1 big thing: The vaccines are amazing

Illustration of an upright vaccine syringe wearing a hero's cape

2. 10% of Americans have gotten a shot

3. Now for the bad news: Variants

4. Digital divide in school reopening

Illustration of an unplugged backpack.   

5. Catch up quick

Illustration of a cell phone wearing a medical mask

Good morning. I'm filling in for Caitlin today.

Here's a little bonus to start your week: Try to wrap your mind around "ghoti," which is pronounced, "fish." And then try to convince me that English makes any sense.

Today's Smart Brevity count: 644 words, (all in English, for better or worse), or a 2-minute read.

Axios Vitals: Y'know what's great? These vaccines.

Vitals

A briefcase with a red cross on the front.

mustard

Keep up with health care politics, policy and business

Axios Vitals

1 big thing: India's growing crisis

A makeshift mass crematorium in New Delhi

2. U.S. cases are finally falling

3. CEOs now want Washington's help on health costs

Illustration of a doctor's hand and a business hand tearing a hundred dollar bill in half. 

4. Real-world data confirm vaccines' efficacy

A woman receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

5. The COVID population is getting younger

Good morning ... I'll be filling in for Caitlin for the next few days, with assists from my colleagues Marisa Fernandez and Tina Reed.

 Situational awareness: If you missed President Biden's speech last night, don't worry — it was pretty much what you'd expect: He called for expanding the Affordable Care Act, reducing the cost of prescription drugs (which, notably, isn't part of his legislative proposal) and investing in more research at the NIH.

Today's word count: 806, or a 3-minute read.

Axios Vitals: India's crisis fuels new variant fears

1 big thing: The holiday surge is here

2. Glimmers of hope on Omicron

3. CDC's vaccine totals may not be accurate

4. 1 good tweet

5. The parents who are still on the fence

Good morning ... I'm filling in for Tina today, and I have prepared for you a newsletter that's 820 words long, or a 3-minute read. Enjoy.

Situational awareness: The FDA has given emergency use authorization to AstraZeneca's COVID-19 antibody drug for people with compromised immune systems.

1 big thing: The next 100 million vaccinations

Illustration of a speedometer with a syringe in the middle

2. AstraZeneca can't catch a break

3. Hospital revenues bounce back

4. Colorado's public option goes bust

5. Monkey of the week

Good morning ... Happy Kentucky Derby weekend. Drink an extra mint julep for me, your favorite Kentuckian.

Today's newsletter is: 688 words — the most exciting 2 minutes in news.

Plus: Hospital revenues start to turn around

Axios Vitals: 100 million down, billions more to go

1 big thing: A preview of a longer pandemic

2. U.S. got 3.6 million shots Sunday

People waiting in line at a mass vaccination site

3. A reality check on vaccine passports

Illustration of a syringe checking off boxes on a list

4. Basic research pays off

Illustration of a hand in a medical glove holding a beaker full of liquid

Good morning ... I'm filling in for Caitlin today. Don't worry, she'll be back tomorrow.

Today's word count: 655, or a 2-minute read.

Axios Vitals: We can see what a longer pandemic looks like

National

Data: Gallup;  Note: Poll was taken twice in 2013 and 2015, in May and July of both years.  Chart: Tory Lysik/Axios Visuals

Compared to the decades and decades it took to dismantle Jim Crow laws or secure women's right to vote, America's about-face on same-sex marriage happened in the blink of an eye.

The big picture: Just 27% of Americans supported same-sex marriage in 1996, the year President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages.

That's flipped on its head: 71% now tell Gallup that same-sex and opposite-sex marriages should have the same legal recognition.

Driving the news: The Senate voted 61-36 on Tuesday to codify the rights to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage into federal law. The House is expected to quickly follow.

Twelve Senate Republicans voted for the bill. All 36 no votes came from Republicans.

What they're saying: "This is a great example of politicians following public opinion rather than leading it," Sasha Issenberg, author of "The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle over Same-Sex Marriage," tells Axios.

"That has changed the partisan dynamics around the issue: in the 1990s and 2000s, Republicans liked pressing for votes on marriage-related questions — not just DOMA but state and federal constitutional bans — because they unified their own coalition and divided Democrats," he said.

"Now it’s Republicans who are torn between placating some of their loudest activists and taking a position that aligns with where general-election voters are."

Between the lines: Democrats decided to do this because there's a real concern that, as popular as same-sex marriage has become, it could be in jeopardy before the 6-3 Supreme Court.

The legal reasoning behind the court's decision to strike down the right to an abortion does seem to implicate other rights that the court has protected in the same way — including same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court can overturn popular things, and it can strike down laws that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. But this kind of overwhelming consensus still matters. 

The justices could only reconsider same-sex marriage if conservatives bring that fight to their doorstep.  The number of conservatives who want to pick that fight is not zero, but it is small — and at least among the rank and file, it seems to be shrinking. 

Even a majority of Republicans now say the law should recognize same-sex marriage, according to Gallup.

Yes, but: Many Republicans have targeted transgender people, especially youth, through a variety of restrictions, from preventing access to school sports to bans on gender-affirming care.

Issenberg said that's no coincidence. "Public opinion on trans questions is still broadly in conservatives’ favor, and state and federal laws largely unformed, allowing them to go on the offensive as protectors of the status quo," he said.

As more people know someone who is openly trans, opinion may shift again, just as it did with marriage, Issenberg said.

America's sudden change of heart on same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage

Politics & Policy

The end of affirmative action, at least on college campuses, is almost certainly near.

The big picture: The Supreme Court said in 2003 that colleges and universities could consider race as a factor when deciding which students to admit, for the sake of building a diverse student body. But now, the much more conservative court appears to be changing its mind.

Driving the news: The court is set to hear oral arguments on Monday over the admissions processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, both of which give a little extra weight to applicants who come from certain underrepresented groups.

Life is full of surprises, but the court has sent just about every conceivable signal that it’s likely to put a stop to those sorts of policies.

Why it matters: Harvard and UNC — supported by a host of other schools, as well as business organizations — argue that diversity is essential to the educational experience and that the only effective way to ensure diversity is to make it an explicit part of the admissions process.

But they’ll be making that argument to a court that is extremely skeptical of any sort of racial preference.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2007 opinion about the use of race when assigning kids to public schools.

From voting rights to K-12 education to employment law and probably now college admissions, the court over the past several years has consistently knocked down programs that tried to correct racial inequities by explicitly taking race into account.

This is all largely one man’s doing. Conservative activist Ed Blum has organized and funded a slew of high-profile lawsuits explicitly designed to get the court to strike down affirmative action. 

He orchestrated a 2013 case in which a white student sued because she didn’t get into the University of Texas — and the sequel, in which the same student came back to the high court again in 2016.

This time around, the named plaintiffs are not only white students but also Asian Americans, who say they’ve been discriminated against because of the way Harvard and UNC give preference to applications from Black and Hispanic students.

This is not a particularly secretive endeavor. Blum is open about the fact that this is, effectively, a campaign, and that he is the campaign manager.

"I'm a one-trick pony," Blum recently told Reuters. "I hope and care about ending these racial classifications and preferences in our public policy."

Blum also had a hand in the landmark case that nullified a key section of the Voting Rights Act — another instance in which the conservative court said policies designed to offset a history of discrimination had outlived their usefulness.

Between the lines: The fact that it’s a 6-3 conservative court is part of the reason legal experts believe affirmative action is likely to lose, but there are other signs, as well.

Lower courts in both the Harvard and UNC lawsuits upheld the schools’ admissions policies. If a majority of the Supreme Court thought those were the right decisions, there wouldn’t be much reason to agree to hear an appeal.

The Supreme Court also took the UNC case before a federal appeals court had ruled. Taking a case faster than usual, with no disagreement among lower courts, is widely seen as a sign that the Supreme Court wants to at least chip away at its affirmative-action precedents, if not overturn them — and as we’ve all learned, this court is willing to go all the way when it wants to.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recused herself from the Harvard case. She was unlikely to be on the winning side anyway, but without her vote, it’ll be that much harder for the liberals to cobble together a majority.

What’s next: Oral arguments begin at 10am Monday. The Harvard case will go first, then UNC. You can listen to the arguments live on the court’s website.

Affirmative action is at death's door at the Supreme Court

The campaign to end the practice has been long and well-funded.

Supreme Court

The <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="end of affirmative action" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2021/08/21/hard-truths-deep-dive-higher-education-affirmative-action" data-vars-content-id="5fed7974-abb7-48ad-97df-222362760c30" data-vars-headline="Affirmative action is at death&#x27;s door at the Supreme Court" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2021/08/21/hard-truths-deep-dive-higher-education-affirmative-action" target="_self">end of affirmative action</a>, at least on college campuses, is almost certainly near.The big picture: The Supreme Court said in 2003 that colleges and universities could consider race as a factor when deciding which students to admit, for the sake of building a diverse student body. But now, the much more conservative court appears to be changing its mind.

Data: U.S. Courts; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios 

President Biden has appointed more new federal judges than former President Trump had at the same point in his term, and there are more still to come.

Why it matters: One of Trump's defining legacies was reshaping the federal judiciary. Since its earliest days, the Biden administration has been determined to maximize its own stamp on the courts.

It’s working — the Senate has confirmed more than 80 new judges since Biden took office. But conservatives still have a big advantage at the highest levels of the legal system.

By the numbers: Biden has appointed 58 new district court judges; Trump had appointed 26 at this point in his presidency, and he ended up with a total of 174.

District judges' rulings can be appealed to federal circuit courts. Biden has appointed 20 judges to the set of appeals courts that can hear hot-button cases; Trump had appointed 24 at the same point in his term, and he ended up with 54.

And at the Supreme Court, thanks to Trump’s three appointments, a conservative majority will likely continue to reign for decades.

The bottom line: Democrats aren't sleeping on the importance of the courts. The White House nominates new judges quickly when vacancies arise, and even with just one vote to spare, the Democratic Senate has confirmed those nominees at a brisk pace.

But if they lose the Senate in November, don’t expect Biden to match Trump’s 54 appellate judges. And any chance to pick up one more seat on the Supreme Court, much less two, will most likely belong to a future president.

Biden outpacing Trump with blistering pace of judicial confirmations

But conservatives still have a big advantage at the highest levels of the legal system.

Judges

President Biden has appointed more new federal judges than former President Trump had at the same point in his term, and there are more still to come.Why it matters: One of Trump&#x27;s defining legacies was reshaping the federal judiciary. Since its earliest days, the Biden administration <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="has been determined" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2021/07/23/biden-judicial-federal-court" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2021/07/23/biden-judicial-federal-court" target="_self">has been determined</a> to maximize its own stamp on the courts.

Data: Martin-Quinn scores; Chart: Simran Parwani/Axios

Andrew D. Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Kevin Quinn of the University of Michigan have estimated "Martin-Quinn scores" for the ideology of Supreme Court justice back to 1937.

Why it matters: After overturning Roe in June, the court is poised to continue pushing American law to the right this term on issues of race, voting and the environment.

Between the lines: Brett Kavanaugh remains the court's "median justice."

That doesn't mean he's a swing vote, or ideologically moderate. It means the court is so conservative that its center is pretty far to the right — and likely to stay that way for a long time.

The Supreme Court's lonely left

The court is poised to continue pushing American law to the right this term.

Andrew D. Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Kevin Quinn of the University of Michigan have estimated &quot;<a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Martin-Quinn scores" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology" target="_self">Martin-Quinn scores</a>&quot; for the ideology of <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Supreme Court justice" data-vars-click-url="https://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu/" target="_blank">Supreme Court justice</a> back to 1937.Why it matters: After overturning Roe in June, the court is <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="poised" data-vars-click-url="https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-abortion-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-health-0c7e7f12f32f30fe97d2b9417a24cf69" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-abortion-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-health-0c7e7f12f32f30fe97d2b9417a24cf69" target="_blank">poised</a> to continue pushing American law to the right this term on issues of race, voting and the environment.

The New York Knicks haven't had a great basketball team in quite a while, but they've still shown up in the NBA's marquee Christmas Day games more often than any other team. And they're back in the mix this year.

By the numbers: The Los Angeles Lakers hold the record for the most wins on Christmas, when the NBA tries to highlight its best teams and biggest stars.

Today will be LeBron James' 17th Christmas Day game — more than any other NBA player in history, per ESPN. He's also the all-time leading scorer on Christmas.

Today's games: 76ers vs. Knicks (noon ET) ...  Lakers vs. Mavericks (2:30 ET) ... Bucks vs. Celtics (5pm ET) ... Grizzlies vs. Warriors (8p ET) ... Suns vs. Nuggets (10:30pm ET)

The NBA teams with the most Christmas games

LeBron James will set the record for the player with the most Christmas games.

National Basketball Association (NBA)

NFL, NBA, MLB & NHL

The New York Knicks haven&#x27;t had a great basketball team in quite a while, but they&#x27;ve still shown up in the NBA&#x27;s marquee Christmas Day games more often than any other team. And they&#x27;re back in the mix this year.By the numbers: The Los Angeles Lakers hold the record for the most wins on Christmas, when the NBA tries to highlight its best teams and biggest stars.

Shifts in technology and media are changing the way we play, watch and understand sports. Business models are adapting and social change is forcing those in charge of teams and leagues to reconsider decades-old practices.

Sam Baker

Stories