged students have a chance at the American dream, and they’ve weakened gay rights. When President Joe Biden was asked at a press conference last week whether or not this is a “rogue court,” Biden basically said yes. He muttered, “This isn’t a normal court.”  Is that true? Is this court “not normal”? Or do these decisions actually reflect a legitimate reading of the Constitution? To help separate signal from noise and fact from hyperbole, today we have three legal experts from different sides of the political aisle to hash it out. Harry Litman is an attorney who has clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Thurgood Marshall and Anthony Kennedy. He is also a host of the podcast Talking Feds. Jeannie Suk Gersen is a professor at Harvard Law School and writer for The New Yorker. She clerked for David Souter. And Sarah Isgur is a columnist for The Dispatch and an ABC News contributor. She clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and served as the Justice Department spokeswoman during the Trump administration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard Law professor and New Yorker contributor, delves into the profound impacts of Donald Trump's indictments on American law and politics. She discusses how these legal battles tested the concept of presidential immunity, reshaping the future of political candidacy. Gersen explores the balance between accountability and democratic integrity, raising questions about public perception and the implications for upcoming elections. The conversation also touches on the ethical challenges surrounding executive pardons, particularly in the context of Biden's actions.

Cardiologist, law professor, pediatric nurse, and climate activist discuss heartache and ways to mend broken hearts. Topics include the impact of emotions on heart health, importance of difficult conversations in relationships, and battling grief as a nurse.

The law protects creators' original work against copycats, but it also leaves the door open for some kinds of copying. When a photographer sues the Andy Warhol Foundation for using her work without permission, the justices struggle not to play art critics as they decide the case. More Perfect explores how this star-studded case offers a look at how this Court actually makes decisions. Voices in the episode include: • David Hobbs — known as Mr. Mixx, co-founder of the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew • Jerry Saltz — senior art critic and columnist for New York magazine • Pierre Leval — judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit • Jeannie Suk Gersen — More Perfect legal advisor, Harvard Law professor, New Yorker writer • Lynn Goldsmith — photographer • Andy Warhol — as himself Learn more: • 1994: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. • 2023: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith • "Toward A Fair Use Standard" by Pierre Leval • The Andy Warhol Foundation   Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Click here to donate to More Perfect. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and X (Twitter) @moreperfect.

Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen discusses invoking the 25th Amendment on Biden for cognitive impairment. Topics include Biden's cognitive decline, implications of his resignation for Kamala Harris, and public responses to the idea.