--:-- [Up First Theme Music Plays]
--:-- Steve Inskeep: A Supreme Court ruling limits the power of judges to restrain the Trump administration. I think this is fairly momentous. The conservative supermajority found the district courts went too far. I'm Steve Inskeep, and this is a special episode of Up First from NPR News.
--:-- [Discussion Continues]
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The court ruled in one of the biggest cases of the year. It fell silent for now on whether the administration could limit birthright citizenship in the Constitution. This ruling instead finds district courts went too far with nationwide injunctions. It's a victory for the president with unpredictable consequences.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: An analyst foresees even more lawsuits. It's going to overwhelm the lower courts. It's going to lead to extraordinary expense and chaos and harm to the individuals involved. Stay with us. We'll get you on top of today's ruling.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This message comes from BetterHelp. It's only human to ask others for advice, like turning to your barista, hairdresser, or a taxi driver for life advice. But when you're looking for help about relationships, anxiety, depression, or other clinical issues, they may not have all the right answers. Instead, get guidance from a licensed therapist online with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com slash NPR for 10% off your first month.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This message comes from Lisa. Lisa mattresses are meticulously designed and assembled in the USA for exceptional quality, and each mattress is designed with specific sleep positions and feel preferences in mind. Plus, they back it all up with free shipping, easy returns, and a 100-night sleep trial. Visit Lisa.com for 25% off mattresses, plus get an extra $50 off with promo code NPR.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: That's L-E-E-S-A dot com, promo code NPR. This message comes from Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: We have an important decision today from the United States Supreme Court, which is issuing decisions on the last day of its term. This is a decision in a case involving birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment right of a person born in the United States to be a citizen of the United States.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The Trump administration had challenged that right, had been pushed back in court, and appealed one aspect of it to the United States Supreme Court, which has now issued its ruling.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: I'm going to tell you one of the findings. And this involves not specifically birthright citizenship itself, but rather the way in which the administration was barred from enforcing an executive order that would limit birthright citizenship.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: A number of courts issued nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. District courts, which have jurisdiction in a portion of the United States, issued nationwide injunctions against the administration.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And the administration, having lost in the merits in those cases, challenged the right of those courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Now the Supreme Court has taken this case on an expedited basis, and the finding is out, the ruling is out.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This is from the judgment held, universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The court grants the government's applications for a partial stay of injunctions entered here.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And so the Supreme Court has said that district courts have exceeded their authority, likely exceeded their authority, in blocking the actions of the Trump administration in this executive order.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: We're going to hear a number of voices about this, about the politics. NPR's Domenico Montanaro is here, and we're going to begin with NPR justice correspondent Kerry Johnson, who is in our studios here, Studio 31.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Kerry, it's good to see you. Good morning. Thanks. Good morning, Steve.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: This strikes me as a significant, significant decision because there have been so many nationwide injunctions. Yes, there have been a record number of nationwide injunctions this year.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: The Trump administration has really railed against that and has said that these lower court judges are exceeding their authority, in part the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court appears to have agreed this morning.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: In a 6-3 opinion, we're still going through it, but the court has granted Trump's request to narrow injunctions against his birthright citizenship executive order, which of course he signed on his very first day in office this year.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: I want to work through some of the background here. First, nationwide injunctions, they're not something that was invented this year, right? This is something that has happened for a while?
--:-- Kerry Johnson: This has been bedeviling presidents of both political parties for the last 20 or 30 years. I heard President Obama rail against it, certainly President Trump in his first term, and former President Joe Biden did too.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: Because when Congress is not doing very much, Steve, presidents are forced, in their view, to take executive actions to accomplish some of their policy agenda. And this practice of nationwide injunctions has allowed people to challenge some of those presidential actions and allowed courts to block them, at least temporarily.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Okay, so presidents of both parties were unhappy about this. I'm having a memory of judges in Texas ruling nationwide against aspects of Obamacare, for example.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: But it's become especially controversial this year because in the view of multiple district court judges, the Trump administration has wildly exceeded its constitutional authority again and again and again on issue after issue and has faced, I believe, a record number of nationwide injunctions against it.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Is that fair to say? Dozens and dozens.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: The Solicitor General John Sauer talked about that and talked about how it's basically perverting the ability of the executive branch to do what it needs to do and what it believes it was elected to do in the U.S.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And this became, I don't want to say solely a talking point, but definitely a talking point on the right among Republicans, that this is judges exceeding their authority.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: And it's an idea that the Supreme Court then took up and considered here.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Interestingly enough, lower court judges appointed by presidents from both political parties have moved to block some of President Trump's moves this year.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: The Supreme Court majority appears to have been a little bit frustrated with that, at least in its opinion today.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And interestingly enough, you know the court today did not opine about whether this birthright citizenship executive order itself was unconstitutional. But it's making a decision based on the procedure and how lower court judges have been acting generally.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: Yeah, two things to follow up on there. First, you said a 6 ruling. We know that it's a 6 supermajority. Did it go along the ideological lines? It's the conservatives against the liberals here?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: It absolutely did. The dissents we're seeing are from Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: And second, you just said a very important thing because as I'm reading this, the initial read of the case. It appears to say that the Supreme Court overturns the nationwide injunction to the extent that it may exceed a court's authority, which sounds like the court ruling stays in place.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Birthright citizenship is, in fact, the rule, and the Trump administration is, in fact, blocked, but perhaps only in the district of the judge who made the particular ruling.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: We're still teasing it out right now, and it's a little bit nuanced, Steve, as to the practical implications.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But we did hear in the oral argument, attorneys for the states involved talk about how that if this birthright citizenship order were allowed to go into effect, it would mess up entitlement programs in states and the entire systems by which babies are recognized, the birth certificate process and eligibility for state and federal insurance programs and the like.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: So it's quite a serious set of consequences for people.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: Okay. And there's an additional detail. I'm being sent details. Our Washington editor, Krishnadev Kalamer, is part of our team. His eye falls on this line.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The principal dissent's analysis of the executive order, so we're getting into the dissent now, says that this is premature.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: Wait a minute. Let's try to understand this. Essentially, it's saying this has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. They do not rule on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of limiting birthright citizenship.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: That's what this says.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: Yes, the court is not deciding today on the legality of the birthright citizenship executive order in and of itself. This decision concerns the power of lower courts to block parts of President Trump's agenda and the considerations under which they can do so.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Kerry Johnson, stay with us. I want to bring other voices now into the conversation.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: We've just been reading of this Supreme Court ruling that appears to leave alone for the moment the question of birthright citizenship and whether the Trump administration can limit it, but it does limit the power of district court judges to block the administration.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: NPR's Domenico Montanaro covers politics, and he's on the line. Domenico, good morning.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: Hey, good morning. What do you make of this?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Well, I think it's important, number one, to figure out just how much the Supreme Court says that the lower courts are able to be able to slow things down within the administration.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: But it's clearly the courts conservatives are sending the message here that they think that the right of the lower courts is not to block what the executive branch wants to do.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And you could really argue that this second Trump term has really been about Trump trying to test the limits and get rid of obstacles.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: And the courts have been the one thing, one of the last things sort of standing in the way of a number of things that Trump wants to do.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This could open the floodgates for Trump to be able to go forward with any number of things that he wants to do, whether it's these very broad sweeping executive orders that we've seen that have really tested the limits to anything else that really the Trump administration wants to try and do.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: And I think we're seeing this second term now sort of test the limits for what the separation of powers are exactly.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And if there's one thing that the Supreme Court has at least some feeling of jurisdiction over, it's the courts.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: And it clearly is sort of sidestepping this issue of birthright citizenship, which was the sort of key part, the crux of this case in the first place.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But now this could actually mean that the Trump administration, you can sort of grease the wheels on a lot of things that it wants to do.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And we know that they've certainly wanted to do a lot of broad measures.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: Well, here's one of our questions or one of everyone's questions now is how will this apply to many, many cases across the country?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And let's bring in yet another voice to discuss that. Amanda Frost is a legal scholar at the University of Virginia. She followed the oral arguments on this case and is now with us reading in the decision.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Good morning to you. So how sweeping do you think this decision is in its effects?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Yeah, I think this is fairly momentous, not because it addresses the substance of the birthright citizenship executive order, it doesn't do that, but because it addresses this question of universal or nationwide injunctions, which are an essential tool for those challenging lawless executive action, or executive action I think exceeds executive power.
--:-- Amanda Frost: And as a result of this decision, now while individual plaintiffs could win relief, each and every person affected would have to sue in order to get relief.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And in other words, an administration that's violating the law could lose a case and yet nonetheless apply the policy across the nation.
--:-- Amanda Frost: I want to tease that out for a moment, and make sure that I understand what you're telling me.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Say the administration in this instance denies citizenship to a thousand people who were born in the United States.
--:-- Amanda Frost: One of them sues and the judge says, well, that was ridiculous. You obviously have a constitutional right to citizenship. Your citizenship remains the same.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The other 999 still have their citizenship denied unless they individually sue?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And the problem there is, of course, it's going to overwhelm the lower courts. It's going to lead to extraordinary expense and chaos and harm to the individuals involved.
--:-- Amanda Frost: At the oral argument, Solicitor General Sauer was asked by Justice Gorsuch, what's your plan for implementing this executive order in 30 days? if we rule in your favor.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And he said, well, we're going to work on that. He didn't have one.
--:-- Amanda Frost: So I predict it will be very difficult for the government, but of course for the 999 people who didn't file suit, who have expecting babies and don't know if their children will be citizens. I am.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: I was following some of the oral arguments though, and I want to ask about an aspect of this.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Wasn't there discussion of a kind of lawsuit that people will be familiar with, a class action suit where one person or 10 people file, but they say we're doing this on behalf of a whole class of people.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Couldn't that be an answer here?
--:-- Amanda Frost: Yes, and I think that is a partial answer and will undoubtedly be what plaintiffs' lawyers do in the future, seek to have more classes certified.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But class actions cannot be certified in every case.
--:-- Amanda Frost: The Supreme Court prior precedents have limited the availability of class actions so they're not a form of relief in every case.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: I do want to add though that the court did leave on remand for the lower courts to decide the question of what kind of relief the states as parties would need.
--:-- Amanda Frost: So states sued as well as individuals, and states said we need broader relief than just for the residents of our state because people move across state borders.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And the court did recognize that was a problem, and so that remains to be decided by the lower court.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Wow, I'm now trying to figure this out. Someone might be denied citizenship in Texas and they move to California and they're a citizen now and then they move to Wyoming and they're not a citizen.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Is that what you're telling me?
--:-- Amanda Frost: Yes, that is exactly what I'm explaining and in fact what the Solicitor General of New Jersey told the Supreme Court at oral argument and the Supreme Court clearly listened because it did remand that piece of the case.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: It did remand that piece of the case.
--:-- Amanda Frost: So some of this, it's very complicated. Some of this is not decided. We just don't know how it's going to work.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Yes, and I should add, I have yet to read all 119 pages of the opinion at 10.15 in the morning.
--:-- Amanda Frost: But that's my takeaway at this point.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: I want to ask about, there's going to be clearly some skepticism about this.
--:-- Amanda Frost: And I have a couple of questions about that.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The first is the timing. As Kerry Johnson astutely pointed out, presidents of both parties have been frustrated by these nationwide injunctions, these universal injunctions.
--:-- Amanda Frost: But some people, I'm not here to criticize motives because I don't think that's fair.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: You've got to build on evidence.
--:-- Amanda Frost: But some people will raise the question and notice that the conservative supermajority decided to act on this problem just as it was interfering with the president from their party.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Yeah, I won't comment on motives either.
--:-- Amanda Frost: I will say that it's all the executive branch is never going to like universal injunctions because they're all whoever is in power, whether it be a Democrat or Republican, a universal injunction stops them from implementing their policies.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: So the executive branch, as a branch, always has an interest in limiting them.
--:-- Amanda Frost: I would like to think courts might have realized that it's actually in their branch's interest to have some form of collective relief, because the other thing that's going to happen is a flood of lawsuits, as each and every individual affected will file suit if they don't qualify for a class action.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Is that going to reduce the effectiveness of the courts?
--:-- Amanda Frost: Aside from reducing the power of an individual district judge, does this make the entire court system less effective in responding to an executive that seems to go beyond its power?
--:-- Amanda Frost: Yes, I think it's limiting or minimizing the role of courts in checking executive power.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This is another decision that expands executive power.
--:-- Amanda Frost: And right now, that's benefiting a Republican president. In the future, it could benefit a Democratic president.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But it's at the expense of the legislative branch, whose laws might be being violated, and the judicial branch, which is supposed to keep the executive in check.
--:-- Amanda Frost: I want to read a quote from one of the dissents, and then we're going to go to Kerry Johnson, who is still with us.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This is Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals who dissented from this ruling.
--:-- Amanda Frost: and the quote gets to what's going on here, what she thinks is going on here.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it, yet shamefully this court plays along.
--:-- Amanda Frost: She is pretty clearly questioning the motives of her fellow justices there, I think.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Yes, and obviously these three dissenters, three have been dissenting in a number of cases and they're giving full-throated critiques to their colleagues here.
--:-- Amanda Frost: in the dissent.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Carrie Johnson has continued reading while we've been talking. What more are you discovering, Carrie Johnson?
--:-- Carrie Johnson: Yes, another bit from the dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: She says the court's decision to permit the executive branch to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who is not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
--:-- Amanda Frost: She's pointing out, in her view, the problem that everyone would have to go to court individually ensue or band together in some kind of class action to accomplish some relief from some of these executive orders.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And in her view, that is a disaster for the courts and the rule of law, too.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Amanda, I want to try to expand this out.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: I'm testing your memory here a little bit because there have been so many dozens and dozens of nationwide injunctions.
--:-- Amanda Frost: But off the top of your head, what are some of the things besides birthright citizenship where this might have immediate effect.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Oh, you mean in this current administration?
--:-- Amanda Frost: Because I was going to say that there are plenty of examples of nationwide injunctions against President Obama and President Biden's policies.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Things that are active live issues right now with the Trump administration.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Yes. So there are broad injunctions in place in a number of different immigration-related cases.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: So cases involving the Alien Enemies Act.
--:-- Amanda Frost: I believe there are injunctions in place challenging some of the executive branch's attempts to defund various federal programs.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: So these are all examples of nationwide injunctions that have been used to curb executive branch policies, particularly ones issued through executive order, where we have a president unilaterally making changes.
--:-- Amanda Frost: And that was true under Biden and Obama as well.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Have you been surprised by the extent to which the court has deferred to the executive here?
--:-- Amanda Frost: Not as much as the Trump administration has wanted.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: The court has ruled against the administration on a number of occasions, but nevertheless, the administration has pushed the boundaries here successfully a number of times.
--:-- Amanda Frost: I'm not surprised or certainly not shocked because many of these justices worked in the executive branch.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: They tend to favor the executive branch in their rulings.
--:-- Amanda Frost: And this is not the first time they've issued a decision that gives the executive branch more leeway than might have been predicted or might have been viewed as the doctrinally correct solution.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: So I'm not shocked. This is a pro-executive branch court.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: The import of the court's majority ruling today is that many more people are going to have to take their cases to court individually.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And it comes at a time when President Trump and the White House have been targeting major law firms with executive orders.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: And some of the firms have agreed to do pro bono work that would support the Trump administration and its priorities.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And so the idea that there could be limits on pro bono work at the same time that the Supreme Court is saying many more people have to go to court, many more people who are vulnerable and maybe don't have a lot of resources or low income, this could put further strain on the legal system, which is already under enormous strain this year with hundreds of cases challenging Trump and what he's done so far.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: I'm also thinking about, from a practical sense, this underlines the power of the government and further empowers the government which if you in favor of the administration you going to like.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And if you not in favor of the administration or worried about the long effects you might not.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: When we talked about that case where a thousand people have to sue individually the government, the administration for free on our taxpayers' dime, really, can work all of those cases, can assign lawyers to all of those cases.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But on the side of the plaintiffs, the people who would sue the administration, they have to go and find a thousand lawyers to work for them.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: Yeah.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And now many of the major law firms around the country who have been doing a great deal of pro bono work have basically signed deals with the Trump administration to limit or cabin the parameters of the sort of work that they might do.
--:-- Kerry Johnson: The other thing, Steve, which is a trend we've been seeing across the Supreme Court over time, is giving more power to the executive branch and giving more power to themselves.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Today, this high court majority took away power or limited power from district judges and appeals court judges and gave more power to the high court itself.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Let's get a little bit more of the political context from Domenico Montanaro, who is still with us.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: Domenico, this is fundamentally, I mean, we've ended up in this rather rarefied place of discussing the exact power of district judges.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But this was a case about a visceral issue, American citizenship, part of this broader issue of immigration.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: What is the context of that? How popular has the president's approach to immigration been up to now?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Yeah, it's gotten less popular, frankly.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: I mean, he had been, it had been one of the more popular things that he had been doing at the start of his administration.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: You would see people relatively high saying 50%, 54% saying that they approved of his handling of immigration.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: But as these sort of cases of more extreme examples of deportations or masked arrests with unnamed or unmarked, unidentified law enforcement officers pulling people off the streets, that has seemed to sort of dampen down what have been people's feelings about how Trump is handling these deportations because there's a spectrum.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: People are very much in favor of deporting hardened criminals, but not as much the landscaper or the Home Depot worker without a criminal record.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: The other thing here in thinking more directly about this case when it comes to public opinion, we've seen people feel that given how much the Trump administration has tried to do – there was an APNORC survey, for example, last month that found that 57 percent of people felt that Trump had gone too far in using presidential power to achieve his goals.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Only 32 percent said that they thought that Trump had been about right in how much power that he decided to use.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: So you already have Trump sort of swimming upstream a bit with his base certainly well intact, thinking that he's doing the right things.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: But independents and Democrats largely feeling he's gone too far.
--:-- Domenico Montanaro: And I can only think that this ruling will empower Trump to feel that he can go even further.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Amanda, I want to ask about something that seems a little bit abstract, but seems significant.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: There was a concern during oral arguments that the following thing would happen. The administration gets sued in district court.
--:-- Amanda Frost: They lose because they obviously deserve to lose on whatever the issue is.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: In theory, that should be appealed up to the Supreme Court and become a nationwide judgment.
--:-- Amanda Frost: But the administration just never bothers to appeal the decision they lose.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And so they have only lost the one case and then they win the other 999 by default.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Does this ruling appear to do anything about that concern or close the door to that?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Not that I can see.
--:-- Amanda Frost: And that was the line of questioning by Justice Elena Kagan, where she pointed out that if an executive branch wants to avoid having their even clearly unconstitutional executive order be stayed or stopped by courts, all it has to do is refuse to appeal a loss to the Supreme Court of the United States.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And unless and until they do take that appeal, they will literally win by losing.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: They could lose every single case in a district court, never take an appeal, and continue to apply the policy to everyone without the wherewithal to sue.
--:-- Amanda Frost: Class actions might be a solution, but they are not available in every case.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Carrie Johnson, you get the last word.
--:-- Carrie Johnson: Yeah, you know, the administration and Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court during an oral argument in this case that the administration would respect the judgments and opinions of the Supreme Court.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: It's held out some questions about the lower courts. And now we're going to find out if the administration actually is going to do what John Sauer said it was going to do.
--:-- Carrie Johnson: The Supreme Court is the final word, but it's an open question how long it may take and in what form some of these legal challenges to Trump's executive orders and other policies will get there.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: So counting on the good faith of the Trump administration and also because decisions last, counting on the good faith of whoever might be president next, I suppose.
--:-- Carrie Johnson: OK, that's the ruling. universal injunctions likely exceed the authority of district courts, according to the United States Supreme Court.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: There'll be much more to discuss about this on NPR News.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Thanks to everybody who joined us.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: NPR's Kerry Johnson, Domenico Montanaro, and University of Virginia Law Professor Amanda Frost.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: And that's a special edition of Up First for this Friday, June 27th, edited by Krishnadev Callimer, Natalie Winston, Ali Schweitzer, and Lisa Thompson.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: It was produced by Claire Murashima, Katie Klein, and Lily Quiroz.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Our technical director is Carly Strange, and our executive producer is Jay Shaler.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Join us again tomorrow.
--:-- [Up First Theme Music Plays]
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This message comes from Capital One. Banking with Capital One helps you keep more money in your wallet with no fees or minimums on checking accounts.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See CapitalOne.com slash bank for details.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Capital One N.A. Member FDIC.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This message comes from NPR sponsor Odoo.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Some describe Odoo like a magic beanstalk because it scales with you and is magically affordable.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Odoo. Exactly what a business needs.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Sign up at odoo.com.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: That's O-D-O-O dot com.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: This message comes from NPR sponsor, Capella University.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Interested in a quality online education?
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Capella is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: A different future is closer than you think with Capella University.
--:-- Steve Inskeep: Learn more at capella.edu.
