229: User Error 👊🇺🇸🔥

Summary

Podcast Summary: #SistersInLaw Episode 229: "User Error 👊🇺🇸🔥"

Release Date: March 29, 2025
Hosted By: Politicon's #SistersInLaw Team – Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr

---

Introduction: Personal Mishaps in Digital Communication

The episode opens with the hosts sharing light-hearted and relatable anecdotes about accidental messages sent in group chats. Joyce Vance recounts a painful yet humorous incident from her early email days where she inadvertently used "reply all" to express frustration over a lost case, leading to a decade-long mortification. Kimberly Atkins Stohr adds that while she hasn't had major mishaps, she remains vigilant to prevent misdirected messages, especially given the presence of similarly named contacts in her professional circles.

Notable Quote:

• Joyce Vance [03:10]: “Sometimes offices get into little, I don't want to say pissing matches, but, you know, they fuss about who's going to get to do a case.”

---

1. Signal Gate: A National Security Breach

Overview of the Scandal

The discussion shifts to the "Signal Gate" incident, where high-ranking government officials, including the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President, used the Signal app to communicate sensitive information about a Houthi attack on a commercial application. The inclusion of a journalist in the chat without realizing their identity raised severe concerns about classified information handling.

National Security Implications

Barb McQuaid assesses the breach's gravity, rating it as a "12" on a scale of 1 to 10. The misuse of Signal, an app deemed secure yet vulnerable to breaches by foreign adversaries like Russia, poses significant risks. The potential for classified information to be intercepted endangers lives and undermines intelligence-sharing with allies.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid [12:24]: “If it is classified, and I can't imagine a world in which details about the timing and sequence and location of an airstrike of a foreign adversary is not classified, must be discussed only over a secure line.”

Legal Implications

The incident likely violates the Espionage Act, as discussed by Barb, emphasizing that mishandling national defense information is a criminal offense. The group chat's composition and the subsequent denial by officials exacerbate the legal ramifications.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid [12:24]: “This violates the Espionage Act. So it's illegal.”

Administration's Response and Accountability

The administration's reaction has been criticized for lack of acknowledgment and delayed responsibility. Barb advocates for an honorable handling of the crisis, suggesting admissions of mistakes and actionable plans for rectification.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid [22:38]: “The best way to handle a crisis is the honorable one. You admit your mistake, you say we will do better, and you tell people how you're either going to fix it or hold people accountable.”

Potential Lawsuit and Congressional Oversight

Jill Wine-Banks highlights a forthcoming lawsuit filed by American Oversight against the Trump administration, focusing on the mishandling of records and classified communication. The panel expresses skepticism about congressional oversight, citing historical reluctance among legislators to take decisive action.

Notable Quote:

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [25:45]: “If you think that Congress will wake up this go round, I have an igloo to sell you in Costa Rica. No, I don't think so.”

---

2. Mike Johnson’s Proposal to Abolish Federal Courts

Johnson’s Idea and Constitutional Challenges

Mike Johnson's controversial proposal to defund and abolish federal courts is dissected by Barb McQuaid. She explains that while Congress holds the authority to establish and eliminate lower federal courts per Article III, such actions threaten the constitutional balance of power and judicial review.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid [34:05]: “This would be an incredibly outrageous thing to do to take away the power of judicial review and the opportunity of access to courts for people who live in various districts around the country.”

Implications for the Judicial System

The panel underscores the foundational role of the judiciary in resolving disputes and maintaining checks and balances. Eliminating federal courts would not only disrupt the legal system but also erode public trust and access to justice.

---

3. Supreme Court Upholds Regulation on Ghost Guns

Understanding Ghost Guns

Barb McQuaid defines "ghost guns" as firearms assembled from kits, often using 3D printers, that lack serial numbers and are untraceable, posing significant challenges for law enforcement.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid [46:19]: “Ghost guns are just a term used to refer to guns that are made with kits. Sometimes they can be made with even 3D printers.”

Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, upheld the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) regulation classifying ghost guns as firearms. The Court concluded that these guns are "readily convertible" into functioning firearms, thereby justifying their regulation under existing gun control laws.

Notable Quote:

• Jill Wine-Banks [47:32]: “They conclude that unlike most of their decisions recently, that the agencies have power to make regulations, which is a big relief because Congress cannot function unless these agencies can do that.”

Impact on Future Cases and Federal Agency Power

Joyce Vance interprets the decision as extending agency authority despite the Court's recent trend of limiting federal power. The ruling provides a precedent for regulating similar firearms but leaves room for future litigation to define boundaries further.

Notable Quote:

• Joyce Vance [53:30]: “The Supreme Court is saying even though last term we bashed the administrative agencies and did away with the nanny states, we can still look to how they interpret the statutes that they are obligated to enact.”

---

4. Listener Q&A

Supreme Court Opinions and Concurring Views

Kimberly Atkins Stohr explains the weight of concurring opinions in Supreme Court rulings, clarifying that while they may offer additional perspectives, they do not carry the same legal authority as the majority opinion.

Notable Quote:

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [56:19]: “If there is not a majority for the holding, that is called a plurality decision, and it does not have the same precedential effect as a majority holding.”

"Chickens Coming Home to Roost" Explained

Jill Wine-Banks addresses the phrase "chickens coming home to roost," originally denoting chickens returning to sleep, now metaphorically suggesting that past actions have inevitable consequences. She humorously flips the negative connotation, implying that the Trump administration's wrongdoings will self-correct.

Notable Quote:

• Jill Wine-Banks [58:37]: “I think the chickens are going to come home to roost against the Trump administration and all the evil things they're doing.”

E. Jean Carroll's Legal Compensation from Trump

Joyce Vance explains the legal intricacies surrounding E. Jean Carroll’s compensation from Donald Trump, highlighting that plaintiffs typically do not receive judgments immediately due to ongoing appeals, which can prolong the payout over years.

Notable Quote:

• Joyce Vance [60:33]: “She won't receive any of the judgment that she won until that appellate process is finally over, and that can actually take years.”

---

Conclusion

The episode of #SistersInLaw delves deep into critical issues ranging from personal digital mishaps to significant breaches of national security, judicial system challenges, and pivotal Supreme Court decisions. Through expert analysis and engaging discussions, the hosts shed light on the complexities of law, politics, and their intersections in contemporary America.

Notable Closing Quote:

• Jill Wine-Banks [61:26]: “Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode, Sisters in Law.”

---

Highlighted Quotes with Timestamps:

• Joyce Vance [03:10]: “Sometimes offices get into little, I don't want to say pissing matches, but, you know, they fuss about who's going to get to do a case.”

• Barb McQuaid [12:24]: “This violates the Espionage Act. So it's illegal.”

• Barb McQuaid [22:38]: “The best way to handle a crisis is the honorable one. You admit your mistake, you say we will do better…”

• Barb McQuaid [34:05]: “This would be an incredibly outrageous thing to do…”

• Jill Wine-Banks [47:32]: “They conclude that unlike most of their decisions recently, that the agencies have power to make regulations…”

• Joyce Vance [53:30]: “The Supreme Court is saying even though last term we bashed the administrative agencies…”

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [56:19]: “If there is not a majority for the holding, that is called a plurality decision…”

• Jill Wine-Banks [58:37]: “I think the chickens are going to come home to roost against the Trump administration…”

• Joyce Vance [60:33]: “She won't receive any of the judgment that she won until that appellate process is finally over…”

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions of Episode 229 of #SistersInLaw, providing listeners with a clear understanding of the episode's content without needing to listen to it directly.

Transcript

[Jill Winebanks]

Welcome to Sisters In Law, where we have some breaking news that changes our recording. After we recorded, but before this episode dropped, there's an update. Jenner and Block has filed a lawsuit against Trump and many, many, many others. We'll talk about the details of that lawsuit next week. So join us again then this week. You'll enjoy today's episode even without that breaking news. It's what's needed to defend justice and the rule of law in America.

[Barb McQuaid]

Welcome back to Sisters In Law with Jill Winebanks, Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkinstore, and me, Barb McQuaid. We keep selling out of our new Resistance T shirts. We've seen a lot out there. People have been sending us pictures from protests and wearing them to do yard work and everything else they want to resist. So we've ordered a lot more and you can go to politicon.com merch to get yours. Now, if you get one, please send us a picture of you wearing your Resistance T shirts. You can find us on Blue sky and Threads. Let's get on with the show where this week we're going to talk about what's being called Signal Gate.

[Jill Winebanks]

I love it. Signal gate.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, it's all about the gates. Jill, I'm glad you're here. We'll talk about some of the things that are happening in the legal profession. And finally, we'll talk about the Supreme Court's ruling on ghost guns. But first, I want to ask each of you, have you ever had an embarrassing or humorous experience where you were on a group chat and you sent something that you thought was intended for one recipient and ended up being received by someone you did not intend to receive? It just, I don't know what makes.

[Joyce Vance]

Me think of that right in there because 27 years ago, in an extraordinarily painful moment in my life, we were all new to email.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, no.

[Joyce Vance]

This is so horrible. The funny thing is, at least 2 of the people who were in this group listened to the podcast My Office, as we often did. Barb, you will validate me here. Sometimes offices get into little, I don't want to say pissing matches, but, you know, they fuss about who's going to get to do a case. And we were, we were having a little to do with another office. And subsequently, several of the people in that group became very prominent as elected political officials and senior folks. But when we were trying to get the case, we did not get the case. And I was the one who hit reply all reply. And I was like, man, they are a bunch of. And then I used the B word, unfortunately.

[Barb McQuaid]

What baddies? What's wrong with that?

[Joyce Vance]

Senses of humor. And I got a very lovely email back. Acknowledging the email could be challenging, but for like 10 years, I was mortified. I mean, I'm still mortified. I can't believe I just told the story. It's so embarrassing. If you knew who was in the group, it would be even worse.

[Barb McQuaid]

I think everybody feels your pain. We're all cringing just a little bit. Oh, man, that's good. How about you, Kim? You ever have any?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

You know, I've never had a super bad.

[Barb McQuaid]

I've never made a mistake. I'm committed.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I've never had one that was super embarrassing because, honestly, the text are frankly too boring to ever put myself in that position. But I've always had to be careful because there has always been someone with a name that's very similar to, like, my husband's or, you know, a friend that always puts me in trouble. So I had. Throughout law school, there was. Well, even with you, I have a good friend from law school named Barbara, and I've sent her, like, oh, yeah. Questions for the podcast all the time.

[Barb McQuaid]

Sending them to you. I send stuff to my sister Kim for you. Yes. Like, what is this?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Like, things, like, it's like, things like that. So there's a producer at MSNBC whose name is Greg, and I just have to be super careful when I'm texting with them that I don't, like, accidentally send the wrong message. But so far, nothing too embarrassing. Just people responding, saying, hey, you may want to actually tell Barb McQuait this because you didn't mean me.

[Barb McQuaid]

How about you, Jill?

[Jill Winebanks]

Yeah, I've had sort of the same thing as Kim where it went astray but was never too horrible. I. I have had one where I did a reply all and was talking bad about the person that I didn't intend to see the response and there was nothing that could be done. I couldn't take back what I had said and I just forever felt that I had somehow hurt his feelings. And I felt really bad about it. And I've really, really, really been careful. My voicemail, however, has often gone astray. When I do a voice text, it somehow goes to the wrong people. And sometimes I have not voice text. And it, you know, it's ever since. Guys, I got the iPhone. It's all your fault that I have the iPhone.

[Barb McQuaid]

I suspect user error.

[Jill Winebanks]

It is not my error. It's sometimes Just broadcasts what I am saying, even though I have turned.

[Joyce Vance]

It is so user error.

[Jill Winebanks]

I refuse to take responsibility for that. But I do want you all to know that I did just buy an iPad switch. I'm looking at you, right? No, I'm actually reading the script from my iPad because the Mac is too small for me to see both at the same time.

[Barb McQuaid]

All right, all right. Well, I've had mishaps. Plenty of them. The one I can share publicly is one. I can remember a time when I was sending a text to my husband, or so I thought. And, you know, it's something sweet, but, like, a little bit mushy. And suddenly I start getting all these replies back from a group of friends. Joyce, you're in this group. A group of friends who start saying things like, ooh, smoochie, smoochie, and, you know, the kissy face emojis. And I love you, too, and, like, what are they talking about? I was. Oh, no. And it was supposed to be for my husband, so a lot of teasing from. From the friends. Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

I didn't realize you had such compromise, Joyce.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, if Barb had not reminded me of that, I would have forgotten. But I'm just gonna say, the Obama U.S. attorneys, we are very close, but we're also sort of feral and vicious.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. And let me. Let me also say for the record, I did not include any attack plans in our texts.

[Jill Winebanks]

I bet none of us did anything that's classified, confidential, or that could endanger F18 pilots.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, Lord alone knows none of us has a security clearance these days, so we couldn't share any classified material.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

But here's my thing. In the year of our Beyonce 2025, who does not, when on a group chat, take a look at the chat, and if there is a number not saved in your phone, either, like, remove yourself or just not reply to it, then you privately text whoever created that chat. Who is. Who is on this? Like, I. I would never.

[Barb McQuaid]

Who's that number? Adding ending in 4, 5, 3, 2. Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

If there is ever an unidentified number on a chat, I will be silent, but, you know, I'm just not a cabinet official.

[Joyce Vance]

They all had Jeffrey Goldberg in their phone, right? They all had the editor in chief of Vietnam.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

God, there is no better way to start a spring cleaning routine than with your sock drawer. And if you need a little refresher, you can ditch your mismatched tired pairs. You know, the ones with, you know, four holes in each of them, and refresh your collection with some fresh Pairs of Bombas.

[Barb McQuaid]

They're amazing. I recently got new running socks, I got new hiking socks and I got some new just merino wool casual socks for everyday wear. They're amazing. If you have some running goals, BOMBAS engineers blister, fighting, sweat wicking athletic socks will help you go from that first mile to a whole marathon if you have a party, wedding or important meeting. Bombas makes dress socks specially designed for men and women for loafers, heels and all other fancy shoes. Kim, I'd like to see some Bombas with those six inch heels. There's nothing better for staying comfy on the dance floor. I love mine no matter what I have going on that day. Even if it's just everyday errands or spring chores. They're cushioned. Arch hugging pairs will keep you comfy while you spruce up the house, walk the dog, in Joyce's case, tend the chickens or do the rest of your daily routine.

[Jill Winebanks]

You know, I'm going back to what Kim said because I just got some new Bomba socks and I did reorganize my sock drawer because they look so good and felt so good.

[Barb McQuaid]

Tmi, Jill. Tmi.

[Jill Winebanks]

Sorry. They really had to get rid of all the stuff that didn't look as good. But they have more than socks. I mean the socks are great, but they even have fresh white T shirts, waterproof slides and comfy soft undergarments. Socks and sports bras are fabulous from Bombas. Another thing we love is that with every pair you purchase, Bombas donates another comfy pair to someone facing homelessness or being unhoused, as is the proper way to say it these days. Try them for yourself. And we have some exciting news. Bombus is going to go international. Enjoy. Worldwide shipping to over 200 countries. And I know we have listeners in Australia and Europe. So please, all of you out there know that Bombas is available to you worldwide shipping to over 200 countries. Head over to bombas.com sisters and use code sisters for 20% off your first purchase. That's bombas.com sisters code sisters for 20% off your 1st purchase. And I know your first won't be your last. That's B O m b a s.com sisters code sisters for 20% off your first purchase bombas.com sisters and you can find the link in our show notes.

[Joyce Vance]

So y'all knew we were going to talk about Signal Gate in this episode of the podcast. I mean, it is bad. It is the kind of thing that should topple a normal administration. The Secretary of Defense was in the chat, so was the vice president and the head of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence. The whole gang was there. They talked about the details of the Houthi attack on Signal, a commercial app. When they were caught because of their own incompetence, they included a journalist in the chat. Without realizing that's who that number applied to, they doubled down and said there was nothing wrong with what they'd done, except that virtually everyone who's ever worked in national security or flown a fighter jet for the Air Force or been in a leadership role in the military disagreed with that assessment. This was clearly classified stuff, whether they're willing to call it that or not. The question is just how bad is this? And will there be any accountability given that it's a Trump administration? Barb, you're our national security expert. Let's start with the basics. How do you assess the implications for national security of communicating this sort of information on Signal, On a scale of.

[Barb McQuaid]

1 to 10 in terms of. With 1 being the least bad and 10 being the worst bad? This is like a 12. Yeah, it's. It's terrible. And, you know, Trump is saying it's all a witch hunt. It's not a big deal. We had others denying that it happened. Here are the rules. If it is classified, and I can't imagine a world in which details about the timing and sequence and location of an airstrike of a foreign adversary is not classified, must be discussed only over a secure line, only in a skiff. Documents have to be handled properly and kept in a safe. Even if this is not classified for some reason, it still constitutes national defense information, any information relating to the national defense. Of course it is. Right? It's about an airstrike that implicates the Espionage act, which makes it a crime to remove national defense information from its proper place, or to lose it, or to share it with others not qu. Not authorized to receive it through gross negligence. So talking on Signal, I would suggest, is more than gross negligence. It's deliberate. That's outside of the proper channels. But the fact that you don't notice that there's some stranger on there is at least gross negligence. So, in two ways, I think this violates the Espionage Act. So it's. It's illegal. Number one, it violates all the rules of handling classified and national defense information. Number two. But here's why it matters. This is incredibly sensitive information. You may say, yeah, but it's an encrypted app. Do you know that encrypted apps can be cracked Easily. In the US There are private companies that do it all the time for law enforcement. A foreign adversary no doubt has the capabilities to be able to do that. One of these officials was actually in Russia at the time. So what if his phone had been confiscated or lost or stolen? They could just look on the phone and see these communications. And that while these things are, are yet to happen, is endangering the lives of the people involved in that activity. The other reason that this is problematic is other countries, our allies, share intelligence with us and we share it with them on the condition that we safeguard each other's secrets. Would you trust Pete Hegseth with one of your secrets going forward, knowing that he's going to like, send an emoji with a fist and a flag and a flame?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Emojis were the worst part. So I think is this high school.

[Joyce Vance]

It's so juvenile.

[Barb McQuaid]

It's so juvenile. So it's incredible.

[Joyce Vance]

It's only our national security wasn't at stake.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. So it's.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

I mean, here's the thing. I mean, I don't think I even realized that one of them was in. Was physically in Russia at the time. When I went to China, I was told beforehand, it's like, look, you bring a device, expect that device to be fully bought. Like it's. Expect within hours of you landing at Beijing airport. The Chinese to have cracked your phone to have, you know, any device that you have. They're very sophisticated.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. You only bring a burner phone.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Yeah, that. That was exactly right. And so.

[Joyce Vance]

And you don't have secrets on. On signal while you're there.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Right, Right. I mean, it's just so mind blowing. And by the way, NSA days earlier had issued a bulletin reminding federal employees that the app signal was not a reliable secure communication mode. So they literally were told. Everyone at the Pentagon was told this.

[Joyce Vance]

I think that's so incredible. Kim. You know, that bulletin actually specifies some of the countries that are able to crack signal and it includes Russia in the bulletin. So how crazy is it that these folks are doing this? I mean, Barb, I think to your point, you're absolutely right. Either this information was classified, and if it wasn't classified, there's something much worse going on here.

[Barb McQuaid]

Right?

[Joyce Vance]

I mean, like if this is an administration that doesn't classify that type of information, well, then we need to have a larger national conversation about what's going on. Kim, talk to me about the importance of government records keeping and how using signal violates those rules. I mean, is this just some silly government regulation that nobody cares about or is it important?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

So the Government Records act requires basically, honestly, for most people who have a job in the public sector where computers are used, something very similar. In principle, you're supposed to use your work related computers to keep records and to deal with the records of anything work related, not your personal phones. You're also supposed to use government secured channels to communicate these government records. I mean, I, I work in the private sector. I should be using my work computer to do work stuff. And we have a work VPN that we use in order to protect our servers and things like that. So you can't mix it, you can't mix them around because that eliminates that security protocol. Multiply that by a much higher factor, especially when you're dealing with, in this case, you're talking about military movements and activities that's top secret. That is not just, you know, kind of sensitive. That's extremely sensitive where people's lives are at stake. So you really have to be careful with how those records and that information within those records are stored and communicated. And there seems to be absolutely not even, not just a lack of knowledge about these rules, like a lack of caring. I mean, the tone of these exchanges were like, guys in the locker room, like, it had nothing to do with the solemnity of what they were talking about, a military operation where people's lives could have been endangered. So this was, I agree with you, Joyce. This was just bad. Like, you can't even begin to say how bad this is.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I think the lack of caring absolutely nails it. It's, it's just the attitude is so upsetting. And then, you know, for folks who've worked in government service, in any kind of government service, you know, you're actually legally obligated to keep records of all of these communications. And it's annoying because government technology is usually like five to 10 years behind the private sector, which means you have to sort of be willing to put up with that annoyance. But that's, that's the job. And, and I think, you know, something that, that I always think about is Trump's first impeachment happens, right? Because they take records from that conversation that he has with President Zelensky where he threatens to withhold security aid for Ukraine unless Ukraine will announce an investigation into Joe Biden. And he doesn't destroy the record, he just struck, sort of buries it in a classified system. And that's why Alex Vindman comes forward as a whistleblower. Well, this is sort of like says to me, these Folks learned something from their first administration, and now they've decided that they will skip bearing uncomfortable, awkward documents in the classified system and just go straight to having those conversations on signal so that there's no permanent record of anything.

[Barb McQuaid]

Somebody speculated in the media that, you know, this idea, like, how could you possibly have this conversation about this incredibly sensitive thing over signal suggests that maybe they're talking about everything over signal, which would be your point, Joyce. Like, let's just not have a paper trail of anything that we could get in trouble for later.

[Joyce Vance]

Jill, now there's actually a lawsuit in the works over this whole situation. Do you think that this particular plaintiff has standing, and will the case have any legs?

[Jill Winebanks]

So let's talk about that because it's really interesting. And let me start by saying American Oversight, who is the plaintiff, is a basically a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog, and they have a very good history of success. So I would take that into account in evaluating the answer to your question of whether this has legs, whether they have standing. Standing is always difficult in a case like this where you're saying, you know, they're destroying records, we got to stop them from destroying records. We want to ensure that messages are retained. And so that's. It's not like I have a personal harm from it which would give me standing. But there is definitely a case or controversy here. But, you know, since Trump took office, American Oversight has filed numerous lawsuits and launched numerous investigations. And they did it in his first term, too. They've challenged his mass firings of independent inspectors general, Doge's secret efforts to invade agencies, his quid pro quo campaign with New York City Mayor Adams, its directive to USAID staff, and stuff about shredding and burning government documents. But they did hold him accountable in his first term using public records backed by aggressive litigation. They've uncovered a lot of evidence of corruption, conflicts of interest, abuses of power through the administration. So I wouldn't rule out that they will succeed.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, count on Jill to go back and look at their history as a litigant, because I think that's a really good point. They're not people who tend to bring frivolous lawsuits or half baked lawsuits. So we've talked a little bit about the tone and tenor of the communications on signal. Barb, I want to ask you about how the administration as a whole has handled the situation, because it seems to me like there was a good or at least maybe a better way to handle this, and they've sort of stumbled into it today, taking responsibility. They haven't really done that part and just saying, well, it was a mistake and we'll fix it and do better going forward. But I mean, it took them days to get even to the littlest bit of that. So how do you feel about the strategy that they've taken and what is the way that they're handling this whole crisis?

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, you know, there's a, an adage in litigation. Don't deny the undeniable right. There are certain things you can deny and certain things you can't. And then I also think that there is a duty in government to not deny the truth. And I think we saw that Pete Hegseth's response was particularly egregious. I thought he attacked the reporter and said, you know, this reporter was involved in the Russia hoax. Really interesting pattern. Very similar to the way he responded to allegations of sexual assault to attack the accuser. It's a convenient way of not really dealing with the underlying issue. So denial suggesting that this is not a big deal. Those are all the ways not to handle a crisis. I think the best way to handle a crisis is the honorable one. You admit your mistake, you say we will do better, and you tell people how you're either going to fix it or hold people accountable. And so I think they're beginning to do that. But it's very, I guess I shouldn't say disappointing because that suggests that you had better confidence at the outset. It's troubling. Concerning. You don't seem strong enough. It's bad. It's just bad that they didn't. That wasn't their first instinct. We made a mistake, we screwed up. It's bad, it's wrong, we're sorry and we're going to do better. And here's our plan for fixing it.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

It's interesting too that one of the part of the response was to remind people that if they do communicate on signal that they need to retain those records and somehow capture them for government retention. Wait, who had a policy like that before? Oh, that would have been one Hillary Clinton who had a policy of capturing things with her emails. But you know, we know how that worked out in 2016.

[Jill Winebanks]

So guys, they obviously did not learn from Watergate because in that episode it was clear. And if they read any history that had Nixon done what you are suggesting, Barb, which is the honorable thing to say, whoops, made a mistake, we've learned we'll never do it again. He would have gotten away with it. But instead they started the COVID up and that's what ended up, you Know, same with.

[Barb McQuaid]

How about the same with, you know, President Trump's retention of the national defense documents at his home at Mar a Lago. Same thing if he had said, oops, I'm sorry, I took some stuff that I didn't realize was in there. You know, in the same way we saw that with Biden, we saw that with Mike Pence. Just give it back. And no, he fought for 18 months. That's why they had to charge him. And allegedly obstructed the investigation.

[Jill Winebanks]

And allegedly has them back again.

[Joyce Vance]

And, of course, the lesson that he learned was that if you hold on and fight for long enough, the whole problem will go away. Right, exactly. So, I mean, Kim, do you think that there will be serious oversight efforts from Congress going forward? There's a little hint that Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker might have decided that this is too much for him to stomach. Should we. Should we hope that Congress will wake up this go round?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

If you think that Congress will wake up this go round, I have an igloo to sell you in Costa Rica. No, I don't think so. I'm not. I'm not holding my breath for oversight.

[Joyce Vance]

Early noise. You know, Wicker, who has credibility, right. Is saying, you know, there's a problem here and we need to look at it. Do you think that they just look at it for three days and it goes away, or do you think Congress will actually do something? Might there be a lamb in the mix?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Yeah. I remember when Senator Cassidy, who is a medical doctor, said he had concerns about RFK Jr too. I remember the 872 times Susan Collins was concerned about something. So, no.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, Kim, you know, the thing that is concerning is that you are never wrong about these things. And I was hoping just once I was going to not be cynical and not be jaded and expect this one small thing from the United States Congress. But. Okay, Jill, you know, we've talked about this a little bit. If they've done it once, they've done it a million times. Right. This is not the only signal chat in the room. But given CIA Director Ratcliffe's comments, he said as part of this whole thing that they had loaded signal on every CIA agent's computer. I mean, I'm dubious, and you have so much sense about how military operates and how government works. I mean, is this just a normal evolution in the use of technology? There was a point in time where iPhones were Persona non grata inside of government. We couldn't use them at the Justice Department. Then people got comfortable with the technology, now everybody uses them. Is that the story with signal? Is it now safe, or do you think that there are lingering concerns?

[Jill Winebanks]

I think, and let me answer in part, going back to your question to Kim, I actually think Congress is really upset about this because, not just because of the Federal Records act, which is a serious problem, but because of the content of what they were discussing over this open channel and the total dereliction of duty in making sure that they didn't have someone on the chain who was not a secured clearance person. And I think you saw from the questioning and from the comments that even the Republicans may take this seriously enough to continue the investigation beyond just doing a oh, it happened, we're done, it's over. I think that there may be some consequences in terms of are they going to keep on doing this and is this a normal evolution? I think obviously we need to adapt the, the government and laws, statutes, everything to current technology and to make it available. But a technology that is set to dissolve can never meet the standards of retention of documents. It just can't. So the fact that they're loaded on CIA agents computers is extremely concerning. And after this episode of how easy it is to make a mistake, seems to me that there ought to be some thought given to that. It is not a normal evolution to use something that is intended to self destruct. Basically, when you're supposed to keep these records, it's not just for history, although that is an important element as to why we keep government records. It's so that historians can evaluate it and we can learn from our history so we don't repeat our mistakes. So I have lingering concerns. They're actually not lingering. They're very active right now. I'm very concerned about what's happening in the Trump administration, and this is just one aspect of it.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, great sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. We first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show, and we're very selective on Sisters in Law, so we made Joyce try one out first. She took the quiz to tailor the mattress to her sleeping style, and she got matched with the Helix Midnight Mattress. She aced the quiz because she's been getting the best sleep of her life ever since. And she's got a whole bunch of them. She bought a bunch for her whole family. And they love them, too.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

You know, Helix has so many options. They combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the perfect blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm when the furnace is blasting or a heat wave hits. Both are frequent occurrences with climate change and I'm definitely glad Helix has this feature. Plus, I'm amazed that Helix has been a part of my sister's sleep habits for almost two years. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then we've heard so many stories of people seeing trans transformational improvement in the quality of their sleep on their wearable devices thanks to their Helix mattresses. Add that to the quick and simple setup and no fuss trial policy and upgrading to a Helix is an easy choice Right now.

[Jill Winebanks]

Helix has an incredible deal for our listeners as a flash sale for March madness. Go to helixsleep.comsisters for 25% off site wide that's helixsleep.comsistersfor 25% off site wide. Again, that's helixsleep.comSisters and you can find the link in our show notes as has been the case since January 20, which seems like years ago to me, but it's only two months, there has been a fire hose of legal issues every single week. We struggle to pare it down so we can do a deeper dive on three topics because that's what we cover is three. This week we decided not to talk about the addition of Jenner and Block, my old law firm, to Trump's enemies list until they make clear whether they will cave or contest this wrongful action. As a former partner, I hope and predict that they will fight. They do more pro bono work than any other Chicago firm and maybe more than any other firm in the country, and are always on the side that all four of us would agree to. We would say it's the right side, which is by right I mean the correct side, not the right conservative side. And the executive order is particularly galling in its falsehoods, ugliness and detail. And I'm going to put a copy of that executive order in our show notes. But let's hold that topic until Jenner announces what it plans to do. And instead, let's talk about three other legal developments this week. So first, Barb, what do you think of Mike Johnson's idea of getting rid of not just lawyers, but of the courts? He talked about defunding federal courts and made it clear he wants to do this because they are standing in the way of Trump's policies by finding that those policies are unconstitutional. That's their job. That's what the Constitution says they're supposed to do. So can Congress stop funding the federal courts and abolish them that way? What about Article 3 of the Constitution and what can be done to stop them from doing this if this is really a serious proposal.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, this is a really frightening thing to say. I don't know if he means it. I don't know if this is supposed to be some sort of threat. I don't know if this is an effort to appease critics of Donald Trump who've been calling for the impeachment of federal judges. But what he actually said was, we, meaning Congress, do have the authority over the federal courts. As you know, we can eliminate an entire district court. We have the power of funding over the courts and all these other things. Desperate times call for desperate measures. And Congress is going to act that like an entire district court. What, like we're going to eliminate the district court for the District of Columbia because we. We don't like what a judge there did.

[Jill Winebanks]

Wow.

[Barb McQuaid]

I mean, that is a real blow to our constitutional order. Now, the Constitution. Jill, you asked, what does Article 3 say, really only creates a Supreme Court? It gives to Congress the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts. And so what Congress creates, Congress can take away. But, you know, in light of our centuries of judicial review across the country and the way the population of the country has grown and the Supreme Court's limited jurisdiction, which has changed over time and now is only this case of last review, discretionary review. They don't review every case, only those that present significant, novel legal questions. We rely on the judiciary to resolve all these disputes. In the first instance, if we didn't have lower courts, all these disputes, I guess, would have to go to the Supreme Court. But the rules for the Supreme Court have changed over the years as we've developed these lower courts. So I think this would be an incredibly outrageous thing to do to take away the power of judicial review and the opportunity of access to courts for people who live in various districts around the country. I hope he's not serious, but it's a really outrageous thing to say that Congress could eliminate a district court. And desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act. So, you know, I. I hope that if something like this were to happen, that there would be people in the streets protesting about this. We already have protests going on, which is great. But over this, this is, you know, in my view, it's not a constitutional crisis, but it is certainly a crisis of our history of judicial review.

[Jill Winebanks]

It's not just judicial review. It's the whole foundation of our government, which is a balance of power between three independent branches. And if you eliminate one of the branches because the Supreme Court can't handle litigation for the entire country, it would be an outrage. So you're right. It's totally frightening and scary. And you mentioned protests in the streets. I just want to mention April 5th is a day of protest around the country. And everybody should go online and look for a protest in your area. Chicago is having one at the Daily Center. I hope I'll see everyone there from Chicago. But let's add to the next legal problem of the week, and that's Joyce. I'm going to ask you to put on your professor hat and talk about Trump's attack on nationwide injunctions. You know, there's this big thing about no single judge should be able to do a nationwide injunction, which of course, they didn't object to when that single judge in Texas stopped mifepressone, for example. But explain what a nationwide injunction is, how it comes to be why Donald Trump is so angry about nationwide injunctions. He didn't object about mifeprestone or student loan forgiveness and cherry picking courts that would uphold the things that they wanted. So go ahead and talk about that.

[Joyce Vance]

So I think you have all of the right examples, Jill. I mean, this is one of those situations, you know, we always say this, that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. Well, that's what's happening here. Because nationwide injunctions happen when a federal judge injured one district issues an injunction, an order to do or not do something. And it applies not just in his district where he or she sits, but it applies nationwide. They've always been controversial. Whoever is losing, whoever's on the losing side of the injunction, usually protests. And you're right to point out it was Matthew Kaczmark, the only judge in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas who entered, for instance, that nationwide injunction against the use of medication, abortion. And look on this podcast, we were not thrilled about that decision. I distinctly recall that we called it judge shopping, and we said it was a bad decision. We didn't say that the court itself was illicit or that the judge should be impeached. But that's Trump's strategy. And so he's, for instance, focused on the injunction that Judge Boasberg issued in the Venezuelan case. And he tweets stuff like this, stop nationwide injunctions now before it is too late. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation immediately, our country is in very serious trouble. I mean, that's the kind of rhetoric Trump is using, because he's been getting slammed with injunctions forcing him to rehire probationary workers. Workers, for instance. Lots of other things to do with the spending freezes. And here's what's weird to me about all of this. Mostly these aren't substantive rulings from the courts. These are temporary restraining orders, these very early procedural devices. But Trump has gone nuclear, as though even a minor loss in court is setting him off. And, you know, some of these judges, they could conceivably end up ruling for him, at least in part, when they considered the substantive issues. But by just, you know, going from zero to 90 so early. I have a little bit of hope here that this is helping to convince the judiciary that this is serious business and they need to do every inch of their jobs.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Yeah. And just think about this. He's complaining about something that he is causing. Generally speaking, when a president writes, you know, issues an executive order, for example, he drafts it. They have the. The attorney within the, the White House, White House counsel review it, you know, consider the legalities of it, how it might be attacked, and how to tweak it to make it pass muster. Donald Trump is like, he's, like, tweeting out executive orders. He's using just as much thought into them. And then, of course, they're being challenged. And you have these judges faced with, okay, how do I keep the status quo while this moves forward? Like, what do I do? So I honestly, I wrote a column this week in the Globe saying, you know what, the Supreme Court should take him up on his offer. They should step in and make clear the rules of the road as to when something qualifies for a nationwide injunction. And also because clear for when it doesn't, if they want to. It's also an opportunity to, to. To address forum shopping and judge shopping and trying to, you know, hotwire the system. You have justices from Keegan to Alito who have complained about nationwide injunctions. So, yeah, do something about it. Make the rules clear. And that way, Donald Trump looks like an idiot when he's attacking the judges after the Supreme Court does it. So I think that they should take him up on his offer.

[Jill Winebanks]

Well, I think if past is precedent, we can see for sure that they have confirmed a lot of people that we have talked about and have said are totally and completely unqualified. You know, with Pam Bondi, we said her experience qualifies her, but that there were other things that disqualified her. And so the question here really is, and Barb and Joyce, maybe you want to weigh in on whether, even though she Might have trial experience and have practiced in New Jersey. Two things that we would normally say would be required to be the U.S. attorney. Are there other parts of her practice being sanctioned, having to pay fines for bringing frivolous lawsuits? Do those discuss.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, my gosh, yes. I think about the, you know, character and fitness examination. We went through the kinds of questions like everything about you. You have to get a security clearance, a background investigation. They knock on the doors of your neighbors, they ask you for financial disclosures, every place you've ever lived, information about everything you own. It is incredible. And the idea that somebody who has been sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits is going to be the U.S. attorney, I think makes it impossible for her to have the moral authority to lead an office of more than 100 lawyers who are people who, who have the utmost integrity, who have passed these kinds of background investigations. I also think that, you know, if you have never been a prosecutor or in a usa, and there are some people who are US Attorneys who are successful at that, it's incredibly difficult to do the job. It's important to, I think, to have worked in the trenches to understand issues so that you can help people make decisions. And sometimes you have to make very difficult calls. I can't imagine that she will be able to do that. But what it seems, what it says to me is that this president values one quality over every other and that is loyalty. Same with, you know, eagle Ed Martin in Washington, D.C. who's never been a prosecutor, but what he is is a pitbull for Donald Trump. And it seems that that is the goal in appointing people as U.S. attorneys. He learned his lesson in the Southern District of New York with Danielle Sassoon, who was a high quality lawyer who stood up when things went awry. And I think he's not going to make that mistake again. I think he's looking for people, at least in some of these key districts where he has interests and make sure that he has loyalists in those seats.

[Joyce Vance]

Look, Haba is not even qualified. Do you guys remember that painful incident during which case was it in that she did this? I think it was one of the civil cases involving E. Jean Carroll. She could not even get a document into evidence. Right. And it was painful with the judge trying to direct her and gently help her. I mean, this is, this is not a trial lawyer. We're not even to the point of talking about whether she has the discretion and the judgment to make the difficult kinds of decisions US Attorneys have to make when they exercise their prosecutorial discretion. She just doesn't know how to try cases. I don't think she's going to be able to command the loyalty of an office of battle hardened trial lawyers and criminal prosecutors who are simply not going to respect her. In many ways it's unfair to her. It's setting her up for failure. She should have the good sense to know that that's not the right job for her. And I think the fact that she doesn't, that she would, you know, trot into that and think that she could do it says a lot. But look, we're going to see this over and over again. I agree with you, Barb. This is not a merits based administration and we should erase that notion from our minds. We should not expect that people of merit will be nominated or confirmed in this administration.

[Jill Winebanks]

Well, I for one will never lose my hope that we have qualified people in cabinet positions and in U.S. attorneys positions. And you're absolutely right. And she also has no management experience. She had a small firm she has not managed. I think this Office has over 100 lawyers in it and that's not good experience for doing it. So I think we're in for another rough ride. We'll have to see. And she obviously will not stop at, you know, what the law we would see as requiring. And she'll bring cases that are what Donald Trump wants because that's her loyalty is to him. That's bad.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Big news, sisters. The Supreme Court actually upheld a federal gun regulation Wednesday by a 7 to vote. The Supreme Court held that a Biden era regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which classified ghost guns as firearms just like any other gun, and subjected them to the same regulations, did not exceed the agency's authority. So, Barb, remind those of us who are not gun enthusiasts, myself included, what ghost guns are and why this regulation was created and how this case made it to the scotus.

[Barb McQuaid]

Ghost guns is just a term used to refer to guns that are made with kits. Sometimes they can be made with even 3D printers, but these kits have become more prevalent. It's a hugely growing aspect of the gun industry to have these kits. And because they're not technically, quote, unquote firearms, they have not been subject to the same regulations. Like guns have to have a serial number. You have to be a licensed dealer to sell a gun. So if you're only selling a kit, no harm, no foul. But in crime investigations, it is difficult to trace a gun if it doesn't have a serial number or you can't figure out who was the licensed dealer who sold it. And that's why it's known as a ghost gun, because it leaves no trail.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

So Jill, what was the reasoning in the Supreme Court's decision which was written by Neil Gorsuch, if you recall, who was appointed to the court by Donald Trump? What was the reasoning behind saying, yes, this agency was right when it said ghost guns need to abide by the same sort of background checks and serial number requirements and such as any other firearm.

[Jill Winebanks]

So let's start with first of all, the case is now known as Bondi versus Van der Stoke. It started out as Van der Stoke versus Garland. And so I'm sure she's going to love having her, her name for the first Supreme Court case of her tenure being a big loss. Just, just saying sorry, but. And it was a shocking 7:2 decision. You know, only Alito and Thomas dissented. And the major point, they went through a very complex statutory language and you know, I had to read the opinion multiple times to figure out what is every part they're talking about. And they talk about things that are, you know, particular words, nouns that are legacy, nouns that mean something that was man made and they apply different meanings to that. It's a very complex word play, definitional thing. But in it, the bottom line is they conclude that unlike most of their decisions recently, that the agencies have power to make regulations, which is a big relief because Congress cannot function unless these agencies can do that. And that within the language of the gun control laws that currently exist, that these ghost guns are readily convertible into a firearm and therefore can be regulated. And it's as simple as that. These take 21 minutes from some of these kits. Now let's be clear. They did not bar all ghost guns. They were very specific in that it was only those that could be readily converted into a firing arm. And they analyzed things like a starter gun is clearly part of the statute and a starter gun has to be converted to actually be a firearm because the, the it fires blanks, but to fire bullets you have to drill out the barrel. And it something that can easily be done and therefore it's easily convertible and is considered a firearm that can be regulated. So they did a very, very good analysis. They used pictures. I love this. You know, they showed, okay, if you circle this little red thing and you just pop it off, then it's workable. And anybody can do that with any ordinary tools. So it's, I thought it was a very, you know, obviously I liked the outcome of it and I'm happy with that. So I thought that they did a good analysis of the words, the statutory intent, and they rebutted everything that the dissents said, very carefully. Taking aim. There was some pretty harsh language between Sonia Sotomayor, in a footnote and one of the dissents who directly took her on. Kind of an ugly little thing, I'm sorry to say. Very happy.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Yeah, Sam Alito had written, but I mean, you know, Justice Sotomayor knew how to take care of herself. She essentially, he was trying to point out that the case was narrower perhaps than she believed that it was. And her response, which I loved, was essentially like, if you want to know the scope of this ruling, maybe ask somebody in the majority, not the person in dissent. And I was like, ooh, that's clap back. I like it. So, Joyce, we've talked a lot about this court's antipathy toward expansive federal power. You know, they overturned the Chevron deference standard and have taken other actions to really chip away at the ability of federal agencies to act as broadly as they used to be able to. Why do you think they took a different tact here? Why do you think that they ruled no, ATF was just fine.

[Joyce Vance]

So I have a guess, Kim. It feels, you know, like a guess to me, but a good one. And I'm curious what you'll think. I think that this, this opinion feels very results oriented, and I'll just put it in a very pointed fashion. Had they ruled the other way, the majority of the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of no regulation for ghost guns would have owned every crime committed using one. And I don't think these justices wanted that to happen. So this is in many ways a very narrow, very specific sort of a decision. As Jill said, it depends upon the definition and what's included as a firearm. And Justice Gorsuch was careful to write an opinion that will let them go back and have different results in specific cases involving other ghost guns. Maybe a kit would take longer to assemble so they would find that it's not included or whatever. But at bottom and to your point, this is about deference to the agency's definition of a gun, which really isn't very Loper Bright. You know, the. The case that did away with Chevron deference. And Justice Gorsuch actually sort of notes Loper Bright in his opinion. He writes, and while courts must exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions, that's what Loper Bright says Court should do. The contemporary and consistent views of a coordinate branch of government can provide evidence of the law's meaning, and he cites Loper Bright for that proposition. So I know that that's super nerdy, but what's going on here is that the Supreme Court is saying even though last term we bashed the administrative agencies and did away with the nanny states, we can still look to how they interpret the statutes that they are obligated to enact, and we can use their interpretation as evidence of what Congress meant. I mean, it is such a walk back from Loperbright. But again, to finish where I started, I think it's just because they don't want to bear responsibility for crimes committed with ghost guns.

[Jill Winebanks]

I think Joyce pointed out an important thing. This is a limited decision. And it's going to be future cases that decide exactly where the line is. You know, they talk about one particular gun kit that takes 21 minutes for an untrained person to convert it into a fire, a fireable gun and a weapon. And so then they talk about one where it may take an hour to do. So what is the line? It's sort of like how the Supreme Court decided Roe as to viability. They kind of made a movable target. And so there's a little lack of clarity. And it will take future cases. This was a facially acceptable case. There was no facial problem with it, as opposed to an as applied complaint about the statute. And now we're going to get into the as applied. Does it meet the standard? So I think it'll be interesting to watch what happens, but I think it is a hopeful sign compared to other gun decisions that have expanded the Second Amendment this may. You know, maybe it is just because crime is bad and this gun is particularly heinous in terms of being used in crimes.

[Barb McQuaid]

And now comes the part of the show that we really like the most, the part where we answer your questions. In fact, last week we got a great question asking if 42 years old was too old to go to law school. And we all said no. And I heard from a friend, my friend Kate, who told me that her mother started law school at the age of 39. And in fact, and she went on to have a wonderful career, so never too late. And in fact, Kate told me that as a child she attended her mother's graduation from Columbia Law School. And in her class was Caroline Kennedy. And what she remembers about the graduation was everybody trying to stare at Jackie O. Who was in the audience. So thanks for that question. It's never too late to go to law school. Thanks for that tidbit, Kate. Yeah. Isn't that Great. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters in lawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week where we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. So our first question comes to us from DB when the Supreme Court publishes a ruling, it submits an opinion by one justice for the majority. However, there are often concurring opinions as well. Do those concurring opinions have the weight of the law behind them? Kim, you're our Supreme Court guru. What do you think about that one?

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

That is a fantastic question. So think about Supreme Court opinions this way. There is the vote. You know, we say 7 to 2, 6 to 3, or whatever it is, and that affects the judgment, which means the judgment is the outcome in that particular case. So you need at least a majority of the justices. It's usually five if all of them are on the bench. But if one or more have recused, it can be, it could be fewer, but you need a majority in order for a judgment to be rendered. That's a little different from the holding of a case, which is what the rule that the court is setting down that applies more broadly than just that one case. And for that, if people can't, if, if there is not a majority for the holding, that is called a plurality decision, and it does not have the same precedential effect as a majority holding. So, for example, if it can be a little complicated if, if you have a 5, 4 ruling on the judgment in favor of one party, but of those five, three people think that the, the answer was a constitutional one, and two think that it was a statutory one, then that does not make precedent as to either of those holdings. But that party still wins. And there are occasions when you have that. I think one of the most, it doesn't matter anymore. But one of the most famous plurality rulings was the Casey decision on abortion rights, where the rationale did not get it only got four justices. But there was a broader ruling in favor of allowing a restriction on abortion. But that sort of was seen as the beginning of the chipping away of Roe. So that's a fantastic question. It's a wonderfully nerdy one. And I hope that I answered it in a way you understood.

[Barb McQuaid]

Our next question comes to us from at Donald F. Stevens at Bluesky Social. If my hypothetical chickens had wandered off, I would be happy to have them come home to roost. Yet people say this as Though it's a bad thing. Why is that? That seems like a Joyce question.

[Jill Winebanks]

I know.

[Barb McQuaid]

I thought, Jill, you want. You want to. Who's answering that question for us?

[Jill Winebanks]

I'm going to answer it because I read it and I, of course, immediately thought of Joyce and thought Joyce should answer this question, but I opted to oust her from that because I wanted to know the answer. And so I did some research. And the phrase is something that originated from the observation that chickens, after foraging during the day, return to their coop, which is known as a roost, to rest and sleep. And somehow this has been interpreted, and I'm not sure that I follow the logic of this, to symbolize that the consequences of actions of returning to their source, and it has been interpreted as the consequences of someone's past actions, especially bad ones. Although I know Joyce's chickens never do anything bad, and neither do her dogs or cats. They do not. They love each other and they do good. But it's been interpreted as being the consequence of past bad actions eventually come back to haunt you. So that's why it has this negative connotation. But right now, I'm thinking this is a really positive thing because I think that the chickens are going to come home to roost against the Trump administration and all the evil things they're doing to law firms, to courts, to immigrants, to just about everybody, to federal employees, to inspectors general, you name it. So I think the chickens coming home to roost should be sort of, maybe we need a new T shirt, guys. Not just resistance, but chickens are coming home to roost. And we can take pictures of Joyce's favorite chickens.

[Barb McQuaid]

All right, let's move on to our next question. This is from Paula, who asks, just wondering if E. Jean Carroll has ever actually received any payment from Donald Trump yet. Joyce, are you aware of the answer to that?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, this is a fabulous question, because what it's asking about is, when are judgments against parties final? Right. You go through this trial, you win the trial, as E. Jean Carroll did, you would think that you would get paid at that point, but that's not how it works, actually. Usually, and this is what Donald Trump had to do in this case, you pay into a court fund or some other secure fund so that the money will be there to pay the judgment if you ultimately lose. But then you have the right, as someone who's lost a case, to go through the appellate process, through the intermediate courts. You can even petition the Supreme Court to hear your case. And the plaintiff in this case, E. Jean Carroll, won't receive any of the judgment that she won until that appellate process is finally. And that can actually take years. That can go on for a long time.

[Barb McQuaid]

Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkinstor and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow SistersInLaw wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. And please show some love to this week. Week's sponsors, Bombas, Helix and Quints. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode, Sisters in Law.

[Joyce Vance]

Sorry, Pumpernickel. Let me do that again.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Sorry. Pumpernickel for a minute. Pumpernickel and pumpernickel.

[Joyce Vance]

It'll be pumpernickel. So we.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, sorry, sorry. Pumpernickel. Pumpernickel and pumpernickel. And pumpernickel And. And pumpernickel.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Pumpernickel. Sorry, Pumpernickel.

[Joyce Vance]

Really, really difficult.

[Barb McQuaid]

We got a baker's dozen. A pumpernickel here.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Okay, so we're ending the pumpernickel that.

[Barb McQuaid]

Will end pumpernickel and.

[Joyce Vance]

And pumpernickel. Yes.

[Jill Winebanks]

I haven't said pumpernickel yet. That's because I just did it without saying it. Pumpernickel.

[Joyce Vance]

There we go. End of pumpernickel. Pumpernickel. Let me do that one again. Sorry. End pumpernickel.

[Kimberly Atkinstore]

Sorry. Pumpernickel. End pumpernickel.

[Joyce Vance]

Pumpernickel for a sec.

[Barb McQuaid]

End pumpernickel.