

More Perfect
WNYC Studios
We’re taught the Supreme Court was designed to be above the fray of politics. But at a time when partisanship seeps into every pore of American life, are the nine justices living up to that promise? More Perfect is a guide to the current moment on the Court. We bring the highest court of the land down to earth, telling the human dramas at the Court that shape so many aspects of American life — from our religious freedom to our artistic expression, from our reproductive choices to our voice in democracy.
Episodes
Mentioned books

23 snips
Nov 18, 2025 • 47min
The Harvard Plan
Camilla Naxerova, a cancer researcher at Harvard Medical School, shares how federal funding cuts threaten her vital work on metastasis. Meanwhile, Kit Parker, a bioengineering professor and Army Reserve colonel, discusses the pressures of conservative viewpoints on campus politics. They delve into the ramifications of the Trump administration’s actions on American universities, including the chilling effects on research and faculty morale, and the ongoing moral dilemmas faced by academia in these turbulent times.

18 snips
May 9, 2025 • 49min
No More Souters - Revisited
In this thought-provoking discussion, Kermit Roosevelt III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and a former clerk for Justice Souter, delves into the enigmatic life of the late Supreme Court Justice David Souter. They explore Souter's unexpected judicial philosophy that contradicted conservative expectations and shaped major cases like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The conversation also examines the political implications of his nomination and the lasting legacy he left on the Court, as well as the broader impacts of his decisions in a polarized landscape.

9 snips
Aug 3, 2023 • 41min
Andy Warhol and the Art of Judging Art
A Prince portrait sparks a Supreme Court showdown over copyright, fair use, and whether Warhol transformed a photographer’s work or borrowed too much. Hear how a hip-hop parody helped shape the legal standard, as justices wrestle with art, money, and the limits of judging what a work means.

Jul 27, 2023 • 41min
The Original Anti-Vaxxer
In 1902, a Swedish-American pastor named Henning Jacobson refused to get the smallpox vaccine. This launched a chain of events leading to two landmark Supreme Court cases, in which the Court considered the balancing act between individual liberty over our bodies and the collective good.
A version of this story originally ran on The Experiment on March 21, 2021.
Voices in the episode include:
• Rev. Robin Lutjohann — pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts
• Michael Willrich — Brandeis University history professor
• Wendy Parmet — Northeastern University School of Law professor
Learn more:
• 1905: Jacobson v. Massachusetts
• 1927: Buck v. Bell
• 2022: National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
• 2022: Biden v. Missouri
• "Pox: An American History" by Michael Willrich
• "Constitutional Contagion: COVID, the Courts, and Public Health" by Wendy Parmet
Music by Ob (“Wold”), Parish Council (“Leaving the TV on at Night,” “Museum Weather,” “P Lachaise”), Alecs Pierce (“Harbour Music, Parts I & II”), Laundry (“Lawn Feeling”), water feature (“richard iii (duke of gloucester)”), Keyboard (“Mu”), and naran ratan (“Forevertime Journeys”), provided by Tasty Morsels. Additional music by Dieterich Buxtehude (“Prelude and Fugue in D Major”), Johannes Brahms (“Quintet for Clarinet, Two Violins, Viola, and Cello in B Minor”), and Andrew Eric Halford and Aidan Mark Laverty (“Edge of a Dream”).
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.
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.

Jul 20, 2023 • 35min
Not Even Past: Dred Scott Reprise
Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most infamous cases in Supreme Court history: in 1857, an enslaved person named Dred Scott filed a suit for his freedom and lost. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney wrote that Black men “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” One Civil War and more than a century later, the Taneys and the Scotts reunite at a Hilton in Missouri to figure out what reconciliation looks like in the 21st century.
Voices in the episode include:
• Lynne Jackson — great-great-granddaughter of Dred and Harriet Scott, and president and founder of the Dred Scott Heritage Foundation
• Dred Scott Madison — great-great-grandson of Dred Scott
• Barbara McGregory — great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott
• Charlie Taney — great-great-grandnephew of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision
• Richard Josey — Manager of Programs at the Minnesota Historical Society
Learn more:
• 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford
• The Dred Scott Heritage Foundation
Special thanks to Kate Taney Billingsley, whose play, "A Man of His Time," inspired the episode; and to Soren Shade for production help. Additional music for this episode by Gyan Riley.
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.
Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund.
Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

6 snips
Jul 13, 2023 • 49min
No More Souters
David Souter arrived at the Supreme Court as a Republican-approved mystery, then surprised the people who expected a reliable conservative vote. Through the failed Bork nomination, the abortion-rights ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Bush v. Gore, and the backlash summed up by “No More Souters,” the story traces how one justice reshaped the politics of choosing judges.

5 snips
Jun 29, 2023 • 33min
Off the Record, On the Stand
A journalist’s recordings of far-right militia activity on January 6 land him in court, raising fears that testifying could break trust with sources. His dilemma echoes reporter Earl Caldwell’s battle with the FBI and a landmark Supreme Court case over press freedom, subpoenas, and the government’s pursuit of journalists’ reporting.

Jun 22, 2023 • 46min
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl Reprise
Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case called Haaland v. Brackeen. The decision comes almost exactly 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, which planted the seed for last week’s big ruling. To mark the new landmark decision, More Perfect re-airs the Radiolab episode that tells the story of two families, a painful history, and a young girl caught in the middle.
Voices in the episode include:
• Allison Herrera — KOSU Indigenous Affairs reporter
• Matt and Melanie Capobianco — Veronica's adoptive parents
• Dusten Brown — Veronica's biological father
• Mark Fiddler — attorney for the Capobiancos
• Marcia Zug — University of South Carolina School of Law professor
• Bert Hirsch — attorney formerly of the Association on American Indian Affairs
• Chrissi Nimmo — Deputy Attorney General for Cherokee Nation
• Terry Cross — founding executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (now serving as senior advisor)
• Lori Alvino McGill — attorney for Christy Maldonado, Veronica’s biological mother
Learn more:
• 2013: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
• 2023: Haaland v. Brackeen
• "Baby Veronica belongs with her adoptive parents" by Christy Maldonado
• "Doing What’s Best for the Tribe" by Marcia Zug
• "The Court Got Baby Veronica Wrong" by Marcia Zug
• "A Wrenching Adoption Case" by The New York Times Editorial Board
• National Indian Child Welfare Association
• In Trust podcast, reported by Allison Herrera
Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.
Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund.
Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Jun 15, 2023 • 35min
Part 2: If Not Viability, Then What?
Now that the “viability line” in pregnancy — as defined by Roe v. Wade — is no longer federal law, lawmakers and lawyers are coming up with new frameworks for abortion access at a dizzying rate. In this second part of our series, More Perfect asks: what if abortion law wasn’t shaped by men at the Supreme Court, but instead by people who know what it’s like to be pregnant, to have abortions, and to lose pregnancies? We hear from women on the front lines of the next legal battle over abortion in America.
Voices in the episode include:
• Mary J. Browning — pro bono lawyer for The Justice Foundation
• Dr. Shelley Sella — OBGYN (retired)
• Greer Donley — University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor
• Jill Wieber Lens — University of Arkansas School of Law professor
Learn more:
• 1973: Roe v. Wade
• 2022: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
• Listen to Part 1: The Viability Line
Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.
Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund.
Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

5 snips
Jun 8, 2023 • 45min
Part 1: The Viability Line
How did a fuzzy medical idea become the hard legal boundary at the heart of Roe v. Wade? Trace the viability line from a lower-court ruling and Justice Blackmun’s clerk to its influence on abortion law, medical practice, and how pregnancy is understood. Then hear how supporters and critics tried to reshape the line before Dobbs.


