Unpack President Trump, the Supreme Court, & Recent Cases!

I was honored to welcome the renowned and inimitable Dr. Anansi Wilson onto the Legal Lens Podcast to share his expertise, jurisprudence, and scholarly work with you, our listeners. With so much happening in the country at this time, his insights are essential to unpacking it all. Our conversation revolved around the Supreme Court, which recently completed its 2024/2025 session. During this discussion, we talked about President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court, birthright citizenship, redistricting, voters’ rights, and groundbreaking expansions to the 4th Amendment that he was thrilled to share.

For a deeper, more convenient exploration of these changes and what they mean for your rights and the future of our country, I strongly encourage you to tune into our riveting 40-minute discussion with Dr. Anansi Wilson on the Legal Lens Podcast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Simplecast, and everywhere you get your podcasts for free. Alternatively, you can listen to it in the player below.

Here is a recap of our captivating conversation.

Dr. Anansi Wilson Joins the Legal Lens Podcast to Discuss President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, Redistricting & Voter’s Rights, and Landmark Expansions to the 4th Amendment!

We were truly privileged to have the preeminently decorated Dr. Anansi Wilson join the program, and words cannot express how grateful we are that he was able to find the time to join us on the Legal Lens Podcast. Below, you can read a recap of what we covered during our wide-ranging discussion regarding President Trump, the Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, and expansions to the 4th amendment’s excessive force protections.

Who is Dr. Anansi Wilson?

The eminent Dr. Anansi Wilson is a powerhouse. Dr. Wilson is a nationally recognized legal scholar, justice advocate, and policy expert with extensive expertise in equal protection jurisprudence, as well as the 5th, 6th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Because of this endlessly impressive background, experience, and track record, I could think of no one better to join the program.

Dr. Wilson is the Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Black Life and the Law, and you may have seen or heard him provide his keen insights on platforms like CBS, NPR, the New York Times, Newsweek, and other well-respected publications.

Dr. Wilson is also working on a book, reflecting his unrelenting and noble dedication to educating the public and equipping them with essential knowledge.

“It’s a blessing and an honor to be here, and as Baldwin and Morrison would remind us, knowledge comes with responsibility. Once you have knowledge, it’s your duty to share it. I have a tattoo of Sanofka on my arm. That’s a reminder that, as we move forward through our futures, we also bring that history with us for those who were not blessed to get the information we have. So it’s really just about democratizing knowledge,” said Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson provided a window into the book he’s working on, which sounds like a riveting read and provides some essential context to understand where our nation is today.

“The book is going to be called Furtive Blackness and the Realities of Being in and Outside the Law, and it really exemplifies the ways in which Black people are rendered both in and outside the light. Inside the law, insofar as we’re always already reachable by its disciplinary arms, right? So the law can always come and give you a whooping, right? It can always incarcerate you and always entrap you. But outside the law, insofar as the Constitution’s protective powers seem to never fully attach to the Black body. So, I’m essentially arguing that the law has a life outside of the courtroom. This is a life of assembling and disassembling the ways in which Black and Black queer people live and die across this country. I’m looking at that lens both through the beginnings with slavery, the plantation, and the ship, up until this very moment with the second election of President Donald Trump,” explained Dr. Wilson.

Still, he asked everyone to remain patient as we wait for the dust to settle for this book to be released, because every time Dr. Wilson thinks it’s ready for publication, the Supreme Court makes another key decision that sends him back to his writer’s chair.

“When you can expect this to be published really depends on what the Supreme Court does because they keep releasing decisions that I’ve predicted. So, now the book gets old every time they release one, we have to go back and make changes,” laughed Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson has focused on the Supreme Court and the different Amendments as a key scholar for virtually his entire career, since he was in school.

“I went to law school at Howard University because I saw Howard Law as the Civil Rights school. It has a real legacy with Thurgood, Marshall, Pauli Murray, Charles Hamilton, Houston, and so on. I was really inspired by this notion that a lawyer is either a social engineer or a parasite on society. I quickly learned that in three years, you barely get to know the law, let alone what I tell my students lies beneath the law, so after that, I decided I had to get my PhD in African Diaspora studies from the University of Texas at Austin,” said Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson said that while he was studying to obtain his PhD, he had some important revelations.

“I realized there are all these types of super logics of law that maybe aren’t said out loud but are still governing the ways in which Supreme Court decisions are given that bind us,” said Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson then went on to give a sobering example of this at play.

“One of the things we can think about is the Dred Scott Decision. In that decision, the Chief Justice at the time, Justice Taney, says that, essentially, the Black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect. In fact, he basically said that the Negro should be treated as ordinary merchandise and used to make a profit wherever it might be available, so when we think about this early idea in the 1800s that the Black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect, it’s important to remember that is still good law. The Supreme Court’s decision has never been overturned,” said Dr. Wilson.

The conversation then turned toward what this means in relation to the Constitution itself and, just as importantly, the Founding Fathers who wrote it.

“I try to think about the Constitution itself as the living will of the Founding Fathers, so if you think about the Founding Fathers in the most brutally honest way you can, we’re thinking about people who were rapists, enslavers, colonizers, and engaged in genocide, and all these other things that are unspeakable and are still on record. So, at the founding of the country, if Black people were not considered people or human and instead considered ordinary merchandise or living chattel, forced to have children of their putative owners, cannot vote, and cannot have standing or be seen by the blind Lady of Justice, the question become how does that flow through every decision that comes forward? Even when we have the end of slavery, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and President Barack Obama, what does that really mean?” he asked.

Like all great teachers, Dr. Wilson provided a great analogy to highlight the depth of this issue and the necessity for a bigger, more radical change to achieve true equality.

“Think about it as the program of a computer. If this is the computer’s program, there’s only so much amending you can do around the edges that doesn’t result in white over Black because that is the original code,” said Dr. Wilson.

What Role Does the Supreme Court Play in the System of Checks and Balances?

For important context, Dr. Wilson explained the role of the Supreme Court and Checks and Balances that lie at the heart of the U.S. government and, ultimately, how it operates, saying the primary role of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws and ensure they align with the Constitution itself.

“We have three branches of government. Starting with the Executive Branch, or the presidency, the primary function of this Branch is to execute the laws that Congress has passed and remain as faithful to the Constitution as possible. The President also operates as the Commander-in-Chief. What this means is that the President does not make the law, and the President shouldn’t be interpreting the law. The President’s job is to enforce the law that Congress has written, as well as the Constitution through the edicts of the Supreme Court, and to be the Commander-in-Chief. Congress, the Legislative Branch, creates laws. Congress legislates and makes laws and rules, creates agencies, and establishes taxes and federal spending budgets. Then, we have the Judiciary Branch, which includes the Supreme Court. This is the highest court in the land – it determines whether the actions of the President and laws passed by the Congress actually adhere to the Constitution itself. We’re not just talking about Amendments – we’re also talking about the spirit of the law, which is where things get a little bit hairy,” explained Dr. Wilson.

What Are the Checks and Balances on the Supreme Court?

Dr. Wilson continued to explain that the road to the Supreme Court is complicated and requires passing through several levels before it escalates to the high court. Ultimately, this begs the question: Why do cases go to the Supreme Court? Dr. Wilson provided keen insights on the matter.

“When the Supreme Court gets a decision, what will usually happen is an individual will sue, someone could be suing the state or the state could be suing the federal government, for example, and at first, it’ll usually go to what’s called District Court, where there’s a judge that’s usually appointed by the President, approved by the Senate, and sits in a District. It’s worth knowing that appointments to the Supreme Court and even, in a sense, District Courts are an example of Executive and Legislative checks and balances on the Supreme Court. Above the District Court is the Appellate Court. If you lose in the District Court and think you didn’t get a fair shake, you’ll go to a judge panel in the Appellate court. If you lose there, you might believe you’re dealing with a serious constitutional issue, and then you get to the Supreme Court. This process could take years or even decades, and the Supreme Court takes something like 0.003% of cases, so they’re selective,” elaborated Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson went on to explain how the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are intended to work together to provide checks and balances on the Supreme Court in more detail, as well as where the issues arise that have contributed to where we are today.

“Usually, the way this is supposed to happen is two senators from a state would recommend a person to be the District Judge, Appellate Judge, or Supreme Court Justice. The President can, ultimately, select who they’re going to select, and if they have the majority in the Senate, they’ll rush that person through. So, oftentimes now you have folks who might be a District Judge or an Appellate Judge in your state that your elected representatives never co-signed. In other words, what happens is that sometimes the judicial politics of the individuals do not represent the values of the state at all, and that’s where things get dicey,” said Dr. Wilson.

What Has Dr. Wilson Observed About President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court, Appellate Court, and District Court Decisions?

Dr. Wilson has been observing President Donald Trump’s terms the way he observes everything – with a keen eye and astute understanding. His takeaway is one of alarm.

“Under the first and second Donald Trump presidencies, we’ve seen a record number of people nominated for the Federal Branch, whether it’s District, Appellate, or Supreme Court, who have not been given very high remarks by the American Bar Association. This group gives lawyers law licenses and determines if lawyers are fit to practice law. They ensure lawyers have the right ethics, character, mental equity, responsibility, and accountability suited for the job. Under President Trump, we’ve seen the most amount of folks ever get either unqualified or not be rated at all by the American Bar Association,” elucidated Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson highlighted the dangers of this trend by providing a recent example.

“The fact that there’s a judge that you all might have heard about down in Florida who has been overseeing a lot of President Trump’s trials in the past who never even practiced law should tell you everything you need to know about the direness of the situation. We have a lot of federal judges now who have never even been inside a courtroom, and we’re in territory where folks don’t seem to know the law themselves and instead appear to be pushing out what is their own partisan agenda. I would even argue based on some of the rulings we’ve seen that there are racialized and religious agendas being pushed as well,” said Dr. Wilson.

How is President Trump Using the Emergency Docket in the Supreme Court?

We noted the more conventional process of getting a case before the Supreme Court, but Dr. Wilson also said that another route has been used, which is, we agreed, on brand for how the current administration has been moving on Capitol Hill – the Emergency Docket.

“This used to be very rare, but we’re seeing a huge percentage of cases go up to the Supreme Court this way – like the recent Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling. It sued be that the Emergency Docket was reserved for situations involving a national security issue that the Supreme Court needs to rule on immediately because there is no time for the administration to go up all these different levels, or for an individual who is dealing with the serious removal of their rights, like someone on death row, for example. Now, the Emergency Docket has become kind of the preferred method that the right wing of the country has used to get their preferred outcomes,” said Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson added that when using the avenue provided by the Emergency Docket to the Supreme Court, there are some important distinctions to be aware of.

“When you make a decision on the Emergency Docket, while it’s different from the regular docket, there isn’t generally an opinion given. They’re able to just decide on the merits of the individual case before them and are not really making a strong constitutional claim or argument while still signaling to the rest of the country what the court will allow in the future. This is historic – the only other time we’ve seen the Emergency Docket used this much was during President Trump’s first administration, so this is really not the norm,” said Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson also emphasized that these changes go much deeper and are, in some ways, systemic, as we discussed the aftermath of a pivotal case that prohibited national injunctions, Trump vs. Casa, Inc. His concern when speaking was evident.

“Usually, if you’re an individual in this country who feels like their rights have been violated, you can sue, go to court, and try to get that remedy from the courts there. What a court can then do is decide that you are correct in your constitutional rights and the violations that are occurring and create what’s called a nationwide injunction to stop, freeze, or prohibit the government from doing whatever the court has determined is likely unconstitutional because if it’s a violation of your rights, it’s a violation of everyone’s rights. It’s how the United States is supposed to work. The Supreme Court ruled recently that courts can no longer issue nationwide injunctions for individuals claiming to be harmed. So, what does this mean? Particularly for Black folks, other folks of color, low-income folks, and immigrants, if you don’t have the money to sue, you don’t have rights. You cannot protect and enforce your rights. If you can’t afford to litigate your own rights, then they’re basically reduced to rights in name only, and that is very, very, very concerning,” Dr. Wilson said.

President Donald Trump, Supreme Court Rulings, Birthright Citizenship, Redistricting & Voter’s Rights, & Expansions to the 14th Amendment!

Recently, news stories claiming that President Donald Trump’s ending birthright citizenship have captivated citizens nationwide on both sides of the party line. He laid out what was happening here next.

What’s President Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Lawsuit?

Dr. Wilson provided some key insights regarding President Trump, birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court as it pertains to his recent lawsuit, Trump v. Casa, Inc., and what is being considered President Trump’s birthright citizenship order injunction.

“This was the case that was about Trump’s Executive Order birthright citizenship lawsuit – he was trying to reverse the right to citizenship through an Executive Order, so it challenged the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions across the country. The court has not yet ruled on the Executive Order itself. You might think that it’s a no-brainer, and the 14th Amendment provides a clear equal protection clause that says if you’re born here, you’re a citizen. However, that’s not happening. But what’s happening, especially with undocumented folks, but also with legal residents, is that people are getting buried with paperwork. It’s similar to what happened to freed slaves – they had to prove citizenship through all these different tests that amounted to something like guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar, right?” said Dr. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson went on to draw a poignant comparison between what happened to freed slaves and what is going on under the current administration.

“In the current climate, both undocumented and legal residents are enduring the same dilemma because it is impossible to prove that status when you’re not even allowed to get your green card from the shelf before you’re arrested, and you’re not allowed to go apply for legal citizenship because as soon as you leave the courtroom, you’re snatched up by ICE,” said Dr. Wilson.

Ultimately, however, he was able to clear the air on the question everyone has been wondering about the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision in 2025: Did President Trump end birthright citizenship?

“The current status of the 14th Amendment stands. This is an Executive Order. Like we were talking about earlier, the President of the United States cannot create laws. So, yes, the 14th Amendment still stands, but the case itself has not been decided on the merits yet – it’s going to be one of those things we hear about next term, from October 2025 to June 2026,” Dr. Wilson said.

The Politicization of the Supreme Court and The Significance of Chief Justice Roberts

Dr. Wilson said that the way we view decisions has fundamentally changed due to the politicization of the Supreme Court.

“There was a time when you would look at the Supreme Court, and if you would look at people’s decisions or the written opinions each Justice would make, and you wouldn’t be able to tell which party they were a part of or who appointed them. That’s no longer the case. On the far right, we have Justice Thomas, who’s far right and barely ever talks. He was appointed by George W. Bush and has spent time basically undoing everything Thurgood Marshall, Pauli Murray, and Charles Hamilton have done. Then we have Justice Ali, who talks a lot and has been connected to a lot of far-right movements. He had a kind of upside-down flag after January 6th. After that, we have Justice Kavanaugh, who we all remember from the MeToo movement from the Senate, and he’s kind of more like the center right of the right-wingers. The next person who I would say is even more conservative than he would be Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was a former law professor at Notre Dame, I believe,” said Dr. Wallace.

We eventually discussed a significant figure to hold up against the current state of affairs for comparison, Chief Justice Roberts, whose track record Dr. Wallace lamented.

“Then we have Chief Justice Roberts, who was the driving force behind striking down Citizens United, which were our regulations on big money politics. So, now we see billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars, right? Like, Elon Musk spent upwards of $250 million for Donald Trump before this Supreme Court decision, which would not have been legal with that campaign finance regulatory system. He also gutted the Civil Rights Act,” said Dr. Wallace when considering his history.

Still, while some view Chief Justice Roberts as a polarizing figure, we eventually got onto the topic of his significance as a figure during these times and the original idea that he would bring a much-needed balance to the court.

“I was coming up in college when he was being appointed, and I didn’t have the view that he was going to be exactly what he said. If you frame him as an umpire, he said, ‘I’m going to call balls and strikes, and I’m not going to prejudge cases.’ His position was that his job was not to make the law or legislate opinions – his job is to enforce rules and the law of constitutional order, which is what role the Supreme Court is supposed to have,” said Dr. Wallace.

Dr. Wallace also noted that all of the people mentioned came up through the same channel, which has started to have a huge impact on shaping politics and policy today.

“The people I just mentioned all came up through the Federalist Society, which is a right-wing so-called ‘originalist’ outfit. That is at almost every law school in the country, and what they do is basically create a pipeline of right-wing lawyers and their kind of articulation of what jurisprudence or the law or constitution should be interpreted as, and they filter these folks onto the courts and into the Department of Justice – not just the federal courts, but also your state courts. So chances are if you have a right wing, and I don’t want to use these terms interchangeably, because there are conservative folks, and then they’re right wing folks, right? But if you have someone who is an old school conservative, there’s a good chance they’re from the Federalist Society,” explained Dr. Wallace.

However, Dr. Wallace made a point of saying that not every Chief Justice is of this ilk, even touching briefly on the controversy surrounding President Trump, birthright citizenship, and Native Americans.

“So, going from the most conservative to the most progressive and getting into the progressive living constitution vibes, we have Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by President Obama, and then after that, we have my favorite – Justice Sotomayor, who actually clerked for Thurgood Marshall. She’s fiery, you know, she’s the dragon. Then we have our newest Justice, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, and only the third Black person ever on the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson, Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor are always writing these really fiery descents and oftentimes reading them from the bench. They’re the only two women of color ever to be on the Supreme Court, a Black woman and Latino woman, and they really go to bat for this notion that the purpose of the Constitution, particularly the reconstruction amendments, is not just what your White Supremacist, enslaving, genocidal, maniac Founding Fathers might have thought – but it’s also about the hope of the enslaved, the hopes of the undocumented, the hopes of the immigrants, and the hopes of Native Americans that were here first. So this idea is if they’re to have equal protection under law, there are all these other things that must accompany it in order for us to have a full, constitutional democracy,” continued Dr. Wallace.

Redistricting Maps And What This Means for Voting Rights

Our conversation then turned to some cases that have come out of President Donald Trump’s most recent term, namely those focusing on redistricting maps and the effect on voting rights.

We discussed how remapping and redistricting can be used to position Republicans to have more seats during the midterm election, drawing on recent cases to illustrate the gravity of this issue.

“We just saw the President talking to the Governor of Texas and Texas legislators about this. This is something that could actually take Black people out of Houston and districts with a Black representative and turn them into Republican districts. Basically, what this means is that Black folks living there cannot choose a representative, and they’re being disenfranchised,” explained Dr. Wallace.

What Was the Recent Case Ruling Involving the Fourth Amendment and Excessive Force?

Our conversation then took a much-needed turn toward a more positive development surrounding the 4th amendment, excessive force, and expanding protections, which Dr. Wilson considers a high point of the year thus far.

“This is what I would say is actually one of the bright moments that I’ve seen with the court this year, and this is going to be probably one of the brightest moments I’ve seen concerning the 4th Amendment over the last 10 years,” Dr. Wilson said with impassioned excitement.

Dr. Wilson’s inner teacher was quick to surface as he happily provided an overview of what the 4th Amendment is.

“The 4th Amendment is your right against unreasonable search and seizure – this is when you say, ‘Do you have a warrant?’ This also ties into the 5th and 6th Amendments, where you have the right to remain silent and all of those great things, so these amendments are our friends. But I always tell my students when I teach constitutional criminal procedure that this is the class where your rights go to die because those have been the most weakened parts of the Constitution,” explained Dr. Wilson.

We discussed a recent case, Barnes v. Felix, that Dr. Wilson was a legal milestone on expanding those protections. But what was Barnes v. Felix, and what was the decision?

“Barnes v. Felix was a huge landmark expansion of Fourth Amendment protections that was decided in May. This is important for both Black and Latino folks, particularly in California, and especially in L.A., where we understand that Black and Latino people are 80% of those pulled over by the police and experiencing excessive force. So, essentially, in this case, there was a traffic stop. An officer engaged in excessive force, jumped in the car, and was doing all the crazy things that officers are wont to do when they think no one is watching. They went up to the courts and the lower court and said, ‘We are going to use our Moment of Threat approach.’ Moment of Threat generally means that they’re going to look at the two or three seconds of context that happened before the officer attacked this person. That’s what we’ve been dealing with forever – that’s been the law, and it’s been terrible, horrible, because it’s precluded Black folks from getting justice and being able to sue officers,” lamented Dr. Wilson.

However, Dr. Wilson said that this decision signals a possible shift and a reason for hope.

“What the court said is that they’re not doing that anymore. They have said that they’re going to take a Totality of Circumstances approach, so they’re going to look at everything that led up to the situation and interaction. It seems like the courts are starting to apply this standard to officers, or at least look at two or five minutes instead of a few seconds. So, when they sent it back down to the lower court and remanded it for investigation, we’ll get a final rule later. But what we do know is we’re using the totality of the circumstances and not just that two seconds before the event. This is a source of immense hope,” said Dr. Wallace.

Want to Learn More About President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, Redistricting & Voter’s Rights, and Landmark Expansions to the 4th Amendment from Dr. Wallace? Listen and Subscribe to the Legal Lens Podcast!

The conversation with Dr. Anansi Wilson about President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court, and recent cases and rulings regarding birthright citizenship, redistricting, voters’ rights, and the 4th Amendment offered a vital and, at times, sobering look at the Supreme Court’s recent session. Staying informed of these recent developments is crucial to understanding your rights and how you can use your voice to defend them.

You can ensure you are informed and equipped with the knowledge you need by listening and subscribing to my podcast on Simplecast or by clicking below!

To follow me and the Legal Lens show, please do so at @iamangelareddockwright or click here.

To learn more about my mediation practice or my work as an employment and Title IX mediator, reach out to me on LinkedIn @Angela J. Reddock-Wright, Esq., AWI-CH, or click here.

Also, learn more about my book – The Workplace Transformed: 7 Crucial Lessons from the Global Pandemic – here – https://angelareddock-wright.com/book/.

For media inquiries, please reach out to josh@kwsmdigital.com.

This communication is not legal advice. It is educational only. For legal advice, consult with an experienced employment law attorney in your state or city

Dr. Anansi Wilson Joins the Legal Lens Podcast to Discuss President Trump, the Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, Redistricting & Voter’s Rights, & Landmark Expansions to the 4th Amendment!