Which wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act? That’s the question before the Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA. Back in 2004, Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a residential lot near the idyllic and popular Priest Lake in Idaho. In preparation of construction, the Sacketts started filling the lot with gravel and sand. But after an anonymous complaint about the dredging and filling, the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the Sacketts to stop construction until the proper permits and assessments were sorted out. The EPA argued that the Sacketts were building on a wetland protected by the Clean Water Act. Instead of securing federal permits, the Sacketts took their case to the Supreme Court for a second time.This week on Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Sam Sankar, the senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, a leading environmental law organization. Smith and Sankar discuss the Clean Water Act, wetlands and “navigable waters,” and the powerful interests backing the Sacketts. The outcome of the case, Smith and Sankar warn, could further gut the EPA’s ability to prevent pollution of the nation’s waters and combat climate change.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rodney Reed has been on death row since 1998 for the killing of a 19-year-old woman named Stacey Stites. Although Texas prosecutors said the case was open and shut, Reed has consistently maintained his innocence. Over the years, dozens of witnesses have come forward with evidence that undermines the state’s case, casting serious doubt on whether Reed is actually guilty. But Texas has refused to conduct DNA testing that could put lingering questions to rest. This week on Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Intercept senior writer Liliana Segura to discuss the Supreme Court’s review of the case. Segura was in Washington, D.C., for the oral arguments, which focused on whether the statute of limitations for DNA testing has run out. Although it may seem like a straightforward question, it’s anything but — and the court’s decision could have life-or-death consequences for defendants seeking to prove their innocence. If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Back in 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case involving a cake shop owner who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In a 7-2 decision, the court found that the state had violated the cake maker’s religious objections. Now the court is considering another case out of Colorado that could expand the right to discriminate under the guise of free speech. In the fourth episode of Dissent, Jordan Smith and law professor Hila Keren discuss 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a challenge to the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer seeking to refuse wedding design services to same-sex couples. Unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop, the 303 Creative case has no injured parties; it is a preemptive attempt to allow businesses to practice unfettered discrimination. If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could dismantle the Indian Child Welfare Act, also known as ICWA. The law was passed in 1978 to combat a history of forced family separation in the United States and prevent the removal of Native children from their communities. But now, in Haaland v. Brackeen, ICWA could be completely overturned. In the third episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a journalist, citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and host of the podcast “This Land.” Smith and Nagle break down the case and its broad implications for laws based on tribes’ political relationship with the U.S. government.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected a partisan gerrymandered congressional map drawn to heavily favor Republicans last year. The map violated the state’s constitution. The North Carolina legislature is now arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court whether the state legislature has the authority to override the court and ignore its own constitution. The case, Moore v. Harper, raises the prospect of the independent state legislature theory — a fringe theory that, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of, would give state legislatures unfettered authority, remove checks and balances, and undermine future elections. In the second episode of Dissent, host Jordan Smith and Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center closely examine oral arguments and unpack how a favorable or even a middle-ground ruling would radically change elections.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last year, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and demolish nearly half a century of abortion rights put to rest any remaining questions as to how far the 6-3 supermajority was willing to go to realize its extreme right-wing vision. With the court’s 2022-2023 term in full force, what rights are at stake this year? On the first episode of Dissent, an Intercepted miniseries, host and senior Intercept reporter Jordan Smith is joined by Jordan Rubin, a legal analyst with MSNBC and former prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Smith and Rubin outline the Supreme Court’s term and discuss the major implications of the decisions ahead.If you’d like to support our work, go to theintercept.com/join — your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week, the Justice Department sued the state of Arizona and its governor, Doug Ducey, for installing a shipping container wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. This week on Intercepted: Ryan Devereaux, an investigative reporter with The Intercept, breaks down Ducey’s makeshift, multimillion-dollar container wall. Devereaux tells the story of everyday people and community members who live along the border, and how they stood up to the governor and won. join.theintercept.com/donate/nowUpdate: December 21, 2022The state of Arizona has agreed to remove Gov. Doug Ducey’s container wall along the border, in response to the lawsuit filed by the federal government.Read the full story and watch the video here: HOW NEIGHBORS IN THE BORDERLANDS FOUGHT BACK AGAINST ARIZONA GOV. DOUG DUCEY’S ILLEGAL WALL — AND WON Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For a month and a half, Iran has been rocked by protests. The sustained demonstration, which were kicked off after a young woman was killed by the notorious morality police, are the most serious challenge to the ruling regime in at least a dozen years — maybe since its inception. This week on Intercepted: Murtaza Hussain, a reporter at The Intercept, is joined by Neda Toloui-Semnani, a journalist and the author of “They Said They Wanted a Revolution: A Memoir of My Parents.” Toloui-Semnani discusses the recent trajectory of the protests in Iran and its parallels with the 1979 revolution. Then, Hussain is joined by Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, a longtime activist, an expert working on issues of women in conflicts, and the founder of the International Civil Society Action Network. Naraghi-Anderlini and Hussain discuss the West’s approach to the demonstrations and the future of the movement. join.theintercept.com/donate/now Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2019, Ajay Kumar, an asylum-seeker from India, began a hunger strike while in ICE detention to demand his release. In response, the U.S. government force-fed Kumar. The Intercept accessed footage of the force-feeding, a practice widely condemned by international organizations. This week on Intercepted, Travis Mannon, a video producer with The Intercept, breaks down what took place during the force-feeding and why this video is so significant: This is the first public video of a federally sanctioned force-feeding by the U.S. government. Mannon reports on Kumar’s time in ICE detention, the force-feeding he experienced, and the ethical questions surrounding the practice. Jose Olivares, lead producer for Intercepted, co-reported this story. join.theintercept.com/donate/now Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, the Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates again, despite coming under scrutiny in recent months for its aggressive hikes to battle inflation. This week on Intercepted: Jon Schwarz, senior writer with The Intercept, talks all things Fed, the most powerful economic institution in the U.S. Schwarz is first joined by Intercept reporters Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw, who discuss how banks are lobbying the Fed, raising questions about the institution’s independence. Schwarz is then joined by former Fed economist Claudia Sahm to break down the Fed’s role in the economy and how its efforts to curb inflation are destabilizing the global economy and raising unemployment.Ken and Dan's story "The Fed Likes to Tout its Independence. So Why are Big Banks Lobbying It?": https://theintercept.com/2022/10/26/federal-reserve-bank-lobby/join.theintercept.com/donate/now Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.