Elizabeth Jo

So that's a big voting rights case, of course, but it's sort of unclear what that would mean outside of the voting rights context.

But I think in Trump's second term, I would expect with more and more threats against some states and not others, you'll see some states with Democratic governors

invoking this idea that we are being punished because we're not going along with Trump's agenda.

So it will certainly be used, the 10th Amendment generally, and perhaps the equal sovereignty doctrine in particular, as some kind of constitutional shield as Trump tries to force the states to do his bidding a second time.

Yeah.

And so it really, you know, it just shows you how much like all of these doctrines in one era look like a bad idea can sometimes be a good idea.

A lot of this is contextual.

It definitely makes the process of governance really messy.

Right.

I mean, when states get to object in all of these different ways, you know, if we want a sort of national system where you have uniform laws, you know,

In some ways, the court's response to this, because they've interpreted the 10th Amendment in all these different ways, they're saying, you know, efficiency is not the goal here.

The goal is to make sure that the different parts have their kind of respect that the Constitution accords them.

Yeah, well, we've definitely seen those fault lines already.

Thanks, Jeremy.

So, you know, Trump's campaign, obviously, for his second term focused on his mass deportation agenda.

And we're seeing that in action for the past year in places like Los Angeles and Chicago and, of course, Minneapolis.

But I think one of the things that is often confusing is there are many terms in the immigration debate.

And the biggest one is probably the idea of a sanctuary jurisdiction.

And California is, as a matter of state law, a sanctuary state.

So could you explain what being a sanctuary state means in practical terms?