237: Law & Order

Summary

#SistersInLaw Episode 237: Law & Order

Release Date: May 24, 2025

In Episode 237 of Politicon's #SistersInLaw, hosts Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, and Barb McQuaid delve deep into pressing legal and political issues shaping the United States. The episode, titled "Law & Order," meticulously examines the recent shifts in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) approach to police oversight, the controversial charges brought against a sitting congresswoman, and the Supreme Court's latest decision affecting longstanding legal precedents.

---

1. DOJ's Retreat from Police Oversight

Barb McQuaid initiates the discussion by highlighting a significant shift in the DOJ's stance on police oversight under the Trump administration. Traditionally, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has played a pivotal role in monitoring and enforcing standards within local police departments, especially in cities with histories of systemic abuses like Los Angeles and Ferguson.

Key Points:

• End of Oversight Programs: The DOJ has announced the dismissal of investigations and proposed consent decrees in cities such as Louisville and Minneapolis—communities shaken by the killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, respectively.

  "That's something utterly crazy, because it's always been rare." ([Barb McQuaid, 09:06])

• Impact on Existing Consent Decrees: Over 30 active consent decrees involving major cities' law enforcement and jail systems will no longer be enforced, undermining federal efforts to ensure constitutional policing.

  "Consent decrees are the road back... it [DOJ's move] affects more than half a dozen others." ([Barb McQuaid, 09:06])

• Consequences for Community Trust: The hosts express concerns that eliminating federal oversight will erode trust between law enforcement and communities, potentially leading to increased police misconduct.

  "This brings with it resources to help you address some of these problems... It's really a shining example of constitutional policing." ([Jill Wine-Banks, 15:49])

2. Charges Against Representative Lamonica McIver

The conversation shifts to the DOJ's decision to charge Representative Lamonica McIver, a Democrat from New Jersey, with assaulting and interfering with an immigration officer during a congressional oversight visit to a detention facility.

Incident Overview:

• Context of the Arrest: Rep. McIver was present with colleagues and Newark’s Mayor Ros Baraka during a routine inspection. A chaotic altercation ensued, leading to Mayor Baraka’s arrest and subsequent dismissal of charges, while McIver faces misdemeanor trespass charges.

  "She's trying to protect him from arrest... she may make some incidental contact with other ICE agents." ([Barb McQuaid, 30:07])

• Legal Analysis:

  • Assault Statute Complexity: McQuiver is charged under 18 U.S. Code § 111, which encompasses a range of assault-related offenses. However, the hosts argue that the evidence may not sufficiently demonstrate voluntary intent to assault.

    "As a practical matter, in my office, I can think of only a couple of times that we charged misdemeanors." ([Barb McQuaid, 34:05])

  • Prosecutorial Discretion: Jill Wine-Banks contends that prosecuting McIver may be more about political signaling than genuine law enforcement, especially given her strong legal representation by former U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman.

    "I can't imagine wanting to charge this case and taking it to trial." ([Jill Wine-Banks, 36:18])

• Judicial Criticism: A magistrate judge has criticized the U.S. Attorney’s Office for inconsistently pursuing charges, especially after dropping charges against Mayor Baraka while moving forward with McIver’s case.

  "They should have never arrested him... the judge was right to chastise her." ([Joyce Vance, 38:07])

3. Supreme Court’s Decision on Humphrey's Executor

The episode further explores the Supreme Court's recent ruling that significantly affects the precedent set by the 1935 Humphrey's Executor case, which had long protected the independence of federal agencies from presidential interference.

Key Points:

• Case Background: In "Donald Trump, President of the United States, versus Gwen Wilcox and Kathy Harris," the Supreme Court allowed the President to fire members of independent agencies without cause, effectively nullifying over a century-old precedent.

  "SCOTUS stayed the reinstatement, meaning both are effectively fired right now." ([Joyce Vance, 58:12])

• Implications of Overturning Humphrey's Executor:

  • Unitary Executive Theory: The decision aligns with the unitary executive theory, granting the President broader authority over executive branch agencies, potentially undermining bipartisan leadership and expertise-based operations.

    "The government argued in this case that the President can fire members of independent federal agencies." ([Barb McQuaid, 51:41])

  • Potential for Political Abuse: The hosts express concern that this ruling opens the door for future administrations to exert undue influence over independent agencies, jeopardizing their impartiality and effectiveness.

    "This is the Supreme Court, or at least its conservative majority entering the political fray." ([Barb McQuaid, 54:29])

• Dissenting Opinions: Three liberal justices dissented, emphasizing the lack of consideration for Humphrey's Executor and warning of broader implications for agency independence, including hypothetical scenarios like the potential removal of Federal Reserve officials.

  "They didn't offer any sort of rigorous legal distinction... it's not really at a precedential stage." ([Barb McQuaid, 51:41])

Conclusion and Forward Look

The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the current trajectory of U.S. legal and political landscapes. The hosts underscore the erosion of checks and balances, the increasing politicization of legal institutions, and the potential long-term consequences for civil rights and governmental accountability.

"This is the best example of weaponization of the Justice Department that I have ever seen. It is despicable." ([Joyce Vance, 44:23])

"If we don't stand up to each and every one of these attempts to silence opposition, then we are in trouble as a country." ([Joyce Vance, 43:14])

#SistersInLaw Episode 237 serves as a crucial analysis of contemporary challenges within the U.S. legal system, offering listeners insightful perspectives on the intersection of law, politics, and civil rights.

Transcript

[Jill Wine Banks]

Foreign.

[Barb McQuaid]

Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Jill wine banks, Barb McQuaid, and me, Joyce Vance. Kim is out this week, but she'll be back soon. So before we get started, if you have not visited our merch shop lately, you will want to take a look at the new Sisters in Law resistance mini tote, which you can pre order right now. If you're a knitter like me, you're going to want this as your newest project bag. But there are a thousand other uses for these things. They're fantastic. So head over after you listen to the podcast and take a look. You can find [e-mail] merch and get yours now. This week, there's so much to discuss. We've got the end of police oversight from DOJ, the charges the U.S. attorney in New Jersey has brought against a sitting congresswoman, and a and also what you need to know about a legal precedent called Humphrey's executor and what the Supreme Court did to it earlier this week. So I've been out for the last two weeks, and I've missed my sisters and all of y' all more than I can say. But I was gone for a good reason. I was gone for the college graduation of two of my kids. Actually, a college graduation and a master's graduation. Opposite ends of the country. Utter insanity. And it's such a difficult time for the students coming out right now. In many ways, I felt at a loss to give them good advice, and they really wanted it. Not just my own kids, but their friends and my law students. I mean, this is a moment where people need and deserve our collective wisdom. And so, sisters, I'm wondering what advice you might have to give to your graduation self or maybe even to today's kids. If you could go back in time, knowing what you know right now, what would you tell yourself? Barb, you're always so good with advice. What would you do?

[Jill Wine Banks]

I'll tell you what to do, Joyce.

[Barb McQuaid]

Here's what you ought to do. Always good.

[Jill Wine Banks]

It's a very polite way of saying busy body. Get out of my business. No, no. You know what? I would tell my younger self, and it was certainly not advice that I was aware of at the time. But don't be in such a hurry to get on with your life. It's a long life, God willing, and there's a lot of time to do a lot of different stuff. I think when I was younger, I was in a big hurry to get my first job and to get earning money and to be moving on in the world. I felt like it was time to get moving. And I think that you say youth is wasted on the young. I wish I had spent more time traveling and exploring and trying lots of different kinds of jobs, you know, than feeling the pressure of, you know, having a real job, a career job. Because I think that even if a job isn't going to last forever, you still learn a lot of things from it. You can learn a lot of things as, you know, waiting tables, anything that deals with the public and the retail world. Woo. Do you learn a lot of lessons?

[Barb McQuaid]

Everybody should have that experience of waitressing for a while, right?

[Jill Wine Banks]

You know, being a laborer, you know, just things where, you know, people are not always so nice to you and you have to learn to take it, but also, you know, traveling and meeting different. So I would just say don't be in such a hurry to figure out exactly what your life is gonna look like.

[Barb McQuaid]

That's great advice, Jill. What do you have?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I gave a commencement speech recently, and I struggled with what do you say? And not bore the audience and have them wishing you would sit down fast. And I actually don't know that I have any great advice. I have been very happy with how I've lived my life. And so when I look back and think what I do differently, what do I wish I had known? I don't know. I think it's like taking it sort of. What Barb was saying is, don't be in a rush. Take one thing at a time, and when you're not happy with it, move on to something else. Don't be afraid to take calculated risks. Learn the value of friendships. I can't tell you how much friends have meant to me in my life. And find a mentor. That's something. Maybe that's the one thing. I had no idea you needed a mentor or what the value of a mentor was. And now I do, and I think that's an important element. But I think trying different things, and I agree with Barb, to me, travel is the most enriching thing you can possibly do. If I have one regret in my whole life, it's that I didn't do a junior year abroad. But it wasn't sort of something that people at the University of Illinois did back then, Although my roommate, my first year of law school had done that. But she was a rare person who did it. And I made up for it when I got a fellowship from the European community and got to do some significant travel and interview people abroad, which was fantastic. So I kind of made up for it. But that's a great thing, is to be able to live somewhere else. And the same is true for our foreign students who visit us, who I hope will continue to be able to come to America and feel welcome here.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, that is all such good advice. I agree with y' all so much, Jill. I went junior year abroad in Germany, and in addition to my ability to swear fluently in three languages because my roommate was Turkish and I adored her, and I'm grateful for that skill set. I just learned a lot about people and a lot about American presumptions about the rest of the world. And, you know, from my youngest child, who really does feel that pressure to go straight to school, I really do wish he would take a year and travel. I just think that's a gift you give to yourself. You can't work for six years and then just say, oh, I think I'm gonna take a year off and travel. It doesn't work that way. So good advice all around.

[Joyce Vance]

I actually wish I could be my grand goddaughter who has done the most amazing time offs and spent time on a farm in Hawaii, twice on a kibbutz in Israel, in Greece with her aunt in France, with a foreign student who had lived with her family when he was a foreign student in Milwaukee and has just had the most brilliant, wonderful experiences living abroad.

[Barb McQuaid]

There's just nothing like it. Great sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. I first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show, but we are very selective on Sisters in Law. I wanted to try one out, so I took their quiz to tailor my mattress to my sleeping style, and I got matched with the Helix Midnight Mattress. I aced the quiz. I've been getting the best sleep of my life ever since it arrived. After trying it, I got Helix for my whole family. We all love them.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So look.

[Barb McQuaid]

Helix has a lot of different options. They combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils, and that gives you the perfect blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm when a heat wave hits. It's a frequent occurrence with climate change, so I'm definitely glad Helix has this.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Feature one of these days. Joyce, I'm going to take that quiz, too, but I haven't had time to study just yet. Helix has been part of our Sisters in Law sleep habits for almost two years. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then, we've heard so many stories of people seeing transformational improvements in the quality of their sleep on their wearable devices thanks to their Helix mattresses. Add that to the quick and simple setup and no fuss trial policy and upgrading to a Helix is an easy choice.

[Joyce Vance]

And right now Helix has an incredible Memorial Day sale. It runs through June 1st. For our listeners, go to helixsleep.com sisters for 27% off site wide plus a free bedding bundle of a sheet set and mattress protector with any luxe or elite mattress order. Exclusive only for listeners of Sisters in law. That's helixsleep.com sisters for 27% off site wide plus a free bedding bundle of a sheet set and mattress protector with any luxe or elite mattress order. One last time helixsleep.com sisters and the link is also in our.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, nothing like starting off straight ahead on a serious note, but the Justice Department has taken a path on its traditional role in police oversight. This is something new with the Trump administration. You know, we have talked so many times about the kinds of work the Justice Department Civil Rights Division does, and one of the most important examples is its oversight of local police departments with histories of systemic abuses in DOJ speak on I would call that pattern and practice. And we've seen these cases in places like Los Angeles, California, following Rodney King, or in Ferguson, Missouri. But that era of DOJ oversight seems to have come to an end because DOJ has announced it is dismissing investigations and proposed consent decrees in Louisville, Kentucky and Minneapolis. Those are the cities where the police killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd spurred shock, outrage and demands for accountability and reform. Trump's brand new assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division is Harmeet Dhillon. She's barely had time to find her way around the building, but apparently she was completely comfortable making this sea change from prior practice, she told reporters. It's our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception and not the norm. Of course, that's crazy, because it's always been rare. Just as a matter of scarce federal resources, the division could never afford to do all of the cases, even the most urgent ones that presented themselves because of limits on personnel and money. By the way, this new move that she's making, it affects, in addition to the two cities that I mentioned, more than half a dozen others that were under signed or proposed consent decrees and and DOJ will no longer be enforcing them. There are nearly 30 active consent decrees involving law enforcement and jail systems in cities like Chicago, New Orleans, Seattle and Los Angeles, they've all had jail systems or police departments operating under this kind of federal oversight because of patterns of unlawful conduct. So before we get started with the topic, I'll just speak from my personal experience and say when police departments break trust with the communities that they're supposed to protect, the entirety of law enforcement in a community breaks down and it has to be fixed. If you just let it continue along, the results are bad for people and bad for police. And in the worst situations, consent decrees with the Justice Department are the road back. A consent decree is a legally binding performance improvement plan. It's a court enforced settlement agreed to by all of the parties and approved by a court. But now DOJ says it won't be enforcing them anymore. So Jill, the new administration can set new policies, different ones from their predecessors. But there's more going on here, right? I mean, we're talking about violating citizens constitutional rights. So why do you think DOJ is making this move? What's going on?

[Joyce Vance]

It's just more about their accretion of power and of totally taking over with their view of the world. Everything they're doing is part of this. In this case, you know, you're right. The priorities of an administration are something that we elect people to do. And so they can alter the priorities. They can't just wholesale eliminate departments. And that's what they're doing in not just the Department of Justice, but of course the Department of Education, usaid, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And so we've gone way beyond what is normal, which would be modifying and changing, but not totally eliminating. And you know, when you say consent decrees should be rare and they are, it doesn't mean they should be non existent. And so the two that they're eliminating weren't agreed to by a court yet. They were close to that stage. The others that are in danger that they're probably going to do nothing with will have to be enforced by the local people by just continuing to agree to the terms. Because the reason that there were consent decrees is that the civil rights of citizens of that locale were in danger because of the police conduct. And as you said, that ends the trust in the departments of law enforcement and can't be continued. So this is much, much more. And why is it happening? It's happening because this administration doesn't believe in the rule of law or civil rights.

[Barb McQuaid]

To me, there's a huge racial overtone here too. Like I always think about Ferguson, Missouri, right. In 2014, an 18 year old black man, Michael Brown gets killed by the police. And in the subsequent investigation it comes to not only was he not threatening them, he had his hands up. I mean, just no possible rationale for killing this young man. But there were disparities. Ferguson was black, the police department was white. They had a long history of treating people poorly. By poorly, I mean unlawfully and violently. And DOJ did this really serious investigation in Ferguson and Barbs and my former colleague Vanita Gupta, as head of the civil rights division, was in involved in producing this massive report that became the roadmap for curing the problems in Ferguson. And you know something that I worry that goes unnoticed here is yes, there are consent decrees in some cases, not all cases, but there are these investigations. There are reports. Oftentimes police departments want to fix their own problems because they don't want to get sued. Right. And so these DOJ reports give them some safe harbor and some guidance or maybe the city council demands that they fix the problems. There is a lot of good work going on here, and now it all sort of disappears. So, I mean, Barb, you've been involved in this stuff too. What do you think the fallout is gonna be? There are cities like Minneapolis that have said they'll continue to abide by the terms of their decree. Memphis has said no, we're good. Sort of the way that Memphis has always approached law enforcement. What does this mean for citizens in those communities?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, I think this is a terrible step back in terms of police and community trust, as you said. You know, these pattern and practice cases have been around since legislation was passed following the Rodney King riots and police beating in Los Angeles in, whatever was it, 1992 or thereabouts. And we had one in Detroit that resulted in an improved police department. The police department agreed to a consent. You know, that's the consent in the word consent decree is they agreed that they had a problem. They agreed that they had use of excessive force cases, they had confinement conditions that were deplorable where people were dying in their cells and they were even engaging in rounding up witnesses to crimes. They called them material witnesses without any probable cause to believe they committed a crime. You know, they would arrest the wife or the girlfriend and keep her locked up until she told them where her loved one was when they were looking for somebod. So it was through a lot of hard work, through bringing in expertise to help them to implement new policies, to bring in new training and new leadership that changed the culture of the department. That's now a no Department is perfect. It still has problems, but it is really a shining example of constitutional policing. And I think that could happen in lots of cities. Because when you get a consent decree, it brings with it resources to help you address some of these problems. It brings with it expertise to help you address these problems in a way that a police chief just doesn't, can't do on his own. So I do worry about what's gonna happen in Memphis. It'll be back to business as usual. And if the police know that there will be no federal investigations, there will be no pattern of practice cases, there will be no consent decrees or complaints filed against them, then I worry, you know, we've had police misconduct. Even with that sort of oversight, what's it gonna look like now that they know nobody's paying attention and nobody's going to be watching? So I worry about what we're gonna see in regards to police conduct misconduct in the coming years. And then to Jill's point, also about like, why would they wanna do this? Why would they even want to ignore federal legislation after it was passed by Congress? It is the will of Congress to try to uphold police departments to these high standards. And I think it really comes down to a lack of regard for what the law really is and truly implementing public safety and protecting civil rights. And it's all about creating this narrative of us versus them. We're the pro police people, Democrats are the anti police people. We do everything we can to help police officers do their jobs. And that to me is a really false narrative about what these cases are about, because they really are about helping law enforcement do a better job. Because when they have the trust of the police, of the communities they serve, people are more likely to call when they are victims of crime or witnesses to crime and to obey the law and to help the police. So I think it's a really short sighted, political opportunistic strategy.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I mean, it feels like the narrative of tough on crime, not the narrative of smart on crime, which is, you know, data based, community engaged policing. So I mean, I think you've asked the right question though, Barb. How do we protect? I mean, there are some public information request campaigns being carried out by citizens, local organizations, the aclu. Can this sort of civil society taking over for government work, how do you think that'll play out?

[Jill Wine Banks]

No, I don't think so. I mean, I think government is what has the teeth. It's why that statute was passed in the first place. Now states have some ability to investigate their police departments if they engage in criminal misconduct. Certainly police officers can be charged with crimes by state prosecutors. But as we know, it's very difficult to hold police officers criminally accountable. And you know, in my view, there's a reason for that. It's because we want to empower police officers to make the split second decisions they need to make on the job. And so as a result, the legal standard for charging a police officer with a crime is really quite high. But these pattern apprentice cases really are the way to go after systemic problems in police departments where they just had, you know, bad policies, bad trainings, bad management. And the officers themselves are kind of stuck in a situation where they don't have the resources they need to succeed. And so I think that enforcing the pattern of practice statute is actually a way to improve policing that helps police officers. And I think without this statute, we're going to be in for a rough ride for the next few years.

[Joyce Vance]

It's like so many things, and I think you made this point, Barb, is that the law provides the resources that cities need to improve the police department and the expertise from a nationwide knowledge base. And that's what will be missing. And you know, the ACLU's efforts are phenomenal. And all of the Freedom of Information act cases are helpful, but it can't be a full substitute for pattern and practice lawsuits. There's just no getting around that. That is not going to be adequate. It's something, it's better than nothing, but it's not good enough.

[Barb McQuaid]

I agree 100%, because I think the reason that departments, and certainly jails, which are some of the most intractable problems, the reason that they were ever willing in the first place to engage in some sort of voluntary restoration of their processes was because of this huge stick that the federal government was holding. You know, no municipality wants to get sued by DOJ and forced into a consent decree situation. It just makes them look bad. You want to be the good guy who does it on your own. Well, now there's no risk that the Justice Department will require you to engage in constitutional policing. And I am deeply concerned about what this is going to mean and what we're going to be seeing. You know, the Supreme Court, Barb, to your point about standards, just decided a case that will make the standard for bringing a civil action for police abuse a little bit fairer. Do you have any thoughts about that? Will that play a role here?

[Jill Wine Banks]

You know, it might. I mean, anytime you change one part of the equation, it can have ripple effects. You know, it's why when you, if your doctor wants to change your medication, they always say change one thing at once. Because if we change two things, we won't know what the cause is and what the effect is. So this is going to be kind of some simultaneous changes and I think it will be difficult to see what the effect is. But I think anytime you, you change the law, it does create opportunities. It certainly will create test cases. I'm sure we'll see some lawsuits to try to test what the parameters of the new law is. But of course, it depends on how courts decide to implement the law and interpret it. So I think it remains to be seen how things will play out in the future.

[Joyce Vance]

Let me just add, I really think the Supreme Court decision is important on its own, but it's particularly important when the Department of Justice is abandoning its traditional role. The case really does change the standard to make it clear that a police officer is not exempt from lawsuits and liability if he makes a last second decision that he is in danger and fires his gun and kills someone. This says you have to look at the totality of circumstances. Did the police officer provoke the danger to himself, as in this case he did by jumping onto a car and pointing a gun into it where he couldn't even see into the car because his head was over the top of the car. So I think this adds some protection that we're missing from the Department of Justice. And so I think it's a really good decision and will help for the time being. I mean, it'll help permanently, but it's. But particularly in the absence of Department of Justice enforcement.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, let me be the Debbie Downer in the room and just say, I'm sorry. It's like I'm assuming the role of the grouch, I guess.

[Jill Wine Banks]

But sad trombone, remember there was the SNL Debbie Downer with. Go ahead.

[Barb McQuaid]

That's exactly what I'm going to do. Because the facts in this case. This is crazy. The officer wanted, you know, he thought that what the evidence that should be admissible was just this very limited couple of seconds, the last couple of seconds where he makes the decision to fire his gun. Not everything that happens beforehand and the Supreme Court sort of says nobody. It's mostly all coming in. I mean, not two hours worth of stuff. But, you know, you gotta let the jury or whoever's gonna decide the case, a judge, see the entire trajectory leading up to the moment when you pull the trigger. That seems so obvious to me that it's shocking that we had to go to the Supreme Court. To get that ruling. And I gotta say, I am just not optimist about the future in this area.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, I agree with you that it's shocking that we're discussing this and that it had to go to the Supreme Court. But let's celebrate that the Supreme Court made a decision that makes a lot of sense. And, you know, we're sort of skirting around what the facts of the case were. The police officer makes a traffic stop for what appears to be non payment of tolls. It turns out the car is rented and the prior renter is the one who violated the tolls. So the driver of the car has no knowledge about this. And when asked for certain documents, he says, well, I don't have them. I think they might be in the trunk. He pops open the trunk and for some reason he then decides that he's going to flee. And he starts the car and the police officer, for no reason, this is a minor, minor, minor traffic stop, jumps onto the car and holds on as the car is moving. Now, of course, he is in danger at that moment because he chose to do this. There was no reason to stop. He had the license plate of the car. He knew who it was. Why would you engage, endanger yourself and then kill the driver? And of course, think about it. You kill the driver, the driver's going to lose control of the car. You are in more danger by doing that than if you just jump off the car. So it was a really stupid set of facts that led to a good decision. And so you're not gonna depress me, Joyce. You are not going to. I'm still happy.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Appreciate that upbeat attitude, Jill.

[Joyce Vance]

I just got new Thrive colors from my lips and eyes and I love them. Whether you love a simple mascara and gloss or like to play with bold shapes and colors as I do, Thrive Cosmetics has a trusted favorite perfect for you. Thrive makes certified, 100% vegan and cruelty free products you can depend on for everything from simple daily wear to show stopping self expression plus everything from Thrive uses clean skin loving ingredients, high performance and trademark formulas, and uncompromising standards that you'll be proud to wear.

[Barb McQuaid]

I love Thrive's Liquid Lash Extensions mascara. And there's a reason it has over 40,000 five star reviews. It's perfect for a salon look without the damaging glue or excessive prices. Better yet, you get to pick from five shades. They last all day without clumping, smudging or flaking. And the mascara slides off with just warm water and a washcloth. No soap required. So one thing that's truly amazing is how its nourishing ingredients support longer, stronger and healthier lashes over time. Which is my usual complaint about mascara. It doesn't really improve my lashes when I'm not wearing it every day. But with Thrive, their flake free tubing formula dramatically lengthens and defines your lashes from root to tip. Ever since I found out about it, I've been using it. It's the perfect way to make a big impression on TV or off.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, it's my daily, no matter where I'm going. I love their mascara. And another thing we love is that cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with their clean skin, loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, but they also give back too. Every purchase supports organizations helping communities Thrive. Thrive donates to eight major causes, including the fight against cancer and domestic abuse, veteran and education organizations, and more. I am so glad that we're part of the Thrive family.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Try your new trusty favorites with an exclusive set for our listeners. New customers can get the liquid Lash extensions mascara and a mini sized brilliant eye brightener. That sounds great. At a special set price with free shipping [e-mail] sisters or save more with 20% off your first order at thrivecosmetics.com sisters that's ThriveCosmetics C-A U S E M E T I C S.com sisters for 20% off your first order. The link is in our show notes. Well, first it was a judge and now we've seen a member of Congress charged by Trump's Department of Justice. On Tuesday, the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey charged Representative Lamonica McIver, a Democrat representing that state in Congress, with assaulting, impeding and interfering with an immigration officer. So, Joyce, first, can you set the stage for us? Where was Representative McIver, why was she there? And what led up to these charges?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, so Representative McIver very unremarkably goes along with two other members of Congress and Newark's mayor to an ICE detention facility. It's a privately managed one and she was there to engage in congressional oversight. This is lawful, it's routine. That's well established. Members of Congress have the ability to show up unannounced to do oversight, and they have to be admitted. They can't be excluded. So they look inside of the facility and they go outside and there is just this melee out on the street. Masked ICE agents just. You know, I've seen the video. I'm sure you all have too. Just everybody's sort of throwing around and it results in the arrest of Newark's Mayor Ros Baraka. He and Representative McIver are old friends and political buddies with long standing relationship. And she, her story is that she was trying to protect him from arrest, trying to hug him, she maybe make some incidental contact with other ICE agents. I'm sure people have also seen the government has taken still photo outtakes and shown those where she's in contact. So Baraka gets arrested and charged with misdemeanor trespass by the U.S. attorney's office in Newark led by former Trump lawyer Alina Haba, who has, I'm going to say, virtually no experience as a prosecutor. I don't think she's got any. She has to dismiss those misdemeanor charges.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So Joyce, you mentioned that they used some screenshots in the complaint, which is, you know, kind of a newish idea, isn't it? When I was practicing it was new and now it's in complaints all the time, which I think is great because you can show photo evidence. It's easy enough to embed that in a complaint. But I watched the video and then I saw the screenshots and I'm sure the video has been released by the government. Right. That's who would have access to it. Do you think that the video or even the screenshots demonstrate that she indeed assaulted, impeded or interfered with the police or the immigration officers?

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, 11118 U.S. code 111. The statute she's charged under, the federal assault statute. It's a difficult statute with a lot of moving pieces. Every year before I teach it to my first year law students, I sort of have to take a deep breath because it has everything in it from a misdemeanor provision that doesn't invol, you don't actually have to touch somebody to assault them. The essence of the crime is putting someone in fear that you will do something that might harm them or threatening them. And so it's everything from a misdemeanor to these very serious felonies, right. Assault with the intent to kill or assault with a deadly weapon, sort of these high endy crimes. I suspect that as a purely technical matter, there's some someplace in this statute where the government could make out a hyper technical case for assault. But look, one of the essential elements of the government's proof here is that she was acting voluntarily. And I think that, you know, anytime, right? Your conduct has to be voluntary. If you're sleeping, for instance, and you put your arm out in your Sleep and you hit somebody. It's not an assault. It's not voluntary movement. Even before you were to get to the issue of. Of intent, there's. I mean, I'm really sorry. Going deeper.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Oh, no, this is great. This is exactly why you asked me this question. I've been thinking about this. This is first year, like day one criminal law act as Reyes. Right.

[Barb McQuaid]

I mean, this is a voluntariness issue. I'm not positive that the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was acting voluntarily. I mean, there's. She's, like, trying to fend stuff off. She's trying to protect him.

[Joyce Vance]

Did you see the other video that some bystander took from a different angle, which seems to clearly show that was being pushed, which means not only wasn't it voluntary, she was literally physically pushed into other people. So I think they're gonna have a really hard time making these decisions.

[Barb McQuaid]

So, you know, this is a point that I made last night in my newsletter. I mean, this is a statute that applies to an assault on a federal official. Members of Congress qualify under this statute, too. And as a purely theoretical matter, it's interesting to contemplate whether the ICE agents could be charged with assaulting her. You know, a much better case. Right. They're wearing masks. They've got the badge and the gun. She's a member of Congress doing her job, and all of a sudden she's surrounded by these people. This is what. What I was going to say is before we even get to issues of, like, privilege, I think this case probably falters just on the facts, even though there might be a hyper technical place in the statute where you could find all the elements of proof. Tough getting to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are all these immunity issues that are going to come up. It's such an unappealing case. And, Barb, I don't know about you, but as a practical matter, in my office, I can think of only a couple of times that we charged misdemeanors, and they were always in very compelling civil rights cases. I mean, absent something like that, where there was no other remedy, where the state couldn't intervene, where the conduct was heinous, where you had to do something. We just didn't fool with charge and misdemeanors.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, same just, you know, we have finite bandwidth, and so we focused, you know, our efforts on frying bigger fish. But I think that, you know, the standard for a complaint is probable cause. If you look at these photos, is there probable cause to believe that she not only. And remember, the statute isn't just assault. It could also be if she impeded or interfered with their work. And according to the complaint, she said, oh, hell no, when they were trying to arrest the mayor. And she even said, surround the mayor. And people, according to the complaint, were trying to surround the mayor. So I think they probably have at least probable cause. But, of course, when prosecutors initiate a case, they should believe that they also have sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. And do they have that? I think no.

[Joyce Vance]

No. I can't imagine a jury convicting on this evidence.

[Barb McQuaid]

But the other minimum, right. This jury is gonna hang. You are not gonna get a unanimous verdict of guilt.

[Jill Wine Banks]

But the even more important point, I think, is not just can you get a conviction, but the question is, should you charge this case? And that's where prosecutorial discretion comes into play. And you have to think about a lot of factors, including the respect between co. Equal branches of government. Now, you know, members of Congress are not above the law. And if a member of Congress storms and grabs a immigration officer and prevents him from doing his job, I'm gonna charge that all day. But here we've got kind of a scrum, as you say. The video shows that, you know, all we see is the chaos has already started. We don't see whether she's starting it or she kind of gets caught up in it. I doubt she showed up that day with the plan that she was going to mess with these massed immigration officers. It kind of just evolved organically. And so I think from a should charge, an exercise of discretion. And I can't imagine wanting to charge this case and taking it to trial. And yet it seems like they are just only too gleeful to say, here's our chance. Gotcha. We are going to send a strong message to everybody in Congress that if you mess with us in our immigration agenda, we are coming for you, because just being charged can be very problematic. Well, Jill, let's move on. Joyce mentioned the mayor, Ross Baraka was also arrested at the same event, but the U.S. attorney's office ended up not pursuing charges against him, but pursuing charges against Representative McIver instead. And that caused a magistrate judge to criticize them when they dropped the charges against Baraka and continued with the charges against McIver. What do you think about their decision and about the judge's comments about the decision?

[Joyce Vance]

The judge was completely correct in criticizing them. They did not. And when I say they, I'm going to have to Say that we're talking about a particular person who is the interim US Attorney, Alina Haba, who, as you mentioned, was a lawyer for Trump before this. And there was no time for an investigation, for any thoughtful evaluation of the facts. And as the facts turn out, he was charged with trespass, but he was admitted into the area. Now, he was admitted by ICE officers who thought he was a member of Congress and with the congressional delegation who does have a clear legal right to be there. When they realized he was the mayor now running for governor, they said, you have to leave. And he did. And after he exited the secure area, they handcuffed him and arrested him. So it's a pretty ridiculous set of facts. And they were right to drop the case. They should have never arrested him. They should never have issued a complaint. And I think the judge was right to chastise her, and I think we're going to talk about her history, but she's been chastised by a lot of judges, actually.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, I don't mind the decision to drop the charges. I think what the judge took issue with was jerking him around. Right. This is not a tool to get someone's attention. It is a serious decision that should be made carefully after assessing all of the facts and then going forward, it isn't, you know, I'm gonna file charges. Oh, I know I'm not. Now I got this bigger fish in McIver, and I'm gonna go after him instead of. So I think that's.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, I think it goes along with her comments that she's going to turn New Jersey red and that she's. I mean, she's really sort of pretty much now she's going after Democrats. And that's what this is more about than whether or not. I mean, I'm sure she approves of dismissing all the charges against the January 6th rioters. And you can hardly compare the behavior of Representative McIver with what happened there.

[Barb McQuaid]

That kind of behavior is not going to help the office that Alina Haba leads. It's not going to help them. I mean, if I'm a lawyer, I'm going to go to the judge and say this is a classic case of vindictive and selective prosecution based on her comments. And I think, frankly, although those motions are usually tough to make out, I bet we're going to see some early successes here. Here.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Joyce, did you see who is representing Representative McIver? Paul Fishman.

[Barb McQuaid]

I did. Our former colleague, The Obama era U.S. attorney in New Jersey. Before that, he was a counselor in main justice to Janet Reno when she was the Attorney General. Look, Paul is one of the smartest lawyers I know. She is very well represented. I think he'll get this case dismissed early on. But if it were to go in front of a jury, I can't think of a lawyer I would rather have than Paul Fishman explaining this case to a jury. It does not bode well for the government.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah. So Paul Fishman is the former U.S. attorney in New Jersey, the job that Alina Habba now inhabits. And so I'm sure he will be very effective in explaining to her and her office why this is such a garbage case. But if they want to go to trial, bring it on. Because I think, as we've discussed, she's got a pretty strong defense.

[Barb McQuaid]

Can I just add to that, though, and say there was reporting and not really reporting. Right. It's Haba's statement where she says, well, we tried to resolve this case before we indicted it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah.

[Barb McQuaid]

I just said, and that didn't work. I bet you she was talking about that misdemeanor provision in 111, and I think Fishman told her to go fish. Right. I mean, you're not going to convict my client on a misdemeanor or anything else.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, I don't know about what happened in the attorney client privilege domain. I'm speculating wildly, but if it were me and they said, yes, you've been involved in this scrum, and we'll tell you what, we'll do you a big favor, we'll make it all go away. If you just plead guilty to a misdemeanor, like, go away. No chance. I'm not doing that. It's crazy. So that seems consistent with what the reporting is. I agree with you. Well, let me just ask both of you, between the arrest of a judge, now the arrest of a mayor, although released, the arrest of a member of Congress, there's a lot of norm breaking again, certainly no one is above the law. And if somebody were to commit a serious crime, you know, bring them on, arrest them. But do you think that this is about advancing an immigration agenda? Do you think it is about enforcing the law? Do you think it's more of a power flex? What do you each think about. About why we're now seeing this very aggressive use of the power of the prosecutor?

[Barb McQuaid]

This is exactly what we don't wanna see. You know, this is a case where prosecutors are being used to achieve political aims. This is the politics of scare tactics and intimidation being used to quiet dissenting voices, just like the Prosecution of the judge in Wisconsin, Hannah Dugan. This is the Trump administration. And by the way, Alina Haab talks about, you know, being the Trump U.S. attorney, right? She's not making any pretense that she's acting as an independent prosecutor. And this is a political prosecution that's being done to make people think twice before they oppose this administration's moves. Because as you said, Barb, being arrested isn't really very fun. And even if you're ultimately acquitted, it's stressful, it's costly, it's a drag on your daily life and your family and the people around you. This is intimidation. It is nothing else. It's appalling. And this is a significant step on the path towards autocracy or dictatorship, whatever we're calling it these days. I mean, I think this is a huge red flag. And people who haven't woken up yet, they need to wake up.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Jill, anything to add to that?

[Joyce Vance]

Joyce said it all so brilliantly, but I would just say this is the best example of weaponization of the Justice Department that I have ever seen. It is despicable. It is a lack of respect for the rule of law. It is just part of. It's the same as the retaliation against Harvard for standing up for its rights. It's the same as all of these other actions. And Joyce is right. This is to silence opposition. That's how someone becomes a dictator. And if we don't stand up to each and every one of these attempts to silence opposition, then we are in trouble as a country. If the daily onslaught of the news is making you crazy, you don't have to wait until you're totally burned out to take care of yourself. Taking a few intentional minutes each day with CALM can help you recharge regularly, so you have more to give without running on empty. 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 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 guided 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.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Boy, Jill, I like the way you read that. It was so calm. I might record your voice and listen to that to calm me down. That was pretty calming.

[Joyce Vance]

Just call me any night you know I'm awake and I'll be Glad to read to you.

[Jill Wine Banks]

True. She is a night owl.

[Barb McQuaid]

Okay, wait. It's a CALM ad, not a Jill Wine Banks ad.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, even better. Always there for you is CALM because they have sleep stories, sleep meditations, and calming music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and naturally. I'm trying to sound calm, but I just don't do it. It's just not in me. 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 to help you relax and reset when you're feeling overwhelmed. CALM even has powerful expert LED talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self esteem, care for relationships, and more.

[Barb McQuaid]

CALM really puts the tools you need right in your pocket so that stress and anxiety relief are always within reach. With over 2 million 5 star reviews, Calm can help you stress less, sleep more, and live better. And right now, Calm has an exclusive offer just for listeners of our show. Get 40% off a Calm premium [e-mail] sisters. It's really hard to say that, but it's an amazing value that you won't want to miss out on. So go to calm.com sisters and get 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library one last time. Calm.com sisters. You won't regret it. Don't forget to tell Calm you heard about them from us. The link is also in our show. Notes.

[Joyce Vance]

On Thursday, SCOTUS gave President Trump a huge win in a case called Donald Trump, President of the United States, versus Gwen Wilcox and Kathy Harris. Those are two members of independent agencies, the NLRB for Wilcox and the Merit System Protective Board for Harris. Trump fired both Wilcox and Harris and has never argued that he had cause. He just wanted them gone because they didn't fit his political agenda. The District court ordered both reinstated and the Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The Supreme Court stayed the reinstatement, meaning both are effectively fired right now. They are out of a job. The SCOTUS order never mentions the most important precedent, Humphrey's executor, a case that has for over 100 years protected government agencies that Congress created to be led by bipartisan leadership and who could not be fired without cause. They set specific terms for each of those people. The purpose was to prevent changes of administration from politically influencing those agencies actions. Actions that were to be based on the expertise of the agency, not politics. Here, as I said, the government does not even remotely claim that there was cause for firing either board member. So what does the government claim. Is this just another attempt by the Trump administration to create a unitary executive with unlimited powers, even when Congress specifically limits his ability to fire certain employees? Joyce, let's clarify what this is and that it's not a merits decision.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. So, I mean, as in so many of the cases that we've been discussing since Trump took over, this is on the government's request to obtain relief from a stay that prohibited it from firing folks while the case worked its way through the courts, and the Supreme Court says that they can. It's a disappointing but utterly predictable decision that does away with the longstanding precedent in Humphrey's Executor, which is sort of a fun case. I mean, we've been nerdy in this show. Let's just talk a little bit about that case, because Humphrey was a presidential appointee during the Calvin Coolidge administration to the Federal Trade Commission. He was a commissioner. He died after holding that office under two subsequent presidents. But he had a falling out with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Roosevelt was trying to fire him. He stayed on and said he was entitled to the job. He dies, and his executor is trying to actually collect his salary as part of the estate. And so that's the dispute. The government lost, the funds were turned over. Roosevelt didn't have the ability to fire him. And you would think that that would end the matter. Right. That's this situation, but not for Donald Trump. The government argued in this case that the President can fire members of independent federal agencies. And it's part and parcel of the unitary executive theory that we've been talking so much. This notion that the Constitution assigns the President a unitary power, power that can't be divided up to control everything in the executive branch, including these quasi independent agencies. So the government says that that's the dispute and that Humphrey's executor. Well, they argued in the case that Humphrey's executor was due to be overturned because it was unconstitutional. But I think as we'll discuss a little bit more, the Supreme Court hasn't gone there, at least not yet. Yet, as far as I know, the name of that presidential case, Humphrey's Executor, doesn't appear any place in the decision that the Supreme Court entered.

[Joyce Vance]

So, Barb Joyce has talked about what the government argued. What did Wilcox and Harris argue?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, so they said that before they could be fired, they have to show just cause. Remember, these are independent federal agencies created by Congress, the nlrb, the National Labor Relations Board. That's where Gwen Wilcox was working. And The Merits Systems Protection Board, which is where Kathy Harris was working, that is the agency that reviews the firing of federal employees to make sure that their rights were not violated, that there really was cause when they were violated. And so what they said is, unlike some federal employees, the statute that creates their position says they can be removed only for good cause. In addition, there has been some chipping away at all of this as to whether somebody is executing the law or making more quasi judicial decisions. And one of the things they said is that their role is mostly an adjudicatory body. The NLRB and the Merit Systems Protection Board mostly hears cases about civil servants or about labor matters, and they apply laws that Congress has passed. And so to call that federal and to say something is within the purview of the president, even though the statute requires just cause, really does say the executive, the unitary executive. The president does control everything in the executive branch. And of course, the red line for everybody has always been the Federal Reserve, because everybody's afraid Trump's gonna fire people there and muck at all.

[Joyce Vance]

As Barb said, the order is unsigned. And there are three liberal justices who dissented and had a very different take. And they actually, of course, go ahead and really point out the absence of any consideration of Humphrey's executor in the order. And Joyce, they also go really far out of their way because they're talking about firing an NLRB person and. And a MSBP board member. And they go out of their way to say, well, it would be different if you were firing Jerome Powell. It's like coming out of nowhere. They make this argument that it was one of the arguments made by Wilcox and Harris that it would allow. They said, if you can do this to us, you could do it to the Federal Reserve. So why did they put that in? It's clearly dicta in this case, but they went out of their way to mention that.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I mean, they did it to keep world markets from nose diving. Right. Trump had been forced to walk back his earlier comments about firing Powell. The Supreme Court didn't want to make that same mistake. But as Justice Kagan points out in her dissent, the Court didn't offer any sort of rigorous legal distinction. And the precedent set here could just as easily be applied or not really the precedent, because this isn't really at a precedential stage. But the analysis that they used around reach this result, it applies to Powell, it applies to the Fed. There's no real legal principled stand going on here. This is the Supreme Court, or at least its conservative majority entering the political fray. And I, I think this is to keep by halves and it's going to come back to bite them because we all know that if you give the Trump administration an inch, they'll take a mile and they will be arguing down the road that they can fire Jerome Powell Howell. Oh my God, you guys. I just ordered duvets from Quince and they're amazing. Really so amazing. I was looking for sort of a Lyocell fabric for duvet covers. Couldn't find them anywhere and found them there and just figured they were cheap, I'd order them. We used two duvets on our beds sort of scandi style and, and I'm so ecstatic about them. They get better with every wash. They hold up great. Oh my God, yes. And they were cheap, cheap, cheap. It's just perfect.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Now that the summer weather is heating up, it's the perfect time for all of us to reset our wardrobes for the warmer months. All it takes is one look in there to realize that you're still rocking the same worn out rotation. Which means it's time to give our daily uniforms an upgrade with Quint's. Their pieces are easy, elevated and somehow, somehow make you feel effortlessly put together.

[Barb McQuaid]

Quint has amazing offerings for warmer weather, like 100% European linen shorts and dresses from $30 Luxe Swimwear, Italian leather platform sandals, and so much more. The best part is that everything from quints is priced 50 to 80% less than what you'd find at similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middleman, Quince gives you luxury without the markup and it costs.

[Joyce Vance]

Less without in any way compromising the quality. It's really an amazing deal and we love how Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes to give you their amazing offerings. I have to say everyone needs Quince's washable stretch silk blouse. The material feels amazing and the style is perfect for giving a speed, being on screen, seeing friends, or heading off to exciting new places. It's great for travel. There's nothing better for looking your best as the weather heats up. And if you're prioritizing fitness going into the summer, the best workout motivation is new activewear from Quince.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Don't wait. Treat your closet to a little summer glow up with quince. Go to quince.com sisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N ce.com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, quince.com sisters the link is in our show notes.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, now it's time for our favorite part of the show where we get to answer listener questions. And boy, do y' all have a lot of good questions this week. This is one of those weeks where it's hard to stick to just, just three of them. But we do appreciate your questions. If you have one for us, email it to [e-mail] or you can tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. But please keep asking so we can answer the questions that concern you the most. And if we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our social media feeds. During the week, we'll try to answer as many additional questions as there. But this week we've got three. Barb. The first one is for you from Bob, hopefully not my husband Bob, but this Bob asks, why aren't judges holding officials of this administration civilly liable for contempt of court?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, that's such a great question, Bob. And the answer is, I don't know. I find these judges to be so. I don't, I don't know if the word is cautious, but, you know, look at Judge Boasberg who found that the Trump administration had lied. He was on a path to do that, but even he first said, well, I'm gonna make you show cause why I shouldn't hold you in contempt. There's always several steps. Now, I guess they want to be careful. They don't wanna overstep their bounds. But, man, we have seen now so many instances where judges are finding that orders have been violated, and yet we see so little of this contempt. And what you're talking about here is civil contempt. You know, criminal contempt means I'm punishing you for violating my order. Civil contempt is I'm gonna jail you until you do what I've asked you to do. And so we've seen, you know, lawyers dragging their feet on orders, and judges have the power to say, I'm gonna lock you up or I'm gonna fine you, you know, $1,000 a day or more until you produce the information I've requested. Why aren't they doing that? That, you know, I suppose some of it is respect for the executive, and that's a good thing, that they are not so quick to try to engage in fights with other branches of government. But at some point, I think it's the only way that, you know, they're going to get deterrence from this kind of behavior is by using their consent power.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I mean, I agree with you so much, Barb. I think the reality is courts don't have armies, Right. But they're not toothless tigers. I mean, they're not just incapable of taking any action to enforce their orders. And I think that's the moment we're headed towards. This is a president who wants to test that power. It's part of his unitary executive strategy. And we have to hope when that moment comes that there is a judge who gets it right and knows how to do it. So that, I think, is where we are. Our next question comes from Elizabeth, and she asks, why aren't people talking about the fact that Trump has already cost us over $26 million to play golf? Well, Elizabeth, I have not seen that statistic yet, which I think is the question that you're asking. Right. Like, Barb, I don't have a good answer to your question, but I do have a comment. And my comment is this. We must not take any of this stuff for granted. It becomes so easy to just shrug your shoulders and say, oh, that's Trump. You know, Trump accepted an airplane from the Qataris. Oh, that's just Trump. Trump is profiting heavily off of his meme coin. Oh, that's just Trump. Melania's making a lot of money making a documentary for Amazon. Oh, that's just the Trumps. I think that we should not take any of it for granted. We should continue to make a lot of noise about how inappropriate and improper this is for a president of the United States. The Supreme Court may want to give Trump a pass from criminal prosecution. I don't want to give him a pass from accountability when he strays from the path. And so I'm glad you asked the question. I think maybe I'll make a point in future episodes of making sure that we highlight the stuff that no president should do, but that this one is doing particularly offensive when he's spending yours and my hard earned money to do it. Jill, the last question is for you from Tara or Tara. When laws get struck down by judges as likely unconstitutional, how does that work exactly? Is it either constitutional or not? Can you elaborate on what that means? This is a great question.

[Joyce Vance]

It is a great question. And I can see why you are confused by the language. When a judge says it's likely unconstitutional, it's almost always in the context of deciding whether to put a stay on an act action. And one of the grounds for staying something is to say it's likely unconstitutional. And so I'm going to put a stay on your doing that while it is pending further analysis in the District Court and then in the Court of appeals. So you're right. When something is struck down as unconstitutional, when the Supreme Court, who's really the only final say on such a thing, when the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional and has to not be used at all. But it's a standard that is used in temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

[Barb McQuaid]

Thanks for listening to SistersinLaw with Jill Winebanks, Barb McQuaid and me. Joyce Vance Kim will be back next week. Follow SistersinLab Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review which really helps others find the show and makes us feel very good. Please show some love to this week's sponsors, Helix, Thrive Cosmetics, Calm and Quince. The links are in the show notes supporting them makes this podcast possible. See you next week with a new episode, Sisters in Law. Hey, so just I just got a text message. You may find this to be very interesting. Judge Bates just granted summary judgment of a permanent injunction to block Donald Trump's executive order against Jenner and block your former law firm.

[Joyce Vance]

Oh really? Oh wow. Yes. That is so righteous.