Kate Shaw

Who is the kind of standard bearer for this war on the administrative state on the current court in your view?

Right.

Right.

I mean, he's not an originalist. And he doesn't have as developed a theory of the liberty that is fundamentally threatened by the administrative state as, say, Justice Gorsuch does. He just seems really hostile, to my mind at least, to some of the more kind of redistributive projects that government engages in that we were just talking about. Is that fair? I think that's fair.

I mean, he's not an originalist. And he doesn't have as developed a theory of the liberty that is fundamentally threatened by the administrative state as, say, Justice Gorsuch does. He just seems really hostile, to my mind at least, to some of the more kind of redistributive projects that government engages in that we were just talking about. Is that fair? I think that's fair.

As much as this court seems to endorse the project of reducing, refashioning, reconstituting the administrative state, are there nevertheless areas where you can envision this court acting as a check on some of the second Trump administration's more ambitious designs?

As much as this court seems to endorse the project of reducing, refashioning, reconstituting the administrative state, are there nevertheless areas where you can envision this court acting as a check on some of the second Trump administration's more ambitious designs?

That Empowerment Control Act theory is one of the many things floated in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under the guise of what they are calling this Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. Does it drive you as crazy as it drives me to hear people refer to this as an actual department?

That Empowerment Control Act theory is one of the many things floated in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under the guise of what they are calling this Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. Does it drive you as crazy as it drives me to hear people refer to this as an actual department?

And even if the president can't do it unilaterally anyway, Congress has to create departments. Congress creates departments. And maybe, sure, if they wanted to, if the next Congress wants to create a Department of Government Efficiency, I guess we will have to call it that. But unless and until that happens, I refuse to.

And even if the president can't do it unilaterally anyway, Congress has to create departments. Congress creates departments. And maybe, sure, if they wanted to, if the next Congress wants to create a Department of Government Efficiency, I guess we will have to call it that. But unless and until that happens, I refuse to.

Right. Yes. Okay. So the so-called doge or the entity, you know, calling itself doge, we can decide what to refer to it as. But what about other suggestions that Musk and Ramaswamy have floated regarding, you know, large-scale reshaping of employment in the executive branch? So...

Right. Yes. Okay. So the so-called doge or the entity, you know, calling itself doge, we can decide what to refer to it as. But what about other suggestions that Musk and Ramaswamy have floated regarding, you know, large-scale reshaping of employment in the executive branch? So...

There have been references to things like mass layoffs and departmental reorganizations, though I will note that actually the Wall Street Journal op-ed that I mentioned seems to sort of back away from some of that, focusing instead on things like early retirement incentives, which clearly the executive branch can decide to offer.

There have been references to things like mass layoffs and departmental reorganizations, though I will note that actually the Wall Street Journal op-ed that I mentioned seems to sort of back away from some of that, focusing instead on things like early retirement incentives, which clearly the executive branch can decide to offer.

But do you want to just talk in general terms about whether some of the rhetoric that is the most expansive about fundamentally overhauling government employment is even plausible under existing law?

But do you want to just talk in general terms about whether some of the rhetoric that is the most expansive about fundamentally overhauling government employment is even plausible under existing law?

What about this idea that Trump floated during the first administration and has suggested that he will pursue again in the second Trump administration, which is seeking to end birthright citizenship?

What about this idea that Trump floated during the first administration and has suggested that he will pursue again in the second Trump administration, which is seeking to end birthright citizenship?

I think that's such an important kind of callback to the first part of our conversation. So I think we have this tendency to say, Trump says he's going to end birthright citizenship. Will the Supreme Court let him? And I don't think that's an unimportant question.