232: Bend The Knee For King Trump

Summary

Podcast Summary: Sisters in Law #232: Bend The Knee For King Trump

Episode Information

• Title: Bend The Knee For King Trump
• Host/Author: Politicon
• Release Date: April 19, 2025
• Guests: Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr

---

1. Easter Traditions and Personal Anecdotes ([00:09] - [07:07])

The episode opens with a light-hearted discussion about Easter traditions among the hosts. Kimberly Atkins Stohr announces the restocking of their sold-out resistance T-shirts, encouraging listeners to purchase them for upcoming protests. The conversation shifts to personal family traditions:

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Shares her love for dyed eggs and Easter baskets, highlighting the joy of celebrating multiple holidays in a mixed marriage.
• Barb McQuaid: Playfully disagrees with Kim's adult-oriented Easter plans, suggesting innovative ways to incorporate them into celebrations.
• Joyce Vance: Discusses her plans to involve her children in egg-decorating traditions, reminiscing about past activities despite anticipating their skepticism.
• Jill Wine-Banks: Reflects on her Jewish heritage and the meaningfulness of Passover traditions, emphasizing the importance of family and cultural practices.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid: “I have tried. I do try to spend that time just to think a little bit more about what I'm doing, my place in the world and why I'm doing it.” ([02:26])

---

2. Legal Battles Against the Trump Administration ([09:42] - [33:57])

a. Deportation Cases and Judicial Upholding of Constitutional Rights ([09:42] - [17:33])

The hosts delve into recent Supreme Court decisions that reinforce constitutional rights amidst the Trump administration's immigration policies. They focus on two specific cases involving the deportation of individuals to El Salvador, highlighting the administration's defiance of court orders.

• Judge James Boasberg’s Ruling: Issued a temporary restraining order preventing the removal of individuals without due process, despite the Supreme Court vacating his TRO.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid: “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders...” ([12:37])
• Joyce Vance: “It's a matter of constitutional rights to due process and our separation of powers.” ([09:42])

b. Potential Consequences for the Administration ([17:33] - [31:09])

The discussion explores the implications of the administration's continued non-compliance:

• Contempt of Court: Judge Boasberg finds probable cause that the administration willfully violated his order, potentially leading to contempt charges.
• Appointment of a Private Prosecutor: Debate on whether Judge Boasberg can appoint a private prosecutor to press charges, considering separation of powers concerns.
• Presidential Pardons: Jill Wine-Banks anticipates that President Trump may use his pardon power to absolve officials convicted of contempt, questioning the constitutional boundaries of such actions.

Notable Quote:

• Jill Wine-Banks: “There's no way that this is going to be obeyed. Everything they have done shows their contempt for the rule of law.” ([15:14])

c. Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case ([31:09] - [33:57])

The hosts provide an update on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an individual wrongly deported to El Salvador:

• Current Status: Garcia, a Maryland resident with no criminal record, is held in Seacoast Prison. Recent footage shows him alive, though concerns remain about the authenticity of the portrayal.
• Government's Position vs. Legal Rulings: The administration's attempt to classify the case as an administrative error contrasts with the court's emphasis on constitutional mandates.
• Court’s Upholding of Rules: The Fourth Circuit Court dismisses the administration's narrow interpretation of "facilitate," reinforcing the necessity for active compliance with court orders.

Notable Quote:

• Jill Wine-Banks: “Facilitation does not permit the erroneous deportation of an individual to one country's prisons...” ([33:57])

---

3. Supreme Court and Birthright Citizenship Case ([33:57] - [53:05])

a. Procedural Focus of the Supreme Court ([33:57] - [40:20])

The Supreme Court schedules oral arguments to address procedural issues regarding nationwide injunctions rather than the substantive legality of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

• Key Issue: Whether a federal judge in one district can issue an injunction that applies nationwide.
• Arguments Presented:
  • Challengers: Emphasize the need for uniformity in defining citizenship across all jurisdictions to prevent chaos.
  • Administration: Argues that the term "facilitate" allows for discretion, aligning with long-standing governmental definitions.

Notable Quote:

• Joyce Vance: “If you are born in the United States, in the state of Washington, you are a citizen. But if you're born in the United States, in the state of Texas, you're not.” ([45:21])

b. Implications of Nationwide Injunctions ([40:20] - [53:05])

Discussion on the potential outcomes of the Supreme Court's decision:

• Potential Rulings: Concerns that the administration may prevail by redefining "facilitate," undermining constitutional protections.
• Historical Context: Reference to Judge Wilkinson’s balance between executive authority and judicial oversight, emphasizing the importance of separation of powers.
• Impact on Constitutional Amendment: Joyce Vance posits that altering birthright citizenship might require a constitutional amendment, maintaining the amendment's original intent to protect citizenship irrespective of parents' status.

Notable Quotes:

• Jill Wine-Banks: “The Supreme Court’s decision does not allow the government to essentially do nothing.” ([33:57])
• Barb McQuaid: “Judge Wilkinson has been on the bench for a long time... [he] reminded everybody what democracy was about.” ([31:24])

---

4. Trump Administration's Assault on Academic Institutions ([53:05] - [73:28])

a. Targeting Harvard University ([53:05] - [62:10])

The podcast addresses President Trump’s attempts to exert control over Harvard University:

• Trump’s Demands: Letter threatening to withdraw $2 billion in federal funding unless Harvard complies with demands to cease DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, allow federal oversight on hiring, curriculum, and library resources.
• Harvard’s Response: A robust refusal to capitulate, emphasizing the university’s commitment to independence and constitutional rights. Harvard enlists conservative legal experts to defend its stance.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid: “This is an extortion. This reads like a ransom letter... it would violate their constitutional rights.” ([58:28])

b. Broader Impact on Universities ([62:10] - [73:28])

The discussion expands to other academic institutions:

• Support from Other Universities: Columbia, Stanford, Northwestern, and the University of Illinois express solidarity with Harvard, rejecting federal overreach and emphasizing the importance of academic freedom.
• Economic and Educational Consequences: Potential revocation of tax-exempt status and student visas could cripple universities financially and academically, diminishing research and diversity.
• Historical Parallels: Comparison to European autocracies that targeted intellectual institutions to suppress dissent and control knowledge.

Notable Quote:

• Joyce Vance: “Our institutions, our universities are like the crown jewels of the United States... indoctrination of people into the state agenda instead of having open quests for knowledge.” ([74:14])

---

5. Listener Questions and Legal Advice ([75:33] - [85:50])

a. Choosing a Law Specialty ([78:40] - [80:09])

• Question from Claudia, Robertsdale, Alabama: Guidance for a student deciding between Constitutional, International Contract, or Civil Rights Law.
• Jill Wine-Banks’ Advice: Encourages exploration of various courses and experiences before making a decision, emphasizing the value of a history major for law school.

Notable Quote:

• Jill Wine-Banks: “Wait until you've had some exposure to the courses. Maybe you'll love constitutional law.” ([78:40])

b. State Attorneys General Pressing Charges Against Administration Members ([80:32] - [81:58])

• Question from Mark: Whether it makes sense for state attorneys general to press charges against Trump administration members.
• Barb McQuaid’s Insight: Generally, state AGs focus on protecting state interests and may avoid prosecutorial overreach against federal officials, suggesting such actions be left to federal prosecutors.

Notable Quote:

• Barb McQuaid: “Determining who breaks a law and whether to bring charges should be best left to the experts.” ([81:58])

c. Legality of Law Enforcement Confiscating Cell Phones ([82:28] - [85:50])

• Question from JJacdluesky Social: Can law enforcement confiscate your cell phone and require a passcode without a warrant?
• Joyce Vance’s Explanation:
  • Border Search Doctrine: At the border, officers can search digital devices without a warrant.
  • Within the U.S.: Warrants are generally required unless there's consent.
• Barb McQuaid’s Tip: Recommends using passcodes instead of biometric locks to protect against forced access.

Notable Quotes:

• Joyce Vance: “The rule at the moment is they can ask you for your phone... but within the United States that's very different.” ([83:27])
• Barb McQuaid: “Use a digital passcode and not facial or thumbprint opening for your phone.” ([83:29])

---

6. Closing Remarks and Listener Engagement ([85:50] - [88:23])

The hosts conclude by encouraging listener interaction, promoting academic resources, and acknowledging their sponsorships. They emphasize the importance of collective action in resisting administrative overreach and protecting constitutional rights.

---

Conclusion

Episode #232 of Sisters in Law offers a comprehensive analysis of ongoing legal battles against the Trump administration, focusing on immigration deportation cases, the Supreme Court's approach to birthright citizenship, and the administration's attempts to control academic institutions like Harvard. The hosts provide insightful commentary on the separation of powers, constitutional rights, and the implications of executive overreach. Listener questions further enrich the discussion, offering practical legal advice on law specialties and individual rights concerning law enforcement practices.

Key Takeaways:

• The judiciary continues to uphold constitutional protections against executive overreach in immigration cases.
• The Supreme Court's procedural focus in the birthright citizenship case leaves substantive legal interpretations pending.
• The Trump administration's targeting of universities like Harvard signals a concerning trend towards undermining academic freedom and institutional independence.
• Listener engagement reveals important legal considerations for aspiring law professionals and individuals' rights in interactions with law enforcement.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Barb McQuaid: “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders...” ([12:37])
• Jill Wine-Banks: “There's no way that this is going to be obeyed. Everything they have done shows their contempt for the rule of law.” ([15:14])
• Jill Wine-Banks: “Facilitation does not permit the erroneous deportation of an individual to one country's prisons...” ([33:57])
• Joyce Vance: “If you are born in the United States, in the state of Washington, you are a citizen. But if you're born in the United States, in the state of Texas, you're not.” ([45:21])
• Barb McQuaid: “This is an extortion. This reads like a ransom letter... it would violate their constitutional rights.” ([58:28])
• Joyce Vance: “Our institutions, our universities are like the crown jewels of the United States...” ([74:14])
• Jill Wine-Banks: “Wait until you've had some exposure to the courses. Maybe you'll love constitutional law.” ([78:40])
• Joyce Vance: “The rule at the moment is they can ask you for your phone... but within the United States that's very different.” ([83:27])

---

Note: For a deeper dive into the discussions and legal analyses presented in this episode, listening to the full podcast is highly recommended.

Transcript

[Joyce Vance]

Foreign.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins Storr, Jill wine banks, Barb McQuaid, and me, Joyce Vance. So, y'all, our resistance T shirts, I know that they've been sold out. They're finally back in stock. Go to politicon.com merch to get yours now. When I was out at the march in Birmingham a couple of weekends ago, I saw a lot of friends wearing our resistance T shirts. Get one for your next protest rally too. And now let's get onto the show where we'll discuss the courts, the president, and the deportation cases. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the birthright citizenship case. We'll discuss what the actual issue is. You may be surprised. And finally, Harvard's refusal to bend the knee to Trump. We could all use some of that energy this week. But before we get started, y'all, I thought I would ask you about Easter plans and your favorite Easter family traditions. I mean, no surprise here, that good Jewish girl that I am. I still love dyed eggs. And we've always done Easter baskets for our kids. One of the blessings of being a mixed marriage is getting to celebrate all holidays. But my kids are a little bit too big now, and I'm looking for sort of new traditions this year. Barb, you're gonna hate me, but my plan involves hollow chocolate bunnies and adult. I won't talk too much about this since we're a PG rated family podcast, but I'd love to know what y'all have planned. What are y'all gonna do? Kim, I see you laughing.

[Barb McQuaid]

Cause you are hilarious.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

So, first off, seriously, you can take hollow chocolate bunnies and pour White Russians into em and call it an Easter brunch.

[Barb McQuaid]

See, this is why I love you.

[Joyce Vance]

Sacrilege.

[Barb McQuaid]

This is why I love you. Oh, come on. And you know, it's like communion. It's okay, but. But I mean, listen, the egg prices are still high. We're not talking about it. I think I checked it this week, and they're still 60% above what they were a year ago. So who's. Who's dying eggs like Mr. Moneybags? Like, who's doing that?

[Joyce Vance]

They're $4.99 a carton at Kroger. I'm not scoring for the $4.99 in Dyson eggs.

[Barb McQuaid]

Not everybody lives in the beautiful state of Michigan.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I've been reading about people who are dying little potatoes instead.

[Barb McQuaid]

See, I'm here for that. I'm here for a dyed potato. You know, I really enjoy the fact that my family My in laws do Easter dinner. And so I go to my sister in law, my sister in law by marriage, I go by her home and we have a wonderful time. And I really think that now more than ever, connecting with your loved ones and spending that time, whatever your activity is, go ahead and dye your eggs, your potatoes, and drink your little egg cocktails, but do it with other people who bring you joy and, you know, remember what the season is for. I have tried. I. I don't do any lent fast, but I do try to spend that time just to think a little bit more about what I'm doing, my place in the world and why I'm doing it, and be clear about it sort of in the spirit of Jesus in the desert and really think about my purpose. And I've been doing that. So I look forward to celebrating the end of that period and being with family.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Barb, what about you?

[Joyce Vance]

Well, three of our four children are coming home for the weekend. So I have great plans. I don't know if they are aware of these plans, but I do have eggs. And I did get the little paws, you know, kits that you use to color the eggs. And I'm hoping they will join me the way they did when they were kids. We always, you know, decorate an egg with. We use that little white crayon and we write everybody's name on the egg. And every year, we always do one that is a football. We draw the strings on there, and then we try to mix and match the different dyes to make a brown. It's never quite right, but that is the piece de resistance, the football egg. But, you know, I kind of feel like I'm sure my kids are gonna roll their eyes when they get home and said, really? Dying eggs. It's gonna be like. Do you guys ever see that scene in Elf where Buddy says to his dad, first we'll make snow angels for two hours, then we'll go ice skating, then we'll eat a whole roll of cookie dough and then we'll cuddle. I think my kids are gonna react the same way Buddy's dad does.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know what would be funny is if one of them on that little invisible white pen, wrote a swear word on an egg.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Barb's reaction egg toss.

[Joyce Vance]

That one.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So I really, of course, don't do Easter. And even as a kid, I do think once as a kid, we blew the egg out of the egg and then dyed them, which is, of course, a fragile thing to do.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Oh, yeah, but that's fun. We did that too. When I was little. It's great.

[Jill Wine Banks]

That was fun. But now I really love certain parts of Passover. I wish that we would get the Passover from the nonsense that's going on now. Not nonsense, the horrors that are going on now. But since that isn't happening, I am enjoying saying, you know, being with friends and family for the seders and for all of the harosis, which is for those of you who aren't into Jewish cooking, is an apple concoction. And I make several different kinds. I make a Sepharda kind and an Ashkenazi kind, and one's from Gourmet magazine that's just chopped apples and nuts and raisins. That's my favorite. But one of them comes out like a jelly that I keep for a long time in the refrigerator. And it's great on matzah. So that's what I love doing. And just being, as you said, being with friends and celebrating the good times.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

You know, it's such a funny thing, Jill. I have never understood why that's limited to Passover. Right? Apples, nuts, raisins chopped up on matzah. It's a great food. I think we should do more to give that life out in the world.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And matzo braai? Why is that only at. At Passover, matzo braai is a great breakfast.

[Barb McQuaid]

Caramelized matzo bra.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Matzo braai. For people who don't know. It's like you soak matzo and then you sort of drain it and you fry it up with eggs. And it really is truly fabulous, Jill. We might need a whole podcast on Jewish soup.

[Jill Wine Banks]

You do yours sweet or savory? Because I sweet.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I do savory. I'm not a sweet person.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I do it both. But mostly I like the sweet one. I sprinkle sugar on top or jelly on top. And the secret for me is you put the matzo, you break it up into a colander, pour boiling water over it. It drains right out. It doesn't get soft and soggy, but enough that it absorbs the egg. It's fabulous.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, now I'm gonna need to make some matzo braai with my Easter morning drinks.

[Barb McQuaid]

Next year, I'm going to show you.

[Joyce Vance]

I want your Easter morning drink, Easter bunny.

[Jill Wine Banks]

A lot is happening these days, and it can feel especially stressful or hopeless when things are outside of our control. Calm can help you restore your sense of balance amidst outside chaos. Since I've started using it, I found that it's so much easier to find my inner strength. Stay committed to my goals and have more energy for what's truly important.

[Barb McQuaid]

Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation. It empowers you to calm your mind and change your life. CALM knows everyone faces unique challenges in their daily lives and mental health isn't just a cookie cutter approach. That's why CALM offers a wide range of content and programs to help you navigate life's ups and downs with programs like Meditations that are designed to help you work through anxiety and stress, boost your focus, build healthier habits, and take better care of your physical well being.

[Joyce Vance]

Boy, I feel more calm just listening to Kim's NPR voice. I'm trying it myself. There are also sleep stories, sleep meditations, and calming music that will help you drift off to rest.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Oh, can I snore?

[Joyce Vance]

Quickly and naturally. It's so relaxing. It's the perfect end to a stressful day. But when you're feeling overwhelmed, we recommend you try their grounding exercises too. These short, guided sessions use sensation, movement and breath work to help you relax and reset. CALM even has powerful expert led talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self esteem, care for relationships, and more.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

You know, it has been one of those weeks. We just need to have the opportunity to cut up a little bit here. But I've gotta say, I am super grateful for calm. CALM puts the tools you need right in your pocket and can help you dedicate a few minutes each day to live a happy, healthy, healthier life. Stress less, sleep more. Learn to talk like Kim and live better with Calm. For listeners of our show, Calm is offering an exclusive offer of 40% off a Calm premium subscription at calm.com sisters go to C-A-L-M.com sisters for 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library. That's calm.com sisters. The link is in our show Notes.

[Barb McQuaid]

This episode is brought to you by CALM and by listeners like you.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, we saw Court stand strong this week against the Trump administration's defiance of court orders in two immigration cases. You know, it's good to see some good news and it's good to see our institution standing strong. We're one of the cases involved the departure of planes to El Salvador and the other was the failure to return a Maryland man who the administration admits was sent there in error. So we'll talk about both of these. The administration, of course, wants to focus on the alleged misconduct of these men, but that is not what these cases are about. This is a matter of constitutional rights to due process and our very constitutional separation of powers. And it's so great to see the courts not only getting this, but trumpeting it loud and clear. So first, let's talk about the order that Judge James Boasberg in the District of Columbia entered this week. You may recall that on March 15, he entered a temporary restraining order to stop the removal of men who were alleged to be members of a transnational criminal organization called Trend Finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that they were entitled to due process before they could be deported. He even said at that time, if there are planes in the air, turn them around. And of course, that didn't happen. Kim, let me ask you. This week, Judge Boasberg issued a written opinion, and let's break that down a little bit first. There's been some question about this. How is it that he still had jurisdiction? Because in the meantime, of course, the Supreme Court vacated his Trojans. Can you explain that?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yes. So according to Judge Boasberg, and I think he is correct here, yes. The supreme. As of the time that the Supreme Court issued its order vacating the temporary restraining order that he handed down, from that point on, he did not have jurisdiction in that case, but he had had jurisdiction for three weeks. And his determination is that during the time during those three weeks, that is when his order very well could have been violated. He wrote, the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely, quote, annul the judgments of the Court of the United States would not only destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, it would make a solemn mockery of the Constitution itself. And he was quoting a lot of precedent there. So he is saying, look, the violation occurred while my courtroom was in control of this, and we cannot let that stand just because the order was later. That my jurisdiction was later stripped away by the scotus.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, it seems almost like he's saying, you know, a crime was committed when you willfully.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Right.

[Joyce Vance]

And you don't. That doesn't wipe clean just because the civil case went away. Joyce, Judge Bonesberg found something interesting. He found probable cause that the government violated the criminal contempt statute by willfully violating his order. Have you ever seen that before? Probable cause? And what is contempt? Is that normally how this is done? Probable cause, that contempt has occurred?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

So I think that this is a very interesting and a very nuanced point that's sort of sophisticated and fun to know about, because normally judges just make contempt findings directly. And here Judge Boasberg found probable cause to believe that contempt existed. That's something that he can do, and he's moving forward slowly. And why might he be doing that? I think the reason, and this makes it important, is that he's giving the government every possible opportunity to cure the contempt. In other words, to fix the problem, to make the whole contempt proceeding going away. And he has pointed out that they can do that by taking steps that are short of returning all of the deportees to the United States. For instance, the government could acknowledge that these folks are in US Custody, not in El Salvador's custody, and that would trigger their ability to fire habeas petitions and ask US Courts to review the fact of and the conditions of their custody. The reality is that the Trump administration does not look interested in taking these sorts of cooperative steps. But by laying it out in this fashion, which costs maybe an extra week or so, the judge is setting up a very clear ruling where the government won't be able to wiggle out of the notion that what this was about was contempt and not just misunderstanding the order. So I think it's savvy and strategic on the back end.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, that's super interesting, isn't it? I think what he really wants is them to comply, right? Not to hold them in trouble.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. When they're not gonna. They're just not gonna. I mean, anybody who still thinks this administration is going to have a sudden change of heart about immigrants does not know Donald Trump.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, so what then, Jill, if the, you know, right now the ball is in the government's court, they could purge this. As Judge Boasberg says, they could remedy the contempt by complying with the order. What if, as Joyce predicts, they don't? Can Judge Boasberg jail a member of the Trump administration?

[Jill Wine Banks]

So it's such an interesting question. This whole thing is fascinating, and you are all correct. There is no way that this is going to be obeyed. Everything that they have done to this state shows their utter contempt for the rule of law and for the courts. So what's left? If they don't purge the contempt, if they do not do something, this is something that should upset the world, and it has upset everybody outside of America. I'm hoping it's reaching beyond Democrats and independents and that Republicans are seeing how dangerous this is. So what could Judge Boasberg do? Well, he suggested one thing himself, which is that he could appoint a private prosecutor. First, he would have to go hold them in contempt, rule that they are in contempt, and ask the Department of Justice to prosecute them. We know that the Department of Justice is going to say no. There's no way that Pam Bondi, who we've seen over and over again show that she will not do anything that Donald Trump doesn't want her to do is not going to prosecute. But there is an interesting rule in the federal rules that allows a judge in that circumstance where he's asked for a prosecution from doj, and they refuse to appoint a private attorney as a private prosecutor. And that's a really interesting thing. Now, one of our leading constitutional commentators, Steve Vladeck, says, of course they can. It's within the rules. But he thinks that under the current reasoning of the Supreme Court, in other cases, it would be held unconstitutional. And that's because it would be appointed by the judicial branch, not by the executive branch or the Congress. And so it would violate separation of powers to have him say, you're in contempt, and I'm appointing the prosecutor to make a ruling on that. So I'm not sure, you know, he's a brilliant commentator. I'd love to hear what all of you think as to whether a private attorney could be appointed as a special prosecutor to make this happen.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. You know, under the rules, Rule 42A says yes. But as you know, there is this issue about whether that is a permissible separation of powers. You know, one of the things that has always bothered me on this issue is there's that case called Morrison vs. Olson that was about independent counsel in the previous iteration of it. And everybody cites Scalia's dissent as if it's the law. You know, he said, you can't have independent prosecutors because that would be a fourth branch of government, and therefore, you know, you can't have it. The majority upheld it. So I'm not so sure. I'm not sure it's a certainty, but I think it's a possibility. And under normal times, I think an administration would want to avoid this sort of confrontation. But I don't know. I think the Trump administration is kind of eager for it. I'm also interested in. I don't know if any of you have a view on this. We got a question from Carla about if there was this prosecution and, say some Trump official, you know, the head of ICE or whoever it is, was convicted of contempt. Number one, could he go to prison? Would the marshals take him? And number two, could Trump simply pardon that person?

[Jill Wine Banks]

I think the answer on the pardon is that he can. He can't pardon for impeachment, but that's the only restriction on his pardon power. And we've seen him pardon all the people who did January 6th. And so why wouldn't he pardon the people convicted? And, you know, there'd have to be a hearing. There'd have to be a determination of who is responsible for the contempt. Who actually said, don't, don't do this?

[Joyce Vance]

I think the argument is that the Constitution says the president may pardon for all offenses against the United States. Is this an offense against the United States or is it an offense against the court? And I think that's where the debate comes in. But I think I agree with you, Jill. But it seems likely that Trump could and would pardon. He probably would, even if he couldn't. It's just the waters.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yes. All right.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, let's move on to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This, of course, is the man that the Trump administration admits was put on one of those flights to El Salvador in error. He entered the country unlawfully in 2011 at the age of 16. He says that he fled El Salvador because his family's business was being extorted by a violent gang. Eight years later, he's living in Maryland, and he gets arrested by ICE agents while looking for work in the parking lot of a Home Depot. And he was ordered deported, but that deportation was withheld and he was allowed to stay because of a finding of credible fear of persecution from that same gang if he were to return to his home country of El Salvador. Now, here we are in 2025. He's married with three children. He's employed as a sheet metal worker. He has no criminal record, and he finds himself in a prison in El Salvador. Kim, what's the Latest news with Mr. Abrego Garcia? I suppose there's a possibility that by the time this episode drops, there will be some new developments. But what's the latest proof of life we have of Mr. Abrego Garcia?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yes, but before I get to that, I just want to underscore that with Mr. Abrego Garcia. He had an order that prohibits prohibited his deportation to El Salvador, like, literally said the government could not send him there because of the danger that he would face from gang members in El Salvador, literally not able to do so. We're all here because the administration claims it was an administrative error, sent him anyway. So the only violation that has taken place is by the administration. He did not break a law. He didn't do anything. He was in Maryland minding his own business. The administration is trying to smear him. So just Keep that in your head as you're seeing all these claims about things that he's done and that he's dangerous. No, he hasn't committed any crime at all. But where is he now? We did get images of him when Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where he lives, went to the seacot Prison, the notoriously brutal place where he's being held. At first he was unable to make contact with him, but then all of a sudden, Mr. Abrego Garcia was put in street clothes. It's not what he wears when he is incarcerated. He was wearing a hat, which makes me wonder if they had shaved his head while he was in the facility. I think that's probably the case. But he looked. He was walking. He looked. I don't wanna say well, because I don't know that, but he looked like a normal guy who was sitting in a restaurant. If you didn't know what was going on, he probably wouldn't. You probably wouldn't just pass by him and say hello and not know anything was amiss. I fear while I am happy to see that he was alive because up until now, he only had the government's word that he was, quote, secure and alive. I'm happy to see that on tape. I'm certainly happy for his wife, who expressed. Said it was overwhelmingly emotional to him. And I can only imagine what that felt to her. But I worry that this was a Salvadoran propaganda tool to try to prop him up, dress him up and roll him in front of the cameras and make Senator Van Hollen a part of it. So I don't think everything about this is great, but certainly the proof of life is important.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. Yeah. I was glad to see him alive because, frankly, I was concerned that he was dead. And they were. This was all a big. The reason of whatever you do, you can't return him because we can't. So I was glad to see him looking alive and actually looking. Well, I guess you never know. But he looked like he was sitting and wearing, as you said, plain clothes and talking. So.

[Barb McQuaid]

And just another thing, another piece of propaganda. He was not. They were not drinking margaritas. Someone walked up as they were sitting there and put glasses with salt around the rims in front of them for a photo shoot. This is what I mean by this is. All. This is being used as propaganda, and it's really disgusting. But just There's a lot of information going on out there. Please be very careful about what you hear and what you take in.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, that's such good advice. Well, Joyce, Last week, we discussed that Supreme Court order that the government facilitate his return. And they remanded the case to the district court, where the judge immediately removed the word effectuate and said, it's all about articulate. It's all about facilitate. And then the government filed something. First they asked for, like, an extension, and then they articulated with their view of facilitate. We saw the government's position, and then we saw a hearing with Judge Paulo Zenas earlier this week. Can you tell us about that whole exchange?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah. So the government's view of facilitate was essentially that if Mr. Abrego Garcia managed to free himself and managed to present himself at the border, the United States would then facilitate his entry and his immediate redeportation. In other words, the spirit of the order was completely lost on them and the plaintiffs, Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers followed up by filing a motion asking for additional relief. They wanted Judge Zinnis to do three things for their client. First, they asked her to order specific steps towards returning him. Second, they asked her to order discovery into the government's failure to do so. And third, they asked her to initiate contempt proceedings. So a little bit of deja vu there. Judge Zinnis did something interesting and I think sort of canny. She responded by ordering expedited discovery, but said she would put the other two items on hold. And this gives Mr. Abrego Garcia's attorneys the opportunity to get better evidence to support their other positions. And she put the government on a tight timeline. They've got two weeks. She made it clear she meant business. They get to ask interrogatories. They get to ask questions of the government, 15 of them. They get to ask for 15 documents, and they get to take up to six depositions of government appeals. So the plaintiff's lawyers have already filed the interrogatories and the document requests. They did that Thursday. The response deadlines kick in really quickly. We'll know pretty soon if the government is going to go into open defiance of the court, which is something that they've hesitated to do up until now. They've walked right up until the line. They've come up with this utterly ludicrous definition, really more an interpretation of the word facilitate that everybody understands is not what the government means here. And maybe the last thing that's worth flagging, Barb, you know, facilitate is a term of art when it comes to the government talking about deportations and returning people. And so facilitate has a long history of usage by government officials stretching back for over a decade. The government here is Trying to change the way the rule of law works in order to suit themselves. And if anything sort of wraps up the Trump administration into a nutshell, it's that this effort to exercise power, not on behalf of the people, not in the reasonable legal ways that have been developed over decades of litigation and practice, but rather just to say, hey, what do we want to do here? What are our political aims? Okay, now that's what the law means. That's what we need to all be on guard for.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, it's really just ludicrous. And, Jill, the Trump administration immediately appealed this order from Judge Zenas to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. And look out. What was their response to this argument by the government?

[Jill Wine Banks]

It was fabulous. And I, I'm going to follow up on something Joyce just mentioned, but I want to read parts of it because. And we'll post it in our show notes because everyone should read this. It is just. It's a remarkable opinion, but I'll go straight to what Joyce was just talking about. Facilitation does not permit the, admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to one country's prisons that the withholding order forbids. And further to do so in disregard of a court order that the government, not so subtly. Facilitation does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers. And I'm going to pause here for a section, because we've been calling them prisons or detention centers. I think a more accurate word would be concentration camp. Prisons and detention centers are for people who have gone before courts, have had due process, have been convicted, and are held for a particular term of time. This is people who have been grabbed off the street allegedly because they are of a particular nationality and. Or gang membership based on tattoos that have nothing to do with that gang and have had no due process. So I don't think you can call this a prison. But. But okay, detention centers. In the matter attempted here, allowing all this would facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood. It also goes on to define facilitate as an active verb that requires action, not doing nothing. And that's. That's part of the most important parts of this. The opinion obviously denies anything that they are asking for and ends this. It also praises Judge Zenas and says we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision. So it really just totally knocks it out. And this is a conservative judge who wrote this, Judge Wilkinson. And the 4th Circuit is not one of your liberal hotbeds. And I just don't think there's anything that is going to come of this where a further appeal to the Supreme Court is going to result in something different. I think they've said, release this man, facilitate it. And I also want to point out that to the extent they're arguing that this interferes with their powers over foreign affairs, this is a contractual relationship with a foreign country, the same as if it was with a US Prison, private prison provider. It's a contractual relationship. They are there not because El Salvador has any jurisdiction over these people. They're there because Donald Trump sent them there. And so he can and should and must facilitate the return. And I think it should apply to everyone who's there, not just to Mr. Garcia, Abrego or Abrego Garcia. Sorry. And I hope that all of them will find that they get the due process they are owed.

[Joyce Vance]

This is a beautifully written opinion. It shows a lot of deference to the ordinary executive branch powers, but it also points out how our whole system is about this separation of powers. I mean, Kim, did you want to say anything about that or. Joyce, I know you wrote a piece about this in your substack.

[Barb McQuaid]

Absolutely. I mean, first, I want to point out that Judge Wilkinson has been on the bench for a long time. He's a conservative. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Fun fact. Kim, do you know when he went on the bench?

[Barb McQuaid]

No.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Just ahead of my third year in law school, when I had planned on taking a class with him, to my everlasting disappointment.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, wow. That is. That is incredible.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

That is how old I am.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. And just to hear this, we were talking before. Well, I spoke about my disappointment with the Supreme Court's order, the wording of it, which really focused mostly on, well, the executive branch has broad authority. So it almost seemed like a warning to the lower court to tread carefully. Right. He beautifully talks about, yes, the executive branch has that broad authority, the way Joyce pointed out. But for courts not to assert their authority would give license for this administration to do what it wants by any means necessary. The administration is focused on the ends. He focused on the means and said it is up to courts to do that. He said that the lower court decision was a fine one, and he really is trying to assert the authority of the courts and protect their power in a way that I wish the Supreme Court would do. They haven't done that. This is exactly the kind of order that I would love for the highest court in the land to issue. I want them to speak in that way. And it's really something in this moment that they haven't. But this judge who's been on the is probably thinking about retirement. I don't know what he's thinking about, but he did not, I'm sure he did not expect to remind everybody what democracy was about, but that's exactly what he did.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And he really went further than that because he said the Supreme Court referring to what they had ordered to be done. The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to essentially do nothing. It requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. It is an Facilitate is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. I mean, that's a great quote from this decision.

[Barb McQuaid]

Did you know that Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the United States with thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers? They have all the plants your yard needs. Think fruit trees and privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs and so much more. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered and you'll be able to find the perfect fit for your climate and space. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without leaving home. And I've gotten some beautiful plants for there. I've gotten gorgeous orchids and shrubs and I really highly recommend it. It.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I'm so excited, Kim. I can't tell you how excited because I just got some new shrubs and they are being planted at this very moment and it's the first sign of spring. It's really finally spring in Chicago. Those plants came. They are alive. They thrive. Their guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus, you can get support from trained plant experts that are on call to help you plan your landscape shape, choose the right plants, and learn how to care for them. It's really just perfect.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Fast growing trees offer 6,000 plants to provide the perfect choice for you. They have everything from indoor plants to fruit trees, full size privacy trees, and more. Just follow their 14 point quality checklist and Fast Growing Trees will help you care for each plant individually. That means you'll be giving your plants the care they deserve. The moment they ship to your home and boy, will they reward you. I can't get over how quickly my plants from fast growing trees grow and it happens every time. I can get a small little plant in the box and by the end of that year's growing season, it'll have put on a couple of feet. They look healthy. The fruit trees bear fruit. It really is a great experience. We were excited to learn you can grow a vanilla bean plant indoors. That's something I'm going to be trying this year, but with so many different plants, the choice is yours.

[Barb McQuaid]

Can't wait to taste your homemade ice cream, girl.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

You know it's gonna be good.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I want you to make vanilla extract, please.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, Joyce, I was inspired by your mention recently that you have a lilac shrub at your home from fast growing. So I ordered one. It is in my garage right now. I probably need to get that into the ground pretty quickly, huh? I'm, you know, get it out of.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

The box and it'll be good. The great thing about these plants is they show up in such good shape that even if you need to take a few days to plant, you've got plenty of time.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I'm working on kill on it already. But with fast growing trees, you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else. I'm going to have them on speed dial. They're going to say it's her again. Can somebody else take this call? No green thumb is required, they say, so I'm going to plant it this weekend. We'll see how it does. So don't you wait. This spring, Fast Growing Trees has the best deal for your yard. With up to half off on select plants and other deals. Listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code Sisters at checkout. That's an additional 15% [e-mail] using the code sisters at checkout again, that's fastgrowingtrees.com code sisters. Now's the perfect time to plant. Use sisters to save today. The offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. The link is in our show notes.

[Barb McQuaid]

The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments next month in an early stage appeal in the challenge to President Trump's executive order that purports to revoke birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country without authorization. So before we get to what the court is considering, Joyce, let's talk a little bit about what this is not about. This was not a. A petition for grant assertiorari, which is asking the court to take up an issue to consider and rule on. This is an appeal. And some folks have gotten the posture of this case pretty wrong, and that makes a big difference. What exactly is the court considering?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah, I think it's the right place to start, is with the issue the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, because they specify that when they agree to hear a case, they're not agreeing to hear every last little detail. They're taking it up for specific issues. And here that has little or nothing to do with birthright citizenship itself. The issue they're taking up isn't the legality of Trump's executive order. It's a procedural issue that we've talked about a good bit on the show. Whether a judge sitting in one federal district can issue an injunction that's binding on all 94 of the federal districts in US territories and beyond. Right. I think it was Jeff Sessions who you eloquently said, you know, how can one judge sitting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean enter an order that applies to everybody many, many years ago? Well, that's the argument, and both Democrats and Republicans have deployed it at time. You know, I think the last time we had a serious conversation about this was in the context of Mifepristone, where Judge Kex Merrick in Amarillo, Texas, tried to make medication abortion illegal nationwide instead of just in his district. And so we can see why there can be a level of outrage about this. But the issue becomes particularly acute in cases where the government is a party. And birthright citizenship is a great example of this right. If the judge only has power in their district, then the result for babies born in that one district might be very different than for babies born in the rest of the country. It permits this sort of patchwork quilt of rules instead of having federal law that applies everywhere in the country, which is, of course, what we're used to and what we intended. So this argument, I think, is interesting. It's not easy. There will be both good and bad arguments on both sides, but it's an issue that has really needed to be resolved one way or the other for some period of time.

[Barb McQuaid]

It has. And just to underscore, the court is not considering whether Donald Trump's order was legal. They are not considering whether stripping birthright citizenship from these children is constitutional. That's all for another day, although I'll be listening to arguments just to see what is said. But, Jill, we've talked a lot about nationwide injunctions as Joyce points out, just like that Amarillo, Texas order on mifepristone to this one. So what is the DOJ arguing here and what do you think about, as.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Joyce has suggested, it's a jurisdictional issue. We allow our courts to try cases and controversies, and that requires that there be a specific dispute between two parties, whether it's the government or two private parties that somehow get into federal court. And here the issue is if you are deciding a a case or controversy between two people, it should only apply to the two people who are in litigation. And in a way, it's the same thing as what we were talking about in immigration cases where sort of they've said, eh, no class actions, everybody has to file their own case to get themselves protected, and they have to do it in the jurisdiction in which they are. And as Joyce mentioned, this has been something that we have complained about. We certainly were outraged that a very carefully selected judge in Amarillo, Texas was picked to hear a case about a nationwide issue which was medicated abortions, and thought that it's wrong. Why should he be able to stop an FDA approved drug from being used everywhere? And so it's not an easy issue because it's one of those that, well, when it's my issue being stopped, I don't want you to do that. But in this case, and this is in a way different, and when we look at the history of the cases that have like this, the petitioner has always won. So this is bad news for this getting up there. But what do you mean by that, Joe?

[Barb McQuaid]

What do you mean by the petitioner?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, the petitioner in this case, of course, is the president or the government, the administration. And in cases where the court has taken on this sort of an issue, the petitioner has won. It's not a very common thing that has happened. And so that makes me worried that he will win on this issue. But again, it's only on the issue of a nationwide injunction, as opposed to whether it's unconstitutionally illegal for him to have done this and therefore it is barred for him doing it anywhere in the country. So even if the nationwide injunction is ruled, no, it only applies in this district. And I think Joyce also mentioned this. But think about what that means if you are born in that particular jurisdiction of parents who are not in the country legally or who are in the country legally but are not citizens, because that was raised that, you know, maybe you're here on a tourist visa and you go into premature labor and you have the baby here. Well, under the language of the Constitution. And, you know, remember, this is, you know, the 14th amendment, which we, we hear a lot about when we're talking about due process and other. But it's the first sentence that says you're a citizen. And so it's more complicated in a case where the Constitution is the basis for the decision. But it is an interesting issue. And I don't have a firm position. Do any of us have a firm position on this?

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, I don't know. What about you, Barb? What's your thoughts about this? And what, what are the challengers saying about this?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, so the challengers basically make three arguments for the court. I mean, one is temporary restraining orders ordinarily are not appealable. They can only be appealed under emergency situations. And they say there's no emergency here. This has been the law for 125 years. Why do we need to suddenly change this now? Certainly it's going to work its way through the courts. We should preserve the status quo while we work through the issue. They also say that the reason we have nationwide injunctions is to protect uniformity around the country. And what could be more important to have uniformity on than something like the definition of citizenship? It shouldn't mean one thing in one place and one thing in another. And then third, the argument that Joyce mentioned, which is if we had a patchwork of different rules all over the country, this would be utter chaos.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Right.

[Joyce Vance]

So if you're, you're born in the United States, in the state of Washington, you are a citizen. But if you're born in the United States, in the state of Texas, you're not. Everybody's gonna flee to Washington to have their babies. It would just be absolute chaos. And they also say the Trump administration didn't raise this issue in the court below, so they shouldn't be able to raise it now. So those are all sort of the procedural arguments. But to answer Jill's question, with regard to nationwide injunctions, I think you have to have them in certain circumstances, just as they had with under the Obama administration. There was a nationwide injunction for don't ask, don't tell. In the Biden administration, there are nationwide injunctions over student loans. There's certain cases where you can't have a difference of results in different jurisdictions when it is attacking a government's order. Now, what I do think could be changed, though, is how they have the rules. I don't think this is for the courts. I think this is for Congress to change the rules. But I do think they could do certain things like require a three judge panel if you're going to seek nationwide injunctive relief? Or maybe you hide the higher the raise the standard from substantial likelihood of success on the merits to clear and convincing likelihood of success on the merits. I mean, there are a number of ways we could reduce the situations, reduce forum shopping and other kinds of things. But I think in certain kinds of cases, you have to have a uniform decision. Either there is or there isn't going to be injunctive relief. And the final thing I'll say is one of the arguments that gets made about all this is there's more nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, which just proves how political it all is. I think it's because Trump has issued so many crazy executive orders. That's why we're getting judges to enter more injunctions against him. Right.

[Barb McQuaid]

But up until now, fdr, both by way of the fact that he was in office for so long, but also he was really, really trying hard to push through the New Deal. So he was issuing executive orders like crazy. And a bunch of them got struck down, too. Trump is on it. I think in the first 100 days, FDR issued 99 executive orders. Trump is already well over a hundred. Like, he is issued more executive orders more quickly than any other president in history. So that's, that's, that's absolutely right. And I love how you broke it down on the policy way Barb and said that this is a political question for, for lawmakers to step in on. But you, you made a lot of sense. You sure you don't want to jump in that Senate race up there in Mich?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I hear that they're doing to work on it.

[Joyce Vance]

Oh, you guys are very nice, but not my cup of tea, I'm afraid so.

[Barb McQuaid]

I just, you know, we have been very correctly pointing out that this isn't on the merits, but everybody is thinking about birthright citizenship. I certainly think about it. I think about the reason why we have that provision in the Constitution in the first place, which is it was a way during Reconstruction to ensure that black people were afforded full and complete rights in this country where that they had been denied from the point of enslavement, both those who had been enslaved, those who were freed and those who were never enslaved. It made sure that they were all treated as citizenship, as citizens, because they weren't up until now. I know that I saw the president make some snide comment about, well, these aren't slaves, these are dangerous people, or some nonsense. It was a statement Being made that if you were born in this nation, you were treated like you are a native son. And that is how we should treat everybody who does that. So, I don't know, are you guys listening to the oral argument just to see what more so than the injunction bees even? I might be trying to see if there are any tea leaves in that oral argument on May 15th. Do you guys think they might tip their hand here?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Oh, you and me, I'm definitely listening to this one for tea leaves because you know how the justices love to talk to each other in oral argument. And I mean, I think one of the dirty little secrets of oral argument, even at the court of appeals level, is that a good lawyer knows when to shut up and let the judges talk amongst themselves because often they don't talk about these cases. I mean, I think the rule is they don't talk about them before they get to argument. And so often their first go at each other is while you're standing up there arguing. And knowing when to let them have at it is a skill. I'm going to be listening for that in this oral argument, even though I'm not going to be the one at the podium.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I think it's interesting. I will be listening, too. But despite the fact that this is a very conservative court and Donald Trump put some of the justices on, I think this precedent is just so rock solid. It's in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has already decided this case once before. I know sometimes this court overturns precedent, but I just don't see this one. Despite the a composition of the court changing the definition of birthright citizenship, I think it requires a constitutional amendment.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Girl, I didn't think the Supreme Court was going to say it was okay for a president to use SEAL Team 6 to take out a political rival. 2025, here we are, right? It's like never say never. I totally agree with you, Barb. I mean, my instinct is to say this case, the court won't even take it to decide the substantive issue because it's bedrock law. This is just how the Constitution works. But we live in crazy times.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, no, you're right.

[Jill Wine Banks]

We'll all be listening. There's no question about it. But I also want to just point out, Kim, what you were saying about what this amendment was originally passed for is being used against it being applied to immigrants. Donald Trump is saying, hey, guys, this was a Civil War thing that was only to protect slaves. And so that's all it. It applies to, is if you were a slave you get to be protected and be a citizen under this amendment. But all you people who came here illegally, no, you don't get it. So it's a danger to look at the historical context of the passage of this because the words are clear, and the interpretation has forever been that it applies to all people, all foreigners who are here legally or illegally. Children are American citizens.

[Barb McQuaid]

I'm not sure I agree with that, Jill. I don't think that it's a danger to focus on the historical aspect of this. I think that it's important to focus on the historical aspect of this because that amendment is there because we lived in a society that was turning on a segment of the population calling them dangerous, calling them unintelligent, saying that they could not contribute meaningfully to our society. And. And the Constitution was amended in clear and concise words that apply to everyone. But I think it's an important reminder of why we need to enforce these protections, because we've seen this before. History is rhyming, even if it is not a specific repeat at this moment. And we have seen indigenous people have to show that it applies to them, too. We have seen other people have to show that it applies to them, too. So I think. I think it's incredibly important to keep that history in mind.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I agree with you. My point is that it is an out that Donald Trump is using, or it's an argument he's using to persuade the Supreme Court that despite precedent, despite its long history of use for more than African American former slaves that understand. Yeah, that.

[Barb McQuaid]

That he's going to use it. You know, I can't say how. What I think about that argument because Barb won't let me swear, but I just.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Go ahead.

[Joyce Vance]

That is correct.

[Barb McQuaid]

That is correct.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Close your ears.

[Joyce Vance]

Come on. We're better than.

[Barb McQuaid]

I just think that we need to, as Americans, really be clear about what's happening. So, you guys, my day was made the other day when someone who was young, I think she looked like she was a gen person, complimented me on the street on my outfit. So that. I mean, that what. What better way to feel cool than when a young person tells you they like the way you're dressing? Right? But then I look down and I realized I was head to toe in quints. Like, I was wearing a Quint's, like, summer weight sweater with some linen pants. And I even. Even my handbag was this really cute entrecciato woven leather bag that I love, and I literally bought it all from Quint. So it's the truth. You'll look cute and I was very comfortable. You know, vacation season is nearly a upon us and trips are always way more fun when you look and feel your best and also when it's easy when you don't have to think about it. The main reason I had that outfit on was because I was running errands and I just reached into my closet, bought some, put on something comfortable and went off and you know, it. It all worked out. So when the sisters plan our vacations this year, we're definitely treating ourselves to luxe and affordable upgrades from Quince's hotel. High quality travel essentials.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I have been stocking up on Quint sweaters. I love these things. I've got a bunch of crew neck sweaters and some mock turtleneck sweaters and I think they're fantastic. They've been great during the winter because I've been wearing it under my suit jackets, but now that it's getting more spring, like it's a perfect thing for that. In between weather, they have amazing offerings for warmer weather like light weight European linen styles from $30, washable silk tops and comfy lounge sets. Quint even has premium luggage options and stylish tote bags to carry it all. But that's not the best part. We love how all Quint's Items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands because of their partnerships with top factories. This allows them to cut out the cost of the middleman and pass the savings on to us. It is no joke. You can get cashmere sweaters for a very reasonable price price. We think it's amazing that Quince works only with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. And we know you will too.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Quince is amazing. I just got back from New York and I was loving my cashmere wrap. It was fantastic. It's so warm and comfy and I really needed it. But right now I. I think what everybody needs is Quince's washable stretch silk blouse. There's nothing better for looking your best as the weather heats up. And if you're prioritizing fitness going into the summer, there's no better workout motivation than some new activewear that looks great. There are so many styles that I love, but I think my favorite may be their luxurious tan stretch crepe ankle pants. The material feels amazing. It is so soft and comfy and the style is perfect for whatever you are doing that for you guys who are teaching, it can be great visiting with friends, whatever you're doing, heading off to new and exciting places. It's the perfect thing to make you look and feel great.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Oh, sorry guys. I [e-mail] sisters looking at everything, but now listen.

[Jill Wine Banks]

What did you buy? What'd you buy?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, you know, I have the cotton modal V neck T shirt in my cart right now because it looks like a great basic, but I'm also looking at the gauze pants and honest at everything else on the page because Quint is really fantastic. For your next trip, treat yourself to the lux upgrades you deserve from quint. Go to quint.com sisters for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, quints.com sisters. The link is in our show notes. We'll see you there.

[Jill Wine Banks]

There's so much out of whack in America since Trump was inaugurated for the second time that it's hard to identify which of his actions are the most threatening to our democracy. And it's hard to pick which ones to discuss each week. But I was gobsmacked at Trump's attacks on our university, especially Harvard this week. But I'm elated at Harvard's response. So let's talk about that. And Kim, you write for a Boston newspaper, the home of Harvard. So I want you to tell us about the letter that Trump sent to Harvard on April 11. What did Trump demand of Harvard and do you agree with me that it was an extortionate demand that Trump was saying, saying, bend your knee to King Trump and do what I'm telling you to do. I'm the president of Harvard, not just the U.S. what does the letter demand?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yes, absolutely, yes. This is an extortion. This reads like a ransom letter. The things that Donald Trump wants Harvard to do is basically cede over control to federal oversight for who they hire and why say that they are stripping any DEI from their curriculum and their hiring practices to give the administration say over the books that could be in their library and on their curriculum, who could speak and where and whose speech would be limited. I mean, it's really outrageous and disgusting. And I can't listen. I know I've been living on a soapbox for the past several weeks, but I have to speak very clearly because when an administration, this has nothing to do with wokeness, has nothing to do with the AI. When a government seeks to rule in an autocratic way, one of the first things that they do is attack institutions. And the reason he's attacking Harvard is a. They're an elite institution which he and his cohort of MAGA folks have been attacking. They don't like them, in part because they tell the truth, in part because they base their work on science and on philosophy and on the truth and on facts. And that goes against a lot of the stuff that we see coming out of the administration right now. Of course they're attacking that. They're also thinking that by bringing these institutions to heel, they will act as like a deputized arm of ICE to allow them to come in and threaten and attack students, which the Trump administration is also trying to get the names of all immigrants enrolled in these schools. I mean, it's really disgusting stuff. This is how autonomous hypocrisies are made. I posted on Blue Sky, a movie. I was trying to get all this stuff out of my head. And I was watching this Joan Crawford movie. Cause I loved old movies. And she was a professor at a school, and she was angered because one of their programs was being silenced. And she gave this monologue about how she had been in Europe before World War II, and what. The first thing that happens when autocracy rears its head is that they attack the schools, they attack the universities, and they target the students. And this is exactly what this is. This is not about wokeness. Do not be fooled. This is an effort to. This falls right in line to what happened in Europe in the 1930s.

[Joyce Vance]

Was it Milton Pierce? What was the movie?

[Barb McQuaid]

The movie. Oh, I knew you're gonna ask me that. And I've totally forgotten now because my brain is mush. But I was like by the end of this segment, so.

[Jill Wine Banks]

That was very well said, Kim. It is exactly what autocracy does. It goes after the intellectuals, the universities, the lawyers. And we've talked about what's happening with the lawyers because they can't deal with smart people. They want to cut it out. So, Barb, if agreeing to these demands, what would it mean for education? You're a professor. And what was Trump, Trump's threat? He threatened he was gonna take over $2 billion in federal funding from Harvard if they didn't comply with all of his demands. And so I wanna know what they did. Did they cave to save their money? As my alma mater, sadly, did Columbia. Shame on you.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, shame on them. My alma mater, too. I'm so furious.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah. So two of the four of us are saddened, but okay, so what was Harvard's response?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, it was really quite extraordinary. Because, you know, the threat was to take $2 billion in funding, which would really be harmful for them. But they sent a really strong letter. Interestingly, they hired a couple of lawyers associated with conservative causes, William Burke and Robert Hur, who you may remember, was appointed special counsel to investigate Joe Biden. And they wrote a really strong letter. It was very respectful. But it also seemed said that these demands would circumvent Harvard's statutory rights. It would violate their constitutional rights. And in the end, they refused to capitulate. They said that the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Harvard or nor any other university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Government. Accordingly, we will not accept the government's terms by any agreement. They said, we're open to dialogue, but no deal. And I think it was really important. The other thing that they emphasized is how harmful this loss of federal funding would be to its vital research in lots of areas that has saved lives and improves lives. And I've noted that since this letter went out, there have been all kinds of things posted on Harvard's website, The stuff they're pushing out on social media about the very important work that they do to save lives and improve lives. So I think they took a very strong stand here, and it's really great to see, because if any institution has the wherewithal to do it, it is Harvard. They've got this huge endowment of billions of dollars. They've got a really strong name brand. Brand. Yeah. And so they are the ones who can really lead and protect the rest of academia. So I'm really proud to see what they've done. And it's going to come at a cost. It's going to hurt them. But in many ways, maybe it hurts them. Maybe it helps them more than it hurts them. I saw someone post on social media the other day that said, I'm a Yale graduate and I just did something I thought I'd never do. I donated to Harvard.

[Barb McQuaid]

I'm just going to quickly say that the movie is Goodbye My Fancy. And Joan Crawford played a congresswoman. She was getting an honorary degree. So anybody wants to find that.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So, Joyce, the administration says that they're doing this to stop antisemitism, but is it in any way related to that reason? And will this help reduce antisemitism or is it going to end up increasing it?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Oh, Jill, you know, I have thoughts, but like Kim, I'm gonna try to not offend Barb's tender ears. Look, there's a Big movement among Jews right now. And. And the motto is not in our name. This sort of stuff claiming that it's a cure for antisemitism is really offensive. In fact, I don't think Donald Trump has so much as expressed outrage that a Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, that his home, you know, was. Was there. Was an attempted and a partially successful arson on the first night of Passover that burned the room where he and his family celebrated Passover with their guests just hours earlier. No outrage about that. So I'm going to call all of this faux outrage. I mean, the president just doesn't have bona fides on this issue. He's the guy who called Tiki torch Nazis at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville all those years ago. You know, good people on both sides, good Nazis. And then more recently, he had this little ramble in the Oval Office when Bibi Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister, was visiting. Um, and he talked about how Nazis showed Jews love during World War II. He said he was talking to some of the Israeli hostages released from Gaza. And I'm going to quote from the readout of the meeting here. This is Trump talking here. I said to them, was there any sign of love? That's Trump recounting his conversation with hostages who'd been released from Gaza. He says to them, did Hamas show any signs of, like, help or liking you? Did they wink? Did they give you a piece of bread extra? Did they give you a meal on the side? Like, you know, what happened in Germany? Trump continued, people would try and help people that were in unbelievable distress. He incredibly suggested that the Nazis were known for their generosity towards Jews. So, look, these are people who aren't capable of understanding anti Semitic. They don't have empathy for it. And what they are doing here is they are using it, and they are using Jews in an effort to add to their own power to divide the country. They're using anti Semitism as an excuse to serve their own purposes. They're not trying to do any good here. And none of us should be misled by any of this.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Amen. And I will add to that. Remember, he just pardoned people who were wearing Holocaust lost supporting t shirts on January 6th.

[Barb McQuaid]

Camp Auschwitz.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Camp Auschwitz.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Okay, so we know the hypocrisy of all of this. It's horrible.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I mean, can you just imagine if he had said, well, I'm doing all of this stuff because I'm upset about people who are anti Catholic or anti Protestant. Right? I mean, singling out the Jews Here has a real discordant feel.

[Jill Wine Banks]

My prediction is this will turn around and hurt Jews in America far more than it could ever help. But there's another little detail of the letter that Trump sent in the address lines. It was addressed to the Harvard president and to my fellow Chicagoan, former Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. She is the most senior member of the board of Governors Governors. But the letter reads, Dear Dr. Garber. It does not actually say and dear Secretary Pritzker. So I'm wondering, Kim, I see this as something sinister. Am I overreacting? Is this a Republican?

[Barb McQuaid]

I think you might be, Jill, like I think you might be. I know that Trump has a history with the Pritzkers and it goes back to real estate deals decades ago. And also he does not like jb. You know, JB is coming out and probably more than any other Democrat in the country right now. I say, Governor Pritzker, I'm acting like I know him or something. I don't.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

But I was impressed.

[Barb McQuaid]

Look at the way this administration has been doing stuff. They are filing briefs with typos in it. They are getting like basic stuff wrong. So my. And he didn't write this letter. I mean, Trump does not write letters. So highly doubt that this was actual shade. I honestly don't. I don't think with the flurry stuff they're doing, they are savvy and smooth enough to deliver like subtle shade like that. I read nothing into it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, I was offended by it. And I'll put in the show notes an article that makes this point and talks about the history between Trump and his revenge for the Pritzkers. But Barb, let's move to. As Edmund Burke said said the only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. So did any other schools speak out in support of Harvard? Is bravery contagious?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, Jill, I couldn't agree more. Bravery is contagious. And I think, you know, we're starting now to see people talking about we gotta band together. I think that hands off rally was part of it. You know, it goes back to the prisoner's dilemma, right? Divide and conquer. If we are all in it together, then that is where we get power, collective action. So we've seen Columbia saying that it would reject any agreement that would require them to relinquish their independence and autonomy as an educational institution. Stanford has said that the strength of the nation's universities have been built on government investment, but not government control. We've seen students at Northwestern and the University of Illinois Chicago. So I think we are starting to see this groundswell of support and maybe it's hard, Harvard's strength that is causing people to find their courage. Because as you say, courage is contagious. And so I think that this could be the start of some really powerful. I don't even like to use the word resistance, the assertion of power. We the people have the power.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Barb. And Joyce, there's something more happening because it looks like even though the response ended on a conciliatory note, saying Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done and is planning to do to improve, prove the experience of every member of its community, but Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration. Well, it looks like that didn't work and that things have ratcheted up. What are the new threats?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah, I mean, you know, the big threat here is that they'll strip Harvard of its tax exempt status, which will eat into even Harvard's financial backbone. Right. That's pretty much an open declaration of warfare. But as we're taping the podcast Friday afternoon, the Trump administration is adding pressure on Harvard. And here we're talking about foreign students. You know, there have been threats nationwide to withdraw foreign students visa. That's a process that's underway. Now. The administration is demanding that Harvard give it records on all foreign students. And it's also accusing the university of refusing to report foreign donations, which it's required to do by law. Harvard says that those accusations are untrue. But clearly this is an effort by the White House to get Harvard to drop DEI initiatives. And you know, the, the point I think that we should all make about that is that DEI has been turned into a dirty word, really. DEI is about ensuring diversity, leveling the playing field, because it's of historic inequities like slavery, like economic inability to go to college. That's what this White House is trying to strip away. Not some three letter acronym. They're trying to take us back.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, and they're also threatening to revoke, not just, they are actually revoking student visas. I don't know if it's happened at either of your universities, but it has happened here. But they're also threatening to say you won't be allowed to enroll foreign students. And at least for my undergraduate school, University of Illinois, that was a significant revenue stream because they pay out of state rates, the foreign students. So can they do all this legally? And what does it mean Economically, for the school and for the community. Because if there are fewer students, students, you know, the community, economics, what does it mean academically? What does it mean to democracy, to medical research and academic freedom? Anybody want to address those horrible results?

[Joyce Vance]

Well, I'll just chime in on academic freedom. I mean, all of these things are concerns. But when it comes to academic freedom, that is what is so important. You know, our institutions, our universities are like the crown jewels of the United States with the research that we do in terms of science, with the liberal arts, with the humanities, all of those things. Imagine if we had government control of that. We've seen that in Mao's China, we've seen that in Hitler's Germany. And it is just indoctrination of people into the state agenda instead of having open quests for knowledge. And so I think it's complete anathema to the United States. And I'm pleased to see that universities are waking up and pushing back.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

You know, one issue here is ultimately the legality or not of these sorts of actions by the federal government are going to be tested in the courts. And that means we're not talking about decisions tomorrow, right? I mean, we all look at this stuff and I think our instinct is to say the White House can't do this. But the reality is they can at least put universities into limbo. And perhaps some universities will comply just because that's the path of least resistance. And they fear for their economic stability. They fear other action that might be taken against them. And so the reality is, for at least the next couple of years, while the courts straighten it out, we are really living in limbo. Spoiler alert. The ingredients in your dishwasher pods are full of chemicals and microplastics that can stay on your dishes even after they're washed. This residue ends up inside of you and has been proven to cause inflammation and gut damage. Luckily, there's a way to do something about it. Blueland's dishwasher detergent tablets are 100% plastic free and made with certified clean ingredients that are safe for the whole family.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And although we've been talking about it, so you probably have all already heard this, but Blueland is on a mission to eliminate single use plastics by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and the planet, all with the same powerful clean you're used to, the idea is simple. They offer refillable cleaning products with beautiful cohesive designs that look great on your counter and they aren't pre packed in plaque.

[Barb McQuaid]

Whether it's cleaning sprays hand soap, toilet pole cleaner or laundry tablets. All Blueland products are made with clean ingredients that you will feel great about. Fill your reusable bottles with water, drop in the tablets and let them dissolve and watch it. It's entertainment too. You'll never have to grab bulky cleaning supplies on your grocery run. Plus, Blueland products are effective and affordable with refill tablets start starting at just $2.25. You can get even more savings by buying refills in bulk or setting up a subscription.

[Joyce Vance]

Blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals. That's why Blueland is trusted by more than 1 million homes, including ours. The fragrances add such a pleasant vibe to your home, and I can't begin to tell you how many times the subscription has saved me me from running out of cleaning products. When you need them, you need them right away. It feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. And we know you'll love it too. So celebrate Earth Month and make the switch today. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. You won't want to miss this. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off off. That's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. The link is in our show Notes.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, that was a lot, y'all. Lots going on. Lots of great questions from our listeners this week, and this is always our favorite part of the podcast because we get to address very directly the questions that you all have asked us. We have some real doozies this week. If you've got a question for us, please email us at sistersinlawolitikon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw because if we can't get to your questions during the show, we'll try to answer as many as we can during the week on social media. But this week I know we've got some great ones that we've picked out, so let's get straight to it. Jill, I've got a question for you from Claudia in Robertsdale, Alabama. True fact on my drive down to the beach. So hey Claudia, appreciate the question she asks you. My kid starts at Columbia on a scholarship in the fall and will major in history and plans to go on to law school. He's already debating which kind of law he wants to focus on, Constitutional, international contract, or civil rights? Any advice for deciding?

[Jill Wine Banks]

So I I love that we're getting a question that could give us a chance to Take a breather from the heavy duty news and that it involves Alibaba, Alabama and Columbia so that it's you and me in this one. And I guess the first thing that I want to say is Columbia is a little iffy these days, so you may want to think about that. But with a full scholarship, probably you don't. I loved my time at Columbia and I loved everything about the education I got that was free and there was no restrictions on what I could be taught in terms of picking a subject for law school. First of all, when I was an undergrad, I didn't even know that I wanted to go to law school. And even when I started law school and even after my first year, I didn't know what I wanted to be. And my advice would be, don't make a decision now. Wait until you've had some exposure to the courses. Maybe you'll love constitutional law law. Maybe you'll love moot court. Maybe you'll love contract law. Wait and see what you think about what you're doing. I just think it's too early to decide anything. History majors, great background for law school and for any other thing you might do in your life. It's good to know history. As long as books aren't banned that teach true, factually based history history.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, from these sorts of great personal questions that we all always love to answer, we're just going to go straight back into the boiling pot. Kim, here's a question for you from Mark. And he asks very direct and to the point. Thank you, Mark. Is there a point where it makes sense for the state's attorneys general to press charges against members of the administration?

[Barb McQuaid]

Hmm, that's really interesting. So I did a touch of research into this, and there are some because I just don't. I. I didn't have any experience with state attorney generals bringing criminal charges, pressing criminal charges. But there are actually some states where they do have that power. But generally speaking, even in those states, there's a bright line that is drawn between the state attorney general's office and local prosecutors and federal prosecutors. For the most part. Attorneys general, known as the people's attorneys, generally are in the interest work, in the interest of protecting the citizens of the state that they're in through measures that, including against the federal government, through measures that we've seen, like lawsuits that are trying to either stop the federal government from doing something that's harmful to its residents or compel the federal government to do something that their refusal to do harms residents. And that is Extremely important work. It's one of the reasons why we have some of the big and important victories at the Supreme Court that we have is because of that work. So I want them to keep focusing on that. And I think determining who breaks a law and whether to bring charges should be best left to the experts. And those are the ones in the prosecutor's or the local prosecutor's office. And I think it is a good idea that they don't step on their toes.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, and Barb, sort of rounding out our troika of questions for today, another serious one that certainly within yours and my province as former federal prosecutors, this is a familiar one. It comes comes from JJacdluesky Social. And this person asks, is it legal that law enforcement can ask for or confiscate your cell phone and require you to give them your passcode? Do they need a warrant or probable cause? What's your answer?

[Joyce Vance]

This is such a great question because there have been some reports that people entering the country at the border have been asked to surrender their cell phone and to enter their passcode. But that is a critical difference. So, as Joyce, I'm sure you know, but maybe others don't. There's something known as the border search doctrine, which is warrants are not required at the border because we are a sovereign nation. When you come across the border, the government has the right to look in all your stuff. They can open your suitcases, and they can even look in your phones. Now, since about 2018, Customs and Border Protection has adopted a policy where they may ask you for your phone, they may ask you to open it with a passcode, and they may do what is called a basic search, that is, scroll through your phone, look at your contacts, look at your photos. And they're looking for things like contraband, child pornography, connections to computer, too.

[Barb McQuaid]

This also can be done for sure.

[Joyce Vance]

Laptop, tablet, any digital device, if they want to do more than that, do what's called a forensic search or an advanced search, where they actually, you know, put it up on a computer and exploit it and all that. They need reasonable suspicion. But again, that's just by policy. Lower courts have issued some different opinions on these things, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on what they may do when it comes to your digital device, because, after all, that's a lot more invasive than just looking at what's in your suitcase. But the rule at the moment is they can ask you for your phone, they can flip through it, they can look at your contacts, they can even ask you for your passcode and if you refuse use they may seize it and follow up with a warrant with it and think it's about five days now on the street. If they just stop you on the street, not at the border but somewhere within the United States that's very different. They cannot ask for your cell phone there that they can do what's called a Terry stop or a stop and frisk if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. But the pat down there is just for officer safety looking for a way weapon. They cannot take your cell phone. One tactic that sometimes law enforcement uses is asking for consent and they might even ask for it in a somewhat heavy handed way and say you wouldn't mind showing me your phone now would you? And if you turn it over that is deemed consent which is an exception for warrant requirements. But you don't have to give your consent if you're not at the border you can say no thank you. I prefer to keep my phone and be on on my way.

[Barb McQuaid]

Can I just do a pro tip too for people? Again this would not apply to the border because the rules are different. But anyone who is concerned about this, concerned about police getting into their phones without a warrant. I would highly recommend you use a digital passcode and not facial or thumbprint opening for your phone because cops have been known just to get your phone to stick it in front of your face and get in it. So if that's something you're concerned about about, that's what I would recommend.

[Joyce Vance]

Can I go even deeper on that? Yeah, that is a very good distinction. And you have a fifth amendment right against self incrimination if it's a passcode because that is the contents of your mind. You do not have a fifth amendment right to refuse to testify if it is just a facial recognition or a thumbprint because of their physical characteristics. So super interesting distinction.

[Jill Wine Banks]

It was advice given to people participating in the hands off march was to disable facial recognition on your phone just in case things got which they didn't. It was a great energy, there was no problem. But that was the warning was you cannot be forced to give your passcode and so make sure you only have a passcode.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well that's a sort of a dry and sad note to end on but wishing all of our listeners if you celebrate a happy end of Passover or of a joyous Easter. Thanks for listening to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins Storr, Jill wine banks, Barb McQuaid and me, Joyce Vance. Follow sistersinlaw wherever you listen and please Give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show and it makes us feel good about ourselves. Please show some love to this week's sponsors, Calm Fast Growing Trees, Quince and Blueland. The links are in the show. Show notes. Please support our sponsors because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know what I love doing in my free time these days? It's because I can't get enough of y'all. I love Jill's podcast, Just the Facts. It's really just a lot of fun. It's different than Sisters In Law, but I think Sisters In Law listeners would like it too. But I just enjoy, you know, Jill's a delight. So why wouldn't you want. Want to listen to Jill?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Oh, gosh, I'm so embarrassed, Kimberly. That's, you know, this is the shy me going, oh, I'm blushing. Which is true. I am. I don't know if you can all see that, but I gotta say, the same is true for you. You have this wonderful new show where you are bringing up really important issues and covering them in a way that is, you know, different kind of issues than we talk about on Sisters in Law. And everyone should do that. I mean, it's like, wow, and I can't get enough of you, so everybody else should do the same thing.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, I appreciate you, Jill, shouting out justice by Design on socials, especially this week when I talked about, you know, the need for legal representation and not everybody can afford it. So Legal Aid stepping in and doing innovative stuff to get that to them.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, you know, I'm all about just the facts, so I enjoy Just the Facts with Joe Wine Banks and. And I always learn something on justice by Design with Kimberly Atkins Store. Both must listens.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

So, y'all, it's really nice that you're branching out because it means that on my drive back and forth to the university, I get to listen to you, and I feel like you're in the car with me instead of driving on my own. And isn't that the wonderful thing about podcasts? I mean, it's just a great way for us to connect, and I'm so glad that y'all are doing them.