Advertise on podcast: rationally BASED

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice who used to be Lula’s personal lawyer ordered the polls kept open for two hours after they were supposed to close. Another ordered the opposition candidate, Bolsonaro, to surrender his passport. He's since fled to the United States. Is that the sign of a healthy democracy, or is the global Left actually the authoritarian ones undermining democracies around the world? In Alaska, a second “Dan Sullivan” is on the ballot against the actual Republican senator of that same name. “Decoy Dan" initially filed with the incumbent’s middle initial, and filed as a Republican even though he's a lifelong Democrat. It turns out the Democrats coordinated to get him to run to confuse voters. Is that the sign of a healthy democracy, or does the American Left care more about power than the will of the people? And what legal consequences might there be for Decoy Dan, including possible criminal prosecutions? In California, the state was told that roughly 20,000 noncitizens may have received vote-by-mail ballots and refused to check. The Ninth Circuit denied emergency relief to the DOJ, with Judge Patrick Bumatay dissenting on obstacle-preemption grounds. Most Democrats don't seem to care that they have no way to check for illegal voters. Is that the sign of a healthy democracy, or is the Left once again hungry for nothing but power? Hosts Kathryn Johnson, Joshua Kleinfeld, and Ilan Wurman take on the midterm picture — and the legal fights surrounding it. The pattern is global: elite institutions, especially courts, used against conservative populists. This is the rational — and based — discussion of midterm election integrity, lawfare, and the rules of the game that you won’t hear anywhere else.

Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel has been on a tear, and hosts Ilan Wurman, Kathryn Johnson, and Joshua Kleinfeld explain the big developments. Guns: OLC announced that the federal ban on selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds is unconstitutional -- and DOJ announced it will no longer enforce it.Religion: OLC reversed federal policy that routinely barred religious charities from receiving federal grants. Religious charities can now get those grants on the same terms as secular ones.Immigration: OLC held that if a state knows about an illegal immigrant, it must report that person to the federal government—closing a 30-year loophole that let states ignore a clear statutory duty whenever they took federal welfare money.Riots in France: The hosts also briefly discuss the riots in France to argue that much of what the media calls “protest” is better termed "civic terrorism." This is the rational — and based — discussion of guns, religion, immigration, and riots you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Chief Justice Roberts likes to take some time away from DC every summer and relax in Maine. It's a lovely community. Boats and barbecues. Neighbors and no cars. For years, it helped him reset from one of the country's biggest jobs. Then a local activist published an op-ed urging people to yell at him, give him the finger, refuse to serve him, and generally make sure he never has a moment's peace. Other activists obliged, kayaking up to his home every morning to denounce him. But is that really "protest"? The effort to make one man's life a living hell? Hosts Joshua Kleinfeld, Ilan Wurman, and Kathryn Johnson argue that: This is not protest. We need to call it by its name, and its name is "civic terrorism."Civic terrorism is illegal both criminally and civilly — and is not First Amendment protected.Civic terrorism is a form of cruelty, even when its motive is so-called "justice." It is also very effective. It is tactical cruelty.The only way to end civic terrorism is to impose consequences for it. The Right's preference for bemoaning bad behavior, rather than taking action against it, fails to meet the moment. But how to respond without falling into cruelty oneself presents deep moral questions that the Right must grapple with.This is the rational — and based — discussion of harassment, menace, and the breakdown of social norms you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Two big new cases just hit the courts, and hosts Ilan Wurman, Kathryn Johnson, and Joshua Kleinfeld take them on.  First, the President pulled the White House passes of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, saying: “The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS ….” The outlets sued, claiming a constitutional right to the passes, and a federal judge provisionally ruled in their favor on due process grounds. Is the due process claim sound? What about freedom of the press? Ilan answers that due process is out of hand if a press pass counts as “property,” and the President can lawfully attach germane conditions to a pass. Josh argues that major media outlets have been gradually shifting from “honest but slanted” to “outright deception.” The solution is to hold that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional, but calculated lying lowers the constitutional shield — even if the liar is named “CNN.” And Kathryn asks a question that cuts the other way: if a future Democratic president cannot pull the Daily Wire’s credentials, have we frozen yesterday’s media hierarchy into constitutional law? Meanwhile, a federal judge held that Congress cannot prohibit non-citizen voting in federal elections, because that power belongs to the states alone. Is that right? Or is it a trap that violates basic principles of republican government? This is the rational — and based — discussion of press access and non-citizen voting you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Midterms are around the corner. Democrats have a shot at the House and Senate. And the maps that will decide those races are being fought in courtrooms as much as in legislatures. Hosts Kathryn Johnson, Joshua Kleinfeld, and Ilan Wurman take on the gerrymandering arms race — and the deeper question underneath it: Should courts referee election maps, or does that hand too much power to judges who never have to face the voters? They start with Virginia, where Democrats tried to turn a 51 percent state into a 10–1 congressional map, then lost on a technicality. Then Texas and California: two states with 60–40 splits in 2024 but maps that look nothing alike. Josh argues that partisan gerrymandering is exactly the kind of attack on democratic machinery courts exist to stop — and that Rucho v. Common Cause was one of the Supreme Court’s great mistakes. Ilan disagrees on the merits: the Fourteenth Amendment protects civil rights, not political rights, and nothing in the Constitution forbids a political gerrymander. Then the Missouri firestorm. Republicans passed a new congressional map. Democrats put it to a referendum. State and federal courts issued conflicting orders to the same official. The U.S. Supreme Court stepped in three times — on the shadow docket — and Missouri will go to the midterms with the old, more Democratic-friendly map. The hosts ask who was right, what the Purcell principle actually requires, and why the Left’s sudden silence about the “shadow docket” is so revealing. This is the rational — and based — discussion of gerrymandering, judicial power, and election maps you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

A public university is “We the People” spending our money on our children. A foreign student with a visa is a houseguest, not a relative. So why are judges telling states they cannot stop DEI dogma in public classrooms — and telling the United States it cannot send home non-citizens who preach hatred of the country? Hosts Ilan Wurman, Kathryn Johnson, and Joshua Kleinfeld take on two new cases that split conservatives from libertarians. First, a divided Eleventh Circuit held that Florida’s “Stop Woke Act” violates the First Amendment. Second, a California district court held that the Trump Administration cannot revoke student visas for anti-American, antisemitic, or other speech contrary to U.S. national interests. The hosts draw two lines.  On immigration, citizenship is the line: speech that is fully protected from an American may still be reason to send a guest home.  As to universities, public versus private is the line: a private university may teach what it likes on its own dime, but the people of a community should be able to oversee the institutions they create and fund for the sake of a public mission. This is the conservative/libertarian fight that will decide whether the Constitution is a charter of self-government or a suicide pact. And this is the rational — and based — discussion of free speech, woke ideology, and immigration you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Lindsay Clancy sent her husband out of the house, strangled their three children one by one, and then claimed a voice told her to do it. Was she insane? Eleven jurors voted to acquit. Has the jury system failed us? The conservative media sphere is getting this wrong, hosts Ilan Wurman, Kathryn Johnson, and Joshua Kleinfeld argue. The rage is justified. The insanity defense and the jury — ancient foundations of Anglo-American liberty — are the wrong targets. The disease is identity politics: a culture in which women side with women, and every group sides with its own, no matter the crime. Dead children become an inconvenience. Justice becomes secondary. Fake compassion becomes a tool of power. This is the most passionate episode we have ever recorded. Josh, who has taught criminal law for fifteen years, explains what legal insanity actually is, why it is vanishingly rare, and why this jury still almost acquitted. This is the rational — and based — discussion of crime, gender, and justice you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Washington State’s “Family Reconciliation Act” — arguably the most Orwellian name in recent memory — requires shelters NOT to notify parents if runaway children say they want “gender-affirming treatment.”  Meanwhile, the chief medical groups pushing gender transitions for children — WPATH and the AAP — now claim, in the face of lawsuits for fraud, that their medical standards of care were just “opinions” protected by the First Amendment. Hosts Ilan Wurman, Joshua Kleinfeld, and Kathryn Johnson break down the cases and ask the hard questions: Do the parents challenging Washington’s law have standing – and does it matter if standing doctrine is just a political football anyway?  Should conservatives use substantive due process to defend parental rights or try to get rid of substantive due process as the judicial invention it is?  And were those “standards of care” claims of fact, or just more politics? This is the rational — and based — discussion of transgenderism and the law that you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

The Supreme Court is poised to decide a major case on citizenship and voting this Term: RNC v. Mi Familia Vota. Only citizens can vote. That is the law federally and in all 50 states. But can states check? That is the question in this case. It seems like a no-brainer that, if the law requires citizenship, a state can require documentary proof of citizenship. But the National Voter Registration Act specifies a form for federal elections that only requires voters to attest that they are citizens; it doesn't require proof. Must Arizona accept the form even for state elections? Can it ask for proof? Your hosts — Kathryn Johnson and law professors Ilan Wurman and Joshua Kleinfeld — break down the issues and ask the bigger question as well: Why do such seemingly simple questions turn into 156-page legal labyrinths? What does that complexity say about American democracy, popular self-government, and the legal system? This is the rational — and based — discussion of voting and citizenship that you won’t find anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

The Second Amendment revival of the last 15 years has not yet answered a question that affects at least 1 in every 20 American adults: do Americans have a constitutional right to possess AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles? The Supreme Court will finally answer that question this term in Viramontes v. Cook County. Professor Joel Alicea – who is part of the litigation team taking Viramontes to the Supreme Court! – joins hosts Ilan Wurman and Joshua Kleinfeld to break down the issues. Joel, Josh, and Ilan trace the development of Second Amendment doctrine from Heller to the present and dig into the case's real fault line: Does the Second Amendment contain an exception for “dangerous and unusual weapons” (as Blackstone put it before the American Founding) – and, if so, does that exception encompass AR-15s and similar rifles? Is Cook County right that both history and public safety justify treating AR-15s as “military-grade” weapons and distinguishing them from ordinary weapons used for self-defense? The hosts dig into broader questions as well.  For decades before the recent revival, the Supreme Court treated the Second Amendment as a constitutional embarrassment and a nullity.  What does that teach us about judicial power and the abuse of the judicial role?  And what can the Second Amendment cases teach us about the "tiers of scrutiny" — the century-old framework courts use to balance rights against the public interest?  Is it real law or judicial improvisation dressed up as doctrine?  Do the gun rights cases present an alternative?  And – by the way – why are AR-15s called “assault weapons”?  Is that a technical term or the political equivalent of calling some knives “murder knives”? This is the rational — and based — preview of the Supreme Court's next major gun case that you won't hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

"Due process of law" is emerging as THE central legal battleground for immigration reform in 2026-27. In this episode, Kathryn Johnson and law professors Joshua Kleinfeld and Ilan Wurman break down the three biggest new cases — and confront the deeper question: What is "due process" anyway? First is Genalo v. Black, which the Supreme Court will hear this October. The statute requires that immigrants convicted of major crimes be detained pending their deportation hearings. But what if those hearings are delayed for years? Does prolonged detention eventually violate due process? Ilan argues that plaintiffs' claim is a weak substantive due process argument (and obviously so), while Josh argues that it's a mistaken but reasonable procedural due process claim. Second is the Fifth Circuit case of Rodriguez v. Ortega, involving illegal immigrants held in mandatory detention pending deportation proceedings. Does mandatory detention violate due process? Does prolonged detention? The issue has caused high drama at the Fifth Circuit and our hosts ask: Is "due process" becoming little more than a fig leaf for judicial political fights over immigration? Third is the D.C. Circuit case of Make the Road New York v. Mullin, challenging the Trump Administration's use of expedited procedures for recently arrived aliens. Under those procedures, an interview with an ICE official — no judge, no counsel — can lead to rapid deportation. Does that violate due process? If you want to understand the legal fights that will shape immigration policy in the year ahead, this is the rational — and based — discussion you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Parent proxy voting for children is in the news and it's gone viral! On Ross Douthat's podcast, Yale Law professor Samuel Moyn proposed giving 20-somethings extra votes, rather than parents, because “young people — not people who are raising families — will have the best insight into the interests of children” and “Part of our goal as a society is trying to make sure that children aren’t the hostages of their parents." Douthat responded: "I think that’s daft. I think it’s absurd to imagine that a 24-year-old recent college graduate has a better assessment of the interests of my own children than I do." And a meme was born! It happens that THE leading article on this subject -- "Give Parents the Vote" -- was written by Rationally Based’s very own Joshua Kleinfeld!  So in this episode, Josh and co-hosts Kathryn Johnson and Ilan Wurman examine the proposal that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their minor children — and why the Left wants to give that power to anyone BUT parents.  Some highlights: Children are nearly a QUARTER of the citizenry, and parents and children together are nearly half of the citizenry — but have just 19% of the vote.  Adults without children are just over half the citizenry but have about THREE-QUARTERS of the vote. The result is policies — like COVID school closures, debt-financed entitlements, and more — that systematically shortchange the young. Children ALREADY count for apportionment: they determine each state’s seats in Congress, electoral votes for the President, and the drawing of legislative districts. But because they can’t vote and their parents can’t vote for them, their voting power is simply redistributed to all the adults in their districts. The most powerful voter in America is a childless adult in a district with plenty of children.Parent proxy voting is purely a matter of state law.  Any state could independently adopt it tomorrow for both federal and state elections without violating the Constitution or any federal statute. It is also feasible.  And it is consistent with the role parents have in every other context — defending their children’s interests in contexts from the schools to hospitals to courtrooms.  The world-historic fall in the birth rate means that, for the first time in American history, most adults are not parents.  The collapse in the birth rate has made the political divergence between parents and the childless newly consequential. Arguably there is NO other intervention that would have more far-reaching effects on American politics than giving parents the vote. This is the rational — and based — discussion of who should speak for the next generation that you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

In this bonus episode, we cross post our host's appearance at the National Constitution Center. You can also listen to this episode on We the People, the NCC's wonderful podcast.  Julie Silverbrook, Chief Content and Learning Officer at the NCC, asks Professor Ilan Wurman a series of questions about the Founding and the Constitution, based on his new book The Constitution of 1789: A New Introduction. What was the connection of the enumerated powers to the royal prerogative of the British monarch? What is the separation of powers, properly understood? What is the meaning of "the executive power," and who has power over foreign affairs? What is the nature of American federalism and our compound republic?  Tune in for this wide-ranging and fascinating discussion of America's founding document.  Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

Election Money, Mail-In Ballots, and the Supreme Court In this episode, Kathryn Johnson and law professors Joshua Kleinfeld and Ilan Wurman take on three fights over the rules of American elections — and the deeper question of who should control them. First is the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in NRSC v. FEC, which freed political parties to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with their candidates. What is the case really about? Why did it split along partisan lines? Why do Republicans want stronger parties while Democrats prefer a system dominated by advocacy groups? And was the Court's most famous campaign finance case — Citizens United — sound originalism or did it wrongly treat massive publicly traded corporations as if they were small advocacy groups, handing the managerial class a First Amendment license to push progressive politics with corporate money? (Josh and Ilan fight this one out!) Second is Watson v. RNC, the case on the meaning of “Election Day.” On the surface, the case is a technical dispute over whether mail-in ballots must be received or merely sent by Election Day. But under the surface is a larger struggle over who controls the ground rules of counting -- and what rules best protect the integrity of American elections. Third is President Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballot integrity. Trump directed the Postal Service and other agencies to develop stronger rules — and a district court blocked the order before the agencies had even acted. Is that a proper use of judicial power? Or is the real game simply to freeze the status quo before the midterms? This is the rational — and based — discussion of the rules of the political game that you won’t hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!

In this episode, hosts Kathryn Johnson and law professor Ilan Wurman take on a hard and controversial question: Are all cultures created equal? Or, more precisely, do all cultures have the same current capacity for constitutional self-government? How much migration and importation of people from foreign cultures and with foreign habits is ideal? Is it racist to even have such discussions? Our hosts also start with other controversial topics. Does the Trump anti-weaponization fund justify...weaponization against Trump's lawyers by referring them to bar discipline? Our hosts discuss Judge William's ruling and how it applies to Obama's lawyers, too, who engaged in "sue and settle" practices. They also return, once again, to birthright citizenship. Even accepting the Court's holding in Trump v. Barbara, is there an argument that the Court's fiction of extraterritoriality, which the majority argued explains the historic exemptions from birthright citizenship, in fact applies to some of the individuals covered by Trump's executive order? This is the rational — and based — conversation you won't hear anywhere else. Be sure to LIKE, SHARE, COMMENT, and SUBSCRIBE to rationally BASED! Subscribe to our Substack! New Podcast Episodes every Thursday morning, find us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or on YouTube! Follow us on social media on Instagram, X, Facebook, and TikTok!