UNDISTRACTED: May 07, 2026

Have They Even Read the Constitution? with Melissa Murray

Please note: This transcript has been automatically generated.

Melissa Murray: We have a Supreme Court right now who believes that even thinking about race is a species of race discrimination, and specifically using race to remedy injuries- Mm … done to racial minorities is racial discrimination- Mm … against white people. And that’s just bonkers.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Hey, y’all. Here are some words that should sound familiar.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.”

Just a little thing called the Declaration of Independence. The right of the people to alter or abolish it when it becomes destructive to these ends. And here are some words that may be less familiar to you from our good sister’s article, We Are the Architects Now, from LaTosha Brown. She said, “We have always called the men who wrote the Constitution the founders.

But before they founded anything, they were architects. Someone had to draw the plans, decide what would hold the weight, decide what was non-negotiable. The founding came at the end of that work, not the beginning, and that is where we are. We will be the founders of a new nation. I believe it in my bones.

But before we found anything, we have to do the architect’s work, and I don’t want anyone intimidated by it.” Now, those are the words we need to heed because we, we’re the new architects, and it’s time to get to building. If you’re watching on YouTube, feel free to like and subscribe. And welcome to Undistracted.

Y’all, on the show today, we have Melissa Murray, our favorite law professor, commentator, and the author of the new book, The US Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader. Can I, I don’t know, recommend that book to some very specific people? Anyway, then we’ll dive into some untrending news with a new group chat bestie, political strategist Atima Omara.

Y’all, I have been waiting for this conversation. Now, if you’ve spent any time in the last few years trying to make sense of the Supreme Court, of reproductive rights, of the way the Constitution is being tested, shall we say, like never before in our lifetimes, then you already know today’s guest like I do.

Melissa Murray is an NYU law professor, the co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, a legal analyst for MS NOW, and co-author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, The Trump Indictments. Yeah, that’s a must read. She also has a brand new book that came out earlier this week, The US Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader, which is essentially what it would look like if your most brilliant and accessible friend finally sat you down and explained the Constitution one good time.

And that is exactly the type of energy we need in this moment as we unpack the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s move to gut the Voting Rights Act last week. So Melissa, child, I know you busy in this book launch. Thank you for joining us. Welcome to Undistracted. Let me ask you what I ask all of our guests.

How are you doing today, in three words?

Melissa Murray: Ooh. First, let me just say, thanks for having me. Of course. It’s so great to see you. I feel like we were always on TV together during the pandemic, and now you’re doing your podcast thing, I’m doing my podcast thing. It’s nice to get together, um, and have this cross-fertilization.

Okay, three words. Um…

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Ooh.

Melissa Murray: Not having it.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Those are three good words. Okay,

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: I’m gonna steal

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: those three words. Yeah,

Melissa Murray: how about that? Not having it.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Pull that, tease that one out for me. That’s good.

Melissa Murray: We don’t have to take this. I mean, that, that’s the bottom line. Um, I spent a whole year thinking about the Constitution, writing about it.

Like literally- Yeah … going clause by clause and talking about how we got here, what was this clause for, what were they trying to do here? And the fact of the matter is- The Reconstruction Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which were passed in the wake of the American Civil War, were meant to undo and to prevent- Mm-hmm

the re-entrenchment of slavery. Meant to prevent slavery, meant to eradicate the vestiges of it, and meant to prevent it from ever coming back in any kind of form. And we have a Supreme Court right now who believes that even thinking about race is a species of race discrimination, and specifically using race to remedy injuries- Hmm

done to racial minorities is racial discrimination- Hmm … against white people, and that’s just bonkers. I mean, that’s not what the 14th and 15th Amendments were intended to do. Yeah. They were specifically race conscious. They knew that they had to think about race because they were trying to take these people, who like two years ago had been someone’s property, and make citizens of them, to integrate them into the body politic.

They could not do that without thinking about race. They had things- Yeah … like the Freedmen’s Bureau that was intended to provide services to the formerly enslaved to help integrate them into the body politic, and they were being- Yeah … conscious about this. Um- Mm-hmm … there was no colorblindness, right? Um, you know, the, the idea that l- l- the 14th Amendment does not admit- Yeah

any consideration of race- Yeah … that’s a fallacy. And I, I, I think we just have to, like, sit with that for a moment. Like, we have six unelected judges on the Supreme Court who are telling us that- We just have to take the treatment that’s doled out by these states, many of whom- Yep … are states of the former Confederacy, that don’t want to admit, don’t want to see the voting power of racial minorities in a country that is rapidly becoming- Yep

more diverse. And that’s the threat right there. And we don’t have to take

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: it. And we don’t have to take it. We’re gonna get into your book a little bit more, but let’s get into this voting rights piece. I’m gonna back up a little bit cause you said so much goodness there, and I think a point that lives inside of what you just said is that, look, if the policies and practices and traditions and institutions that tore us apart limb from limb, person from person, community from community, were not race neutral, then the things that fix it can’t be either.

And that’s what the Voting Rights Act- Right … was designed to do, right? So first, the Supreme Court just handed this, this decision down, um, in Louisiana versus Callais, and the headlines are calling it everything from a terrible injury to the Voting Rights Act, to an actual death blow, and I’m frankly- Yeah

on that side of the spectrum.

Melissa Murray: Yeah.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: What I first want our listeners- Yeah … to really understand is what happened here. What did the Court actually do to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and in plain terms, what does this mean for voters going forward and for the country overall?

Melissa Murray: Alright, let me wind up.

Um, in order to understand fully what the Court did, you have to understand what came before. In 2023, the Court decided another case, Allen versus Milligan, that is virtually identical to the question presented in- Mm-hmm … Louisiana versus Callais. In Allen versus Milligan, the State of Alabama drew their congressional redistricting maps after the census, and they did it in a way that limited the voting power of African Americans- Mm-hmm

and Alabama is a state with a quite significant- Mm-hmm … Black population. They basically packed the Black voters into one section. The map was challenged as an impermissible racial gerrymander, and a lower court said, “Yes- Mm … that’s a racial gerrymander,” and ordered the state to draw a new map. The state drew a new map.

They drew another district that could allow Black people- … to have a, uh, an elect- a elected official of their choice. That gets challenged as an- Mm … impermissible racial gerrymander. Goes up to the Supreme Court. Notably, uh, the Court did not decide it before the 2022 midterm election, so the crap map was used during that midterm election, and it probably cost Democrats the House of Representatives.

But- Mm … you know, be that as it may, in June of 2023, the Court upheld the new map that provided Black voters with two opportunity districts, and they basically reaffirmed a set of voting rights cases, jingles- Mm-hmm … um, specifically in this framework for thinking about how you use- Mm-hmm … race and how you redraw these districts in order to remedy- Mm

a past racial violation in the drawing of maps. So- We had a sort of asked and answered moment. This was decided in 2023. Of course, there were some concurrences- Mm-hmm … uh, Brett Kavanaugh, for example, who were just like, “You know, maybe we oughta think about sunsetting the use of race. Like, can we use race for forever?”

And that, that’s something that Brett Kavanaugh does on a regular basis. He did this in the affirmative action cases. Like, maybe it’s time to sort of sunset this question- Mm … of race because, you know, we have to move on. I say all of that about this earlier case, Allen versus Milligan, because the court didn’t need to take up- Mm

Louisiana versus Callais. This question had been- Mm … answered, right? And a six to three majority of the court said this was fine. Then along comes Louisiana. They could have just said, uh, “We answered this in Allen versus Milligan.” And this is the kicker, Brittany, they instructed the litigants to brief a new- Hmm

additional question about whether- Hmm … the use of race in providing a redistricting map remedying a past racial gerrymander was permissible under the 14th and 15th amendments. So- Sneaky … now we’re in a whole new world. No litigant- Uh-uh … asked this question. No litigant asked the court to address this question.

The court supplied this question and put it on the table. They wanted to get to this question, and I cannot underscore that enough. And effectively, the decision says they are preserving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 is the remaining shards of the Voting Rights Act. This law, this landmark legislation that was literally paid for in the- That’s right

blood and flesh of Black people marching for the right to vote. Um, they decided in 2013 that they were going to kill the preclearance regime of the Voting Rights Act, a, a part of the law that made it im- almost impossible for states with histories of suppressive voter practices to even get suppressive laws and practices on the books.

They had to first clear it with the Department of Justice, and they almost never got preclearance when the laws were obviously intended to suppress and make it harder for minorities to vote. In 2013, in Shelby County versus Holder, the court killed the preclearance regime, but the chief justice who wrote that majority opinion said, “Don’t worry.

You still have Section 2. Section 2 allows you to file litigation to- Mm-hmm … enforce the terms of the Voting Rights Act.” Now- This is good, but litigation is a lot harder than just having to go to the Department of Justice and say- Cause like- … look what Alabama’s doing, look what Louisiana is doing. Like, you actually have to have plaintiffs, you have to have resources, you have to do a lot of things.

So they already made it hard when they struck down the preclearance regime. They already put the- Mm … burdens on litigants to bring these cases, and burdens of litigation are actually quite significant. And then in another set of cases, um, after, uh, 2013, they began- Mm … hobbling Section 2. So there was a case in 2021 called Brnovich versus De- Democratic National Committee that made it harder to show that discriminatory effect was- Mm-hmm

a violation of Section 2. And then they have this case, which is again linked to this whole question of how we draw these congressional districts, and that has ramifications not just for Congress- Yeah … and the House of Representatives, but for state legislatures- Yeah … for county representation. It makes it so much harder now.

Like, all, all of those redistricting and district drawing questions have real implications for how Black and Brown electoral power is divvied up in the state map. And the Court in this decision, which was written by Justice Alito, who has been no friend- Mm-hmm … of the Voting Rights Act, effectively said that when you use or even think about race to remedy a racial gerrymander, and to remedy a racial gerrymander- How-

you’ve gotta be thinking about how to maximize the voting power of racial minorities. If you do that, that’s the racial discrimination. And basically he vindicated the claims of these white voters, they called themselves- Mm … non-African American voters, vindicated their claim that in drawing a map to remedy the discrimination done in the first instance to Black people, the state of Louisiana was discriminating against white people- So-

white voters …

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: for those of us who didn’t go to law school, all of this has happened. I’m hearing you tell us that the Court, not the litigants, not the folks who brought the case on either side, but the Court slides in this question to say, should race continue to be a consideration? Which feels to me like part of the political tactic that Brett and Amy and a whole bunch of other folks were placed there to push.

They get that question on, they essentially affirm non-Black voters, and these congressional maps can now be redrawn right in the shadow of the midterms.

Melissa Murray: So- This part is bonkers. Okay, cause there’s this case called Purcell, and basically the whole point of Purcell and the Purcell principle is that you can’t implement a decision or a new policy close in time to an election.

But the Court has issued this particular ruling, and now states are in a frenzy. Like, m- not all states, um- Mm-hmm … let me be clear. Mm-hmm. States of the former Confederacy are in a frenzy to redraw their districts. I mean, it’s, it’s insane. Louisiana is doing this right now. They’ve halted their pri- Yes. L- L- Louisiana- Yeah

halted its primary. Its primary was ongoing. People were in the middle of early voting. They’re gonna catch a case. They’re going to get sued. The question is whether the Court, in reviewing those cases, is going to adhere- Right … to Purcell and the Purcell principle, which has always stood for the idea you cannot implement these changes- Mm-hmm

so close in time to an election- Mm-hmm … because it creates chaos. It is a form- Which is the point … of voter suppression because it makes it impossible. They’re trying to create the

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: chaos. Exactly. Exactly. They’re trying to suppress these votes, right? So suddenly coming out and redrawing the maps, suddenly coming out and canceling primaries.

Marsha Blackburn, who Taylor Swift told y’all not to vote for years ago, as soon as the SCOTUS decision comes down, she’s like, “Let’s go and finish what Trump started,” right? And, and, and the politics of it all are really clear. Here’s the question I wanna ask you, though, because I think a lot of people think that this is only going to punish Black voters.

What is the overall- No … impact for all of America? How does this … everybody?

Melissa Murray: So let me, let me start with that, but then I wanna go back to Marsha Blackburn. Um, whenever there is chaos in the electorate, it may be intended to keep Black people from voting, but it invariably trickles down to make it harder for everyone to vote, right?

When you don’t know if your vote will count, if you’re… You don’t know if we’re even having a primary, a- and maybe you’re not especially engaged. Mm-hmm. You’re gonna stay home, right? So I mean, there’s that. One of the things that, um, Marsha Blackburn reportedly said in the wake of this decision is, you know, “This is great for Tennessee.

It will keep Tennessee red.” Mm-hmm. That’s really important, right? This idea that, and the Court made this very clear in the opinion in Louisiana versus Callais, you can’t think about race. Um, you can think about partisan affiliation. It’s perfectly fine to draw your districts if your goal is to consolidate a partisan advantage, so maybe to advantage Republicans- Mm-hmm

or to advantage Democrats. Who, who is to say? Um, mostly I think to- That’s right … advantage Republicans. The problem with that thinking, I mean, like, but you can’t do it with regard to race. The problem with that thinking, though, is that in the South in particular- partisan affiliation and race run- Mm-hmm

very closely together. Black voters in the South are almost invariably Democrat. So if you are drawing district maps, as the Supreme Court says you can, to consolidate partisan advantage, you’re probably doing something that- Mm … impacts minority voting in a real and material way. So if you’re drawing the maps to keep Tennessee red, you’re literally drawing the maps in a way to keep Black and Brown voters in places- Mm-hmm

like Memphis and Nashville- Mm-hmm … and Knoxville and Chattanooga, large cities in Tennessee with serious minority populations. You’re probably drawing the maps in ways that dilute their votes, and the Supreme Court has basically said that’s okay. But if you were to be challenged on it under Section 2, like, “Hey, you just drew a racial gerrymander,” the Court would then say, “You can’t think about how to accommodate those Black voters better- Mm

cause that would be impermissible.”

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Oh, okay. So you started off talking about the fact that we don’t have to take this. What do we actually do about this? I mean, we’ve got a Republican-controlled Congress. We definitely can’t count on this- Yeah … extremely, and I cannot emphasize this enough, illegitimate Supreme Court either, especially since we just watched Chief Justice Roberts, who upheld the Voting Rights Act only three years ago, like you said, in Allen versus Milligan, apparently just change his mind without even writing a concurrence to explain why.

A friend of our show and, and yours, LaTosha Brown, had an incredible Substack piece that I’d encourage everyone to read called We Are the Architects, where she really encourages us as readers to start rethinking our voting system whole scale. She said the old way is not enough, and we can’t just be nostalgic about, uh, reconstituting what we had, that we actually need to redesign the entire thing.

And she threw out some suggestions, like getting rid of the Electoral College, implementing ranked choice voting in all elections. Mm-hmm. So Melissa, in your view, what is the solution here? How can we not only begin to unwind the damage, but design what we really deserve?

Melissa Murray: So shameless plug for my book, The US Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader.

Start here. We cannot understand the way in which our government is scaffolded by a framework that is literally engineered to produce- Mm … minority rule unless we read the Constitution. The Senate- It is a body that was meant- Mm … to limit popular voices. Like, they didn’t trust ordinary people. They said, “We’ll give you the House of Representatives,” but the Senate, initially state legislatures- Mm-hmm

picked senators. Mm-hmm. That changes with the 17th Amendment, but initially that was the whole thing. The Electoral College is born of the same impulse. We do not trust popular instincts. Um, we want a better class- Hm … of people picking our leaders. Mm-hmm. You’ve gotta read this. You’ve gotta look at the Constitution.

I mean, if you wanna know how we got to this point where we’re literally talking about whether you can think about race in order to deal with racial discrimination, you’ve gotta read this and figure out all of the ways in which this document was created originally with all of these compromises- Mm-hmm

for slavery. Like, there is literally a clause in Article One of the Constitution. Article One sets out the framework for Congress where they basically prohibit Congress from writing a law that would stop the international slave trade-

Atima Omara: Mm …

Melissa Murray: initially, right? So there was this big debate in the Constitutional Convention about like, you know, were we going to be free or enslaved?

And the southern states were like, “Listen, we want some slavery.” And the northern states were like, you know… Like, some of the northern states actually profited- It’s- … significantly from slavery. They had sh- like shipping, all of it. Um, but they were like, “Listen, you know, I don’t know if I wanna be complicit in the enslavement of other people.

Like, you know, why do we have to do this?” And the compromise was struck. South, you have 20 years to continue this transatlantic slave trade, and then in 1808 Congress can be authorized- Mm … to pass a law to end it. And, and in fact, in 1808 Congress does that, and they think that’s going to stop it. Mm. That’s going to end the use of slavery in the United States.

Yeah. Joke’s on us. The South is like- Right … “Okay, we don’t have to import them. We’ll just- Yeah … grow them ourselves.” They’ll s- they’ll have a self-reproducing slave population. But that compromise is literally in here. Wow. Any time you see the words 1808- Wow … that’s what they’re talking about, like this idea that we have this 20-year timeframe to do transatlantic slave trading, and then it’s going to stop.

There’s a clause in Article Four about ren- rendering runaway slaves back to their- Mm … enslavers in the slave states. Like, all of this. So that’s something to start with. Like, our original Constitution is literally rooted in a series- Mm-hmm … of compromises about how to keep people enslaved, and we have to wrestle that.

That is literally in the DNA- Mm-hmm … of the document that scaffolds our government and indirectly our lives. There is a massive rupture, obviously, with the American Civil War. New amendments are passed. Yeah. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And they’re a fundamental- A fundamental second founding, and we need to grapple with that.

The Supreme Court needs to grapple with that, because they love to act like the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments- Hmm … don’t mean anything, when in fact they’re a complete renegotiation of the relationship between the states and the federal government, and between the states- Yeah … and the people, and between the states- Yeah

the people, and the federal government. And then the last thing we need to recognize is that we are not- Mm-hmm … without power here. In this book, there is this story of a set of amendments that we don’t really talk about, the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments. These were all passed in this period at the turn of the century, where there was a huge populist movement.

Ordinary people in the middle of the Gilded Age looked around, they’re like, “Wow, there is massive- Mm-hmm … income inequality. There’s huge consolidation of wealth.” The federal government makes its money by charging tariffs, and we, the working class- Right … disproportionately bear the brunt of those tariffs.

I mean, if this sounds- Yeah … familiar to you, it should. And they said, “We’re not gonna take it anymore. What we want is an income tax that makes the rich pay their fair share.” They can’t have an income tax because Article One of the original Constitution has a provision that prevents that. The Supreme Court, when they try to pass an income tax, reverts to Article One- Hmm

and says, “You can’t do that.” And so they decide they’re gonna pass a constitutional amendment, and they’re going to change this. They are going to make it possible for an income tax to be levied so the rich can pay their fair share, and we can move away from regressive tariffs- Hmm … as the chief source of federal government revenue, and they succeed with the 16th Amendment.

Then they decide with the 17th Amendment that they’re done with state legislatures electing a better class of senators. They want the people to be able to do this, and they succeed, and get the 17th Amendment passed. The 19th Amendment is the most auspicious, I think, for women in this country. After years of trying to read women into the 14th and 15th Amendments, they decide, “We’re just going to get an amendment that enfranchises women.”

And with the 19th Amendment in 1920, they basically double the size of the electorate- Mm-hmm … in one fell swoop. Yeah. Think of what we can do if we harness that kind of power. I mean, it is an uphill battle. Yeah. It’s hard to amend the Constitution. It’s even harder now, given the kind of electoral distortion that exists in our state legislatures, and on the ground in terms of voter suppression.

But it is- Right … not impossible if we harness our power collectively. We could be thinking about- Hmm … statehood for DC. Read the chapter in here that talks about how- Yeah … DC gets to vote. There’s a constitutional amendment to allow DC to vote for the president. There’s all of this discussion about the, how the disenfranchisement of the District of Columbia is basically rooted in the fact that- Hello

it’s a Black city. Yeah.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: That’s right. You-

Melissa Murray: I mean, then there’s Puerto Rico. There’s just so much we can do here. Getting rid of the Electoral College. We have come so close to a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. We can do it again. When

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: you talk about coalescing power, I think we really can’t miss this point because that’s what authoritarians do, right?

They build authoritarian regimes- Yeah … by condensing and coalescing media power, government power, educational authority, um, and they speak with one voice. They are one band and one sound. Mm-hmm. And that consolidation is what gives them their power. So we need to be thinking about- Mm-hmm … how we are equally, if not more ruthless, right?

About how we are more strategic in, in, in using the power that we have, as you so rightfully said. I’m curious, especially when we think about the power of women, um, about your coverage of Roe versus Wade. I mean, you’ve been covering the way, um, that millions of women have been dealing with state abortion bans since Roe fell a few years ago, and this question of bodily autonomy is always in the forefront of our minds here at Undistracted, but it is most certainly at the top of the news hour.

Um, because a lot of those women and pregnant people have turned to telehealth prescriptions, um, or abortion pills- Mm-hmm … from out-of-state providers, and now these pills have become the new legal battleground. Last Friday, a court of appeals- Right … dramatically rolled back access to them. What’s happening, and what do you think is next?

Melissa Murray: So le- let’s say the court’s name. This is the Fifth Circuit, uh, America’s worst circuit court. Um, they’re always on one. Uh, so much so that even the Supreme Court is, like, occasionally duty-bound to chide and chastise the Fifth Circuit. Sometimes they’re so out of pocket, even the Court has to step in. And, and this may be one of those times.

Um, the Fifth Circuit in a decision that was issued- Mm-hmm … late on Friday, that’s how you know- Classic … it’s some real stuff. Uh, late on Friday, yeah, tried to get it in under the wire. We were there. We saw it. Um, basically-

Brittney Cooper: Mm …

Melissa Murray: overruled the f- the, the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, which is one of the two drugs in the two-drug medication abortion- Mm

protocol. Um, and they didn’t just limit it in the states that are affected by the Fifth Circuit’s decision, so Louisiana, Texas, uh, like that. This is a nationwide ban right now. And so the manufacturers of mifepristone, Danco, GenBioPro, have now sought, uh- Mm-hmm … sought emergency relief at the Supreme Court.

So this case is going to be heard by the Supreme Court in some capacity going forward. Um- They have been on one about mifepristone ever since Roe fell in 2022, and one of the reasons why they have been on mifepristone is because medication abortion is the- Mm-hmm … principal means by which pregnancy is terminated in this country.

It’s incredibly safe. Um, it has been around for a long time. And because it’s medication, you don’t have to- Yeah … come into a clinic. You can do this by telehealth, which makes it easier for individuals who are in states with restrictive abortion laws to get access to this medication. And of course, the states with restrictive abortion laws hate this because it’s an end run around their particular laws.

Um, I just wanna emphasize, um, we are putting a lot of the blame for this ruling- Mm-hmm … on the Fifth Circuit, and rightly so. We should also be talking about the way in which the Trump administration- Absolutely … facilitated this ruling, right? Um, this is an administration that recognizes that its antipathy- Mm-hmm

for reproductive rights is not popular. Like, it is not popular at all. Uh, there are people who are deeply worried about the fact that access to abortion is not just necessary if you want to terminate a pregnancy. It’s necessary- Mm, mm-hmm … if you lose a pregnancy. And one in three women in America- That’s right

suffers a miscarriage in pregnancy. It’s incredibly common. And the protocol when you have a miscarriage- That’s

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: right …

Melissa Murray: is an abortion. Like, you have to clear out the tissue- Mm-hmm … that is no longer viable so you can sustain a new pregnancy going forward, and if you don’t, you die of sepsis. Like, this is what happens.

This administration knows that its opposition to abortion rights, reproductive rights is deeply, deeply unpopular, and so we haven’t seen them move to limit, um, access to abortion. Like, there’s some, like s- you know- RFK Jr., Secretary Bear Juice, whatever we’re calling him, he’s made some noise about limiting access to mifepristone, but they really haven’t done anything.

What they have done, though, is made statements issued from the Trump FDA, um, maybe questioning or unsettling the issue of whether mifepristone is safe, and it was those statements that this court relied upon in reaching this decision. And so the c- the administration gets what it wants, a nationwide ban on mifepristone, without anyone connecting the dots and realizing that- That’s right

it was their idea in the first place. They wanted this, too. And so I think we need to say that part. They’re not directly responsible for it. Their fingerprints aren’t all over it, but they’re definitely facilitating this. They laid a trail. They made a glide path for the Fifth Circuit to come up with this decision.

And so the question going forward is, what is the Supreme Court- Mm-hmm … going to do? This court has been onward- Eh- … about abortion. They insisted when they decided Dobbs that they were settling the abortion question. Yeah. BS. They are not settling anything. The question of abortion is even more of an issue in America than it was before Roe fell, and now it actually affects women who didn’t- That’s right

think that they were ever going to be affected by an abortion ban, and- Yeah … you gotta sit with that. Like, if you are pregnant, trying to be pregnant, pregnancy is not easy. Like, i- if you are, if one in three women loses a pregnancy, one in three women are going to have to face the issue of whether or not they have access to the reproductive care they need, and in one fell swoop on a Friday afternoon- Oof

a couple of ghouls on the Fifth Circuit said- Ghouls. Ugh …

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Thugs. The lot of em’.

Melissa Murray: So here we are.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Okay? Conspiracists. I mean, this thing is intense. Like you said, we should absolutely make sure that we’re honest and upfront about all of the fingerprints that the Trump administration has on this thing, and I also wanna be really clear with our audience, abortion pills are still accessible, so we do have options, and we’ll make sure- Mm-hmm

to put those details in our show notes. Mm-hmm. Okay. I wanna go back to your book a little bit. Like you said, it takes on a document that everybody says they have respect for, but what was not being understood about it that you were trying to clear up here? Because frankly, I, I’m looking at this book, and I know it’s critically important- But I also know how many people work in that particular building who are wiping their behinds with this document.

So like, is it even worth us really understanding what’s in it anymore, or are we in a new world entirely?

Melissa Murray: Well, let’s start with do we even understand it? Like, raise your hand, America, if you’ve actually read the Constitution. Don’t play in my face. I, I mean, like, I, I assigned the Constitution in my constitutional class for the first day of school, and these are law students, and many of them have never read it.

Like, maybe they’ve read parts of it, but have you just, like, sat down and read the whole thing? It was actually meant to be read. Mm-hmm. They wanted people to grapple with it, to read it, to engage with it, to debate it. So, you know, that’s the first instance. Do you even know what- Mm-hmm … the Constitution is doing?

Like, what’s the point of it? The point of… This is a trauma-informed document. Like, these people, when they sat down to write this, were dealing with the trauma of literally being oppressed by the British Crown and the British Parliament, and the trauma of trying to fight a war against a- Mm-hmm … global superpower with a loose- Mm-hmm

confederation of states, like, with no central government. They basically had a daisy chain- Hmm … of a friendship bracelet of states, and they were trying to fight a war. They were going through some stuff. And, you know, when you go through some stuff, you go to your psychiatrist, psychologist- Yeah … they tell you to journal.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Hmm.

Melissa Murray: This was the journal. They journaled. They wrote it all down. And their whole point was they wanted to limit government. They wanted to have it- Hmm … both ways. They wanted to be able to have a government that worked, that was operative, that could create a market and sustain it, that could, like, negotiate with other nations, but they didn’t want a government that was so powerful that it would run roughshod- Hmm

over the rights of the ordinary people. So at bottom, this is a document about- Hmm … limited government. They are trying to create three branches of government, and they’re dividing the power between the three branches of the federal government so that no one branch becomes too powerful. It is a document about limiting the power of the state.

We need to come back to that. One of the things they were deeply, deeply concerned about was, like, if we have a standing army, which we need for national defense, does that mean the federal government can then deploy it in the streets against citizens- Good question … the way the British government did- Hmm

during the colonial period? And so they talk about this. It’s the reason why they divide control over the military between Congress, that gets to assemble- Mm-hmm … and fund the military, and the president, who gets to command it. They are so preoccupied with this idea of a standing army that can just go into cities- Mm-hmm

and run roughshod over people. Like, literally the stuff- Mm-hmm … we live with today are things that they thought about. We have to get back to this document. This document starts with three words- Hmm … “We the people.” We have to find we the people in this government, and we have to make good on this idea that this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and the whole point of that is about limiting the power of the state.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: If you could get this book into the hands of one person. And you know what? Even better, one part of this book into the hands of one person, who would it be and what would you have them read? I mean, I’d give it to Donald Trump and tell him to read the whole thing, but that’s just me.

Melissa Murray: But I mean- Um … I’m thinking about who can read.

Um-

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Fair question …

Melissa Murray: um, I’m gonna go with a totally different answer. I want the average high school student, a, a recent high school graduate to read this book, cause these kids are graduating into a time where everything feels- Mm … so uncertain. Everything feels unsettled. One part that I would love for them to read is the chapter on- Mm-hmm

the 27th Amendment. The 27th Amendment’s the last amendment to the Constitution. It was actually proposed with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Um, there are 12 proposed amendments. Mm. Only 10 of them get ratified, and they’re ratified around the same time as the Constitution. This amendment, which is, uh, an amendment that limits the ability of Congress to raise its compensation- Mm

does not get passed. Um, and it’s just sort of languishing there. Um, you know, Ohio ratifies it in the mid 18- in, in the late 1800s, but it’s sort of lying dormant until Gregory Watson, a college student- Wow … at the University of Texas at Austin discovers it when he has to write a term paper. So he writes a term paper on amendments that didn’t get passed, and he gets a C, and he is undeterred.

He’s like, “I don’t care if I got a C. I think this amendment makes sense. I wanna get it passed.” He contacts a senator in Maine. The senator puts him in touch with a bunch of state legislatures. He starts the work of getting this amendment ratified over 200 years after it was first proposed, and in the 1990s- Mm

he is successful. He gets the 27th Amendment passed. The University of Texas at Austin is immediately chagrined. They change his grade- Yeah … from a C to an A. Damn. And that is a lesson for young people. You can do this. You can be constitutional change agents. We don’t have to take

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: this. We don’t have to take this.

Melissa Murray, thank you for reminding us we don’t have to take this, and most importantly, that the power belongs to we, the people. We’ll talk to you real soon.

Melissa Murray: All right. Thanks so much, Brittany.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: You know, here at Undistracted, we’re all about staying, well, undistracted, finding the balance between being informed, empathetic, and open, and staying, you know, sane.

And if you love Undistracted, you’re going to love the Meteor newsletter. Three times a week it lands in your inbox with enlightening, surprising, and occasionally hilarious perspectives on the news, culture, sports, and the fight for gender and racial justice. You’ll get exclusive interviews with women and non-binary people making news, plus elders we look up to, like Anita Hill and Gloria Steinem.

You’ll hear writers like Nona Willis Aronowitz, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, uh, Rebecca Carroll, Shannon Melero, and Jessica Valenti, who all dissect the news, plus a little behind the scenes of what’s happening right here at Undistracted. So if you’re not already subscribed, what are you waiting for? Head to wearethemeteor.com/newsletters, or right down our show notes and sign up for the newsletter.

Trust me, your inbox deserves it. That’s wearethemeteor.com/newsletters or the notes on this episode. You can thank me later. So y’all know what time it is. It is time for the news of the week, and we added somebody to the group chat today, all right? Of course, I’m joined for this untrending news segment by our group chat regular, author and gender and women’s studies professor, Dr.

Brittney Cooper, who, by the way, just had a book come out, author of the new children’s book, Mama Says I’m Fine. Y’all make sure you go pick that up, cause we support the group chat around here, okay? We’ve also added our friend Atima Omara to the group chat. Welcome, Atima. We are glad- Thanks … to have this award-winning political strategist and author of The Instigators: How Black Women Have Been Essential to American Democracy and What We Can Learn From Them.

So glad to have you all. So let’s, let’s dive into this news. Uh, I somehow did a miracle thing as a mother of two small children and actually got outside to the movies this week. I don’t know how I did it. Shout out to Reggie. It was kind of a miracle. But we went to see the fun culture romp, uh, The Devil Wears Prada 2.

As a big fan of the first one- Not yet … have y’all seen it yet?

Brittney Cooper: Not yet. Because I love the first one.

Atima Omara: It’s on my list.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Yeah. Right? The first one is a classic, and can we all agree the villain is not Andy in the first one? For

Brittney Cooper: sure. The villain is the boyfriend. Absolutely.

Atima Omara: Okay. Because,

Brittney Cooper: because hear

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: me- All

Brittney Cooper: right.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: I just wanna make sure the group chat was all on the same

Brittney Cooper: page. Because I look at those outfits back, I would not have given… I just d- I still- Oh, and the other one … all these years later, I’m mad about it.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Like ‘

Atima Omara: Cause that could have been vintage now

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: You understand what I’m saying? Emily was sick. She could not have gone to Paris anyway.

Yeah. Somebody was gonna go to Paris- … why not me? In the Chanel. Hello? What is the- Right … Emily’ll be all right. It, it, j- keep, keep the boots. At least keep the page boy hat. Anyway. Right. Um, this film did feature some cozying up to billionaires, which, mm, you know, is a little questionable. I won’t give it away, but speaking of billionaires and fashion, this week is of course the Met Gala, and it drew out the most creative fashion designers, but also the most creative protesters who were upset to see that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez Bezos were chairing this event.

So shout out to one stunt where protesters labeled empty water bottles with VIP toilet signs in solidarity with the Amazon drivers who sometimes actually have to use the bathroom in water bottles on their shift. And I thought that the Met Gala was, like, a place where you, o- obviously plenty of consumerism is being celebrated, but I don’t know, I just feel like once upon a time you just couldn’t have a whole bunch of money and just buy

Brittney Cooper: your way in.

Yeah. I mean, we just saw Simone Biles talking about, like, having to pay $20,000 bill just to do a red carpet event, right? Sheesh. And look, and there’s also just this moment, gas is over $5 a gallon. People are struggling. The economy is in the toilet. Yeah And at some point folks don’t wanna keep- Yeah

seeing this uncritical engagement with gratuitous consumption. Um, and the Met- Mm. You know, look, we like glamour. Mm-hmm. We’re America, we like to stunt on them hoes just a little bit here and there. Yeah. But we don’t have to be so obvious about it. Here and there. Um, and, and we just seem to be in a moment where in every way that we could pull back, instead we’re choosing to embrace the worst versions of ourselves and saying the quiet part out loud.

Mm-hmm. We are in bed with billionaires. We are a culture that uncritically embraces them, and we’re being confronted- Yep … with that.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Yeah. Atima, I don’t know about you, like, I’m gonna look at some of the outfits. Yeah. But I am most grateful that the creativity that we’ve seen from these protesters and organizers has been on full display, cause Jeff should be getting called out every single place he goes.

Atima Omara: Every single place he goes. And it was funny, cause I was thinking last year how much I loved the tribute to Black dandyism- Yeah … at the Met Gala. And I was living for every… I have not sat through an entire, like, red carpet, but I sat through that entire red carpet because every- Mm-hmm … outfit was giving.

But this year, this is- Mm … this is not the year. I mean, if you’re gonna, like… It actually goes to a good cause. Yeah. It’s raising money for- Yeah … this museum that ne- that depends on this gala for the budget. But I’m like, the access this year, and then to see the good sis Beyoncé- Woo … right on as co-chair, I was like, “Nah, man.”

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Now listen, that’s my girl. I’m here for the fashion. I’m definitely here for the fundraising, like you said. But yeah, I, I need Jeff to go ahead and, uh, hear, hear from us as much as possible. But y’all know what I really been here for? I’ve been more interested in the People’s Ball, AKA prom send-offs. Now let me tell y’all something.

Graduation season, prom season, this is my favorite time of year. I am absolutely that girl who will hang out of the window and yell at an absolute stranger, “You look so beautiful. Congratulations.” That is me. I am Team Young People all day, every day. And I don’t like it that some corners of the internet have been calling it hood prom, and coming for, um- Mm

what they believe is, uh, a disordered or incorrect priorities around investing in these moments, these coming-of-age moments for young people. I even got into trouble on the internet when I called this coming-of-age moment. Because if you don’t have a bat mitzvah or a quinceañera, or you can’t afford a cotillion, guess what?

Prom is your moment. Like, what is up with all these negative comments about our young people being beautiful and expressing themselves, expressing their gender, and having a lovely send-off? I don’t understand it. Yeah.

Atima Omara: I don’t, I don’t get it at all, and it’s one of those things where there is so much stuff already that young Black people are going to have to carry going- Mm-hmm

into the world. Why not have this wonderful evening that you can look back on and remember? Like, I even look back on my prom night, like, with a lot of fondness. And I wasn’t- Mm … you know, I didn’t have, like, a grand day. I was kinda awkward. But even I look, I’m like, man, if nothing else, I was just done with dealing with most- That’s fine

these fools I went to high school with.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Period, okay? Mm-hmm. And

Brittney Cooper: I

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: can look cute on the send-off.

Brittney Cooper: That’s right. On

Atima Omara: the send-off.

Brittney Cooper: I mean- Right … listen, I had a terrible prom, and so I need all these kids to have a great time. And look, I was, I was, to the, to Atima’s point, awkward- Aw … and just, ugh, no. Um, the pictures were beautiful, but I’m like, show out, you know?

My little cousin did a promposal to his girlfriend, you know, and we had so much fun- Yes … in the family group chat. And I was like, “I remember when I learned you were coming, and I remember when you were born.” And so, you know, it’s that moment. It’s this sort of entrance into society. Oh my God. I got a bonus kid.

She’s going to prom. Yes. She’s over here talking about her, you know, her custom-made dress, because baby, she is a fancy girl. Ooh. Um, and so she is ready to step out. We respect it. And so I love it for them. People are enemies of Black joy, and the things I know-

Atima Omara: Mm.

Brittney Cooper: Wow. Is that Black people are like, “We danced on plantations.

We certainly gonna dance with this little piece of freedom that we got here today. You not gonna take it from us.” Okay. Yes. And I think we keep on showing people that in the midst of a world that wants to tell you that, that wants to induce your misery and have you rolling around in it, one of the most important ways to resist- Mm

is to simply not do that, to look beautiful, to step out. I mean, look- Yeah … Black folks also treat Sundays- Yes … used to treat church on Sundays as the prom. I want these young people, baby, do the, do it big. Step out. Do the thing. You the birthday.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Do it big.

Brittney Cooper: Do it.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Do it, lady. Do it, young people. Yeah. Yes. That’s what I’m talking about.

Now, I wanna transition a little bit because, Atima, you just put out a new book detailing the role that Black women have played in actualizing democracy throughout history. It’s of course called The Instigators: How Black Women Have Been Essential to American Democracy and What We Can Learn From Them.

So throw out a news item for us. What is your favorite piece of untrending news right now that features one of those inst- instigators you’re talking about?

Atima Omara: You know, I wouldn’t say it’s untrending news. Like, she’s always somehow managed to get trending because- Mm-hmm … she writes the most amazing dissents.

But- Mm … Justice Ketanji, all of her dissents, she knows that she is not writing on a court that is going to agree with her 98% of the time. Mm-hmm. So she is writing for the future lawyers, for the future advocates, to lay a blueprint for us to follow in how we build back something that is, that is, that is better than this.

And so, um, I always, like, give my flowers to her because every time I- we come around this time of year when the agreements or the decisions come down, um, I’m like, “Thank God for Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

Brittany Packnett Cunningham: Thank God for Ketanji Brown Jackson. And like the premise of your book, we understand that people like her and so many others are essential to this democratic experiment.

Dr. Cooper- Mm-hmm … you talk all the time about how Black women have been forced to be the custodial keepers of this thing called democracy, and I’m so, so glad that we get to read more about the work that we do, and that we can do more than be the custodian. So if y’all have been listening, you’ve got two pieces of homework coming out of the group chat this week.

You need to go buy The Instigators, and you need to go buy Mama Says I’m Fine for a young woman in your life, okay? Let’s go make it happen. Ladies, thank you for joining us for the group chat, and we’ll see you real soon. Thank you. LaTosha Brown said we are the new architects, and I do believe she’s correct.

And if we’re the new architects, then it’s time to get real. New architects don’t come in and take old plans and just shift the numbers around, erase some things and put them back in a new place. No, new architects come with a bold vision, with courage and tenacity, with fight, with the readiness to not be intimidated out of the belief of what is possible.

We have to be the new architects of this moment. And listen, it’s going to continue to cause a lot of pain how much they’re destroying. But we have to know that what they’ve gotten rid of already didn’t work for us in the first place, so let’s stop being nostalgic and get ruthless. If they’re going to get rid of it, then we’re gonna build what we deserve.

Thanks for listening, thanks for being, and always, thanks for doing. I’m Brittany Packnett Cunningham. Let’s go get free.

Subscribe to UNDISTRACTED and rate and review us y’all on Apple podcasts or most places you check out your favorite podcasts.

Thanks for listening, thanks for being, and thanks for doing.

I’m Brittany Packnett Cunningham. Let’s go get free.