Advisory Opinions — “Is Lisa Cooked?”

The Dispatch | January 22, 2026

Hosts: Sarah Isgur & David French

Episode Overview

This episode covers recent Supreme Court action, focusing on President Trump’s removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the challenge to Hawaii’s post-Bruen gun law (the “Vampire Rule” case), an ex post facto restitution decision, the limits of in forma pauperis filings (a.k.a. “Martinizing”), and the controversial application of the FACE Act to protests in a Minnesota church. The hosts also respond to what they call the best listener letter ever sent to the show.

Significant emphasis is placed on Supreme Court oral argument style, underlying legal philosophies, and why the details matter in these complex constitutional cases.

Main Segment: The Lisa Cook “For Cause” Removal Case

Background

• President Trump removed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, claiming “for cause” removal as justified by statute.
• The lower court disagreed with the administration and reinstated Cook, leading to Supreme Court review.
• Two main legal questions: What does “for cause” removal mean? And can the courts order reinstatement even if the President acted outside proper procedure (Marbury v. Madison-style question)?

Key Insights & Discussion Points

Substantive Takeaways

• Likely Reversal for the Administration: David French predicts the justices are inclined to issue a “this wasn’t done correctly” outcome, remanding for proper process and likely allowing Cook to stay pending resolution.

  “You don't fire somebody like this when they have a for cause removal provision. This is just not how it's done. There should be some sort of process.” (03:45 — David French)

• Fed’s Unique Status: Both hosts highlight that the justices viewed the Federal Reserve as different from typical executive agencies, with its independence a key theme.

Courtroom Style & Advocacy

• Paul Clement, the “GOAT”: Both Isgur and French rave about Clement’s argument for Cook – his poise, creativity, and ability to offer backup after backup arguments give him and his client a strategic edge.

  “If you didn't like my first argument, my backups are awesome.” (05:00 — on Clement’s style, French)

• Clement’s approach is described metaphorically as having “a thousand duck-sized horses” – many smaller arguments, any one of which could win the day.

  “Sauer has to kill every duck. If he misses one duck, he loses the case. And that is the genius of Paul Clement.” (11:34 — Sarah Isgur)

• Contrast with Solicitor General Sauer: “Came off defensive,” and was admonished for talking over justices (notably, the female justices—Sotomayor, Barrett, Jackson).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On how the Court views the case:

  “There were nine justices today who did not want this case on their docket. They seemed exasperated by it.” (06:39 — Sarah Isgur)

• Metaphor of the Court’s position:

  “You went straight to the general counsel of the company instead of going to your manager. You know, sir, this is a Wendy’s.” (07:15 — Sarah Isgur)

• On due process and notification:

  “Do you really provide notice, proper notice, through a Truth Social post that seems to prejudge the outcome?” (12:24 — David French)

The Many “Ducks” Argument (Paul Clement’s Tactics)

• What counts as “for cause” removal?
• Pre-office vs. in-office conduct for “cause”
• Gross negligence vs. simple negligence
• Statutory history: Inefficiency, Neglect, and Malfeasance (“INM”)
• Notice requirements, role of Truth Social as notice, opportunity to contest, pretext and due process

General Predictions

• Expect a “quick, maybe unanimous” decision, likely keeping Cook in office while sending the matter back for further process.
• Justices are annoyed about being made to decide at this stage; expected to move toward curbing the frequency with which such cases funnel directly to them.

Second Segment: “Vampire Rule” — Hawaii’s Gun Law After Bruen

The Law in Question

• Hawaii required affirmative permission (a sign) from business owners for legal concealed carry on private property.
• Standard in most states: Carry is allowed unless a "no guns" sign is posted.

Oral Argument Dynamics

• Both sides were “talking past each other” – is this about property rights or a pretext for circumventing constitutional gun rights?
• Hawaii’s framing: About property rights. Opponents: It's meant to subvert Bruen and Second Amendment rights.

Notable Quotes

• On the limits of analogy:

  “A person who walks in and is delivering an unwanted speech is very different and less dangerous from somebody walking in with an unwanted deadly firearm...guns are instrumental in the deadliest possible violence.” (29:10 — David French)

• On the complexity of “history and tradition” analysis, notably the use of racist postwar Black Code gun laws as historical analogues:

  “A legislative enactment cannot, should not be anything ever close to achieving the weight of anything that looks like precedent...they don't interpret the law accurately and effectively.” (30:48 — French)

• Sarah Isgur and French both credit Justice Jackson for pushing on whether the Court can or should “pick and choose” which historical examples to count (Black Codes, Alien & Sedition Acts, etc.), with the consensus being that a solely “text, history, tradition” test is ultimately “judge decides.”

Prediction & Implications

• Expect a win for the challengers; Hawaii unlikely to prevail.
• Decision may re-shape jurisprudence on the Second Amendment and clarify how problematic historical laws are treated.

Third Segment: “Ex Post Facto” Restitution — Ellenberg Case

The Question

• Can mandatory restitution imposed on a crime committed before the law was enacted violate the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause?

The Decision

• Unanimously, the Court says: Yes—restitution penalties are criminal, so Ellenberg cannot be held for restitution under the new law retroactively.

  “Duh, this is criminal. Yes, it's meant as compensatory for victims, but it's also meant as punishment.” (36:09 — Sarah Isgur)

Thomas/Gorsuch Concurrence

• Urges a return to the “original understanding” that punishment for “public wrongs” constitutes a criminal sanction regardless of modern multi-factor judicial balancing tests.

Panel Reflection

• Agreement that the literal application of the Ex Post Facto Clause is right, and “judicially created tests” can undermine constitutional protections.

Fourth Segment: “Martinizing” — Limits on In Forma Pauperis Filings

The Issue

• The Supreme Court denied a pro se prisoner further filings “in forma pauperis” (i.e., fee waivers), after just six submissions—a lower threshold than past cases (which cited dozens of filings).

  “To Martinize someone is to prevent them from filing any further things at the Supreme Court.” (40:46 — Sarah Isgur)

Dissent (Justice Jackson)

• Argues that this sets an overly harsh precedent, especially for incarcerated prisoners, potentially denying access to the Court for legitimate grievances.

  "We should err on the side of keeping our courthouse doors open." (43:50 — Sarah Isgur, quoting Jackson's dissent)

Hosts’ Perspectives

• French acknowledges most prisoner petitions are frivolous, but the threshold for cutting off access is debatable. Isgur remains “ambivalent,” stating the problem may be solvable with more judicial staff, but finds denying access troubling.

Fifth Segment: The FACE Act and Minnesota Church Protest

The Incident

• Anti-ICE protesters interrupted a church service, apparently targeting a perceived ICE-affiliated churchgoer.

The Law

• The FACE Act criminalizes interfering with abortion clinics and also with the free exercise of religion at a place of worship.

Hosts’ Analysis

• The protesters are very likely to face prosecution under the FACE Act, with both hosts equating the situation to pro-life protests at clinics.

  “If a group of protesters broke into an abortion clinic and they were engaging in the very similar activity within the abortion clinic that you saw...they would be subject to criminal penalty.” (49:02 — David French)

• Civil Disobedience: Both stress that civil disobedience means accepting consequences.

  "I guess I don't understand these people who say I have a right to break the law, but because I think I'm righteous, I shouldn't actually have any consequences for that." (53:56 — Isgur) “Civil disobedience derives its moral power not from the breaking of the law, but the absorbing of the consequence.” (55:53 — French)

• Isgur’s memorable closing:

  “It's not letter from a Birmingham Starbucks, man.”

Final Segment: Listener Letter — Future Lawyer Claire

Highlight

• Sarah reads a handwritten letter from nine-year-old Claire, aspiring lawyer, asking for advice.

Hosts’ Advice to Young Aspiring Lawyers

• David French: Read history. Understanding American history helps foster appreciation for the law.
• Sarah Isgur: Love math and statistics! Legal reasoning is logical and procedural, often mirroring math's emphasis on process and order.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Cook (Fed Removal) Case Overview & Oral Argument: 02:14–18:30
• Lisa Cook—Paul Clement’s Style and “Ducks” Argument: 09:42–18:30
• Vampire Rule Gun Case: 25:12–35:17
• Black Codes and “Text, History & Tradition”: 29:10–34:21
• Ex Post Facto / Ellenberg Restitution: 35:17–39:16
• Martinizing Pro Se Petitioners: 39:16–47:46
• FACE Act — Minnesota Church Protesters: 48:52–55:53
• Listener Letter — Advice for Young Lawyers: 56:04–58:36

Notable Quotes

• “There were nine justices today who did not want this case on their docket.” — Isgur (06:39)
• “If he misses one duck, he loses the case. And that is the genius of Paul Clement.” — Isgur (11:34)
• “If a group of protesters broke into an abortion clinic...they would be subject to criminal penalty.” — French (49:02)
• “Civil disobedience derives its moral power not from the breaking of the law, but the absorbing of the consequence.” — French (55:53)

Tone

Conversational, witty, often irreverent, but always deeply informed and focused on unpacking the practical realities and complexities of today’s legal controversies. Both hosts alternate between careful legal analysis, strategic commentary on oral advocacy, and lighthearted pop culture references (e.g., “Letter from a Birmingham Starbucks, man”).

For Further Listening

• Next episode: Analysis of Judge Lee’s dissent in CA redistricting, listener mail, and more on judicial titles.

This summary captures the key legal and procedural points, style, and memorable exchanges of the “Is Lisa Cooked?” episode, providing a clear guide for listeners seeking insight into Supreme Court dynamics and high-profile legal controversies.