Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:00]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Hey, everyone, this is Kim. Before we get started with this week's podcast, I'd like to ask a favor. Please check out my other Politikon podcast called justice by Design. Each week I have someone who has been doing the real work of protecting our democracy and trying to support our rule of law, and we break down some of the pressing issues that we are facing as a society. For example, this past episode I had on Sam Ames, who is an LGBTQ activist and attorney, to really help break down what the Scremetti ruling will mean on the ground. I've also had Leah Littman on recently, not just to talk about her book Lawless, but also really to talk about how the Supreme Court has changed over the decades and why we got to the place that we are today. These are deep conversations that I think you would enjoy a lot. So follow justice by Design wherever you get your podcast. Thank you.
- [01:17]
Jill Wine Banks
Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkinstore, Barb McQuaid, and me, Jill Wine Banks. Joyce is out today, but she'll be back next week and we are already missing her. The new mini resistance tote bag is ready for your order. It really looks great. If you could see Kim right now, she's holding it up and putting it over her shoulder. It is so adorable. Kim, you look darling.
- [01:41]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Thank you.
- [01:41]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, honey, you know what I did there, Okay? I do. Anyway, the mini tote is really a good thing. You should order yours right away. Just go to politicon.com merch and you can get yours now. We have a great show planned today. It's the end of the Supreme Court term, and we are overwhelmed with Supreme Court cases. So you're going to be hearing a lot about what the court did. We're going to talk about the end of the rule of law, which allows third country deportations without due process, the end of health care from a preferred provider, which often is the only provider allowed for women on Medicaid. And we're going to also talk about the decision about parents being able to opt out of their children getting the regular curriculum because it might offend their religious views. We're going to look at the Louisiana redistricting, which wasn't decided, and about online porn sites having to get the age confirmed of its viewers. But before we get to that, so sort of along the lines of mistaken things, people say Donald Trump this week on the White House lawn used the F word. I'm not going to say it because Barb is listening, and we know how Barb feels about that. So, Barb, how Did you feel about the President saying it and television stations playing it without bleeping it?
- [03:18]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. You know, the second question might be more interesting than the first, though. As you well know, I think swearing is just stupid. I think it is a relic of seventh grade. No offense to the seventh graders. To me it shows a lack of vocabulary. It is a vulgar effort to shock and I find it offensive and demeaning to those around it. So I don't like it at all. You know, it's not that I'm a prude. I've heard it all, I've said it all. I prefer not to. But the President of the United States, I would hope, would understand that he is speaking to the world, that everyone's listening. If he really cares about family values and other kinds of things, I think he would think about that. I read an interesting article analyzing it that said that swearing in public reflects frustration, anger and an inability to control one's impulses. That sounds like Donald Trump, doesn't it? Now, I know a lot of people do it for effect and we can talk about that as well when it's intentional. But, you know, they talked about we think fast and slow and usually profanity comes out when we're thinking fast and we haven't had time to reflect. But I don't know about that when it comes to Donald Trump. The second question, though is maybe more interesting, which is having television stations play it. So, you know, again, this goes, I think, against our television sensibilities to play it on television. We know lots of people are going to hear it, but it is an insight into who is our president, that he said this word out loud without bleeping it. I don't know, you could probably make the same point while bleeping it if, you know, adults are listening to this. I think it's interesting, but certainly children would be exposed to it as well. I know they've all heard it before, they see it online, so I don't know who we're protecting, but it is a lowering of the discourse in our society. And I just ask, you know, people, and especially the president, to up your game, man.
- [05:21]
Kimberly Atkinstore
So I concur in part and dissent in part from the opinion issued by Justice McQuaid. So when it comes to just swearing in general, I believe very much in the art form of the well placed bit of profanity for not, not so much shock, but emphasis and clarity, frankly, because sometimes that just really gets the point across in a way that not nothing else can. As far as setting aside the President, because honestly, like, I just. I don't have the bandwidth for. To even think about whether it's right or wrong for him to swear in a situation all presidents have sworn. Of all the. I guess, the grievances I have against this president, that's fairly low. But in terms more broadly, we talk a lot about is it good to swear? And people can have their preferences, and it's totally fine. And I completely respect Barb's preference not to do it. But as a black woman in America, I am just so. So over being policed and being told what I should or should not say, what is proper, what is, what is acceptable, what is in the mainstream, how I should, you know, assimilate myself to fit into society's expectations of me. And to that, honestly, the best thing I can say is, fuck that.
- [06:49]
Jill Wine Banks
No bleeping. No, I think it was appropriate to say in this case, and it's true for all women, not just black women, we are forced to fit into a certain expectation and have been forever. In terms of swearing, I just have to say I grew up not using profanity anywhere. My family didn't use it. When I got to college, my sorority sisters sort of forced me to learn certain words which I never used. And then I became a prosecutor. And you hear those words a lot, especially if you're listening to transcripts of Richard Nixon. You'll all remember that those famous tape transcripts said expletive deleted. When I was listening, I heard those expletives. And it did make me think less of the President, although his crimes probably made me think even less of him than his expletives.
- [07:44]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Some of his specific expletives that he's been known to use in particular points out just what a complicated person he was, being the one who signed into law several crucial civil rights pieces of litigation when he had a chosen word that he liked.
- [08:01]
Jill Wine Banks
He was bad on a lot of aspects. But it does, I think, to Barb's point, it does make you less respectful of the office of the President when the President speaks like that. I think it's interesting that television stations played it. I think it was appropriate because it's part of how we judge the President and his capabilities and as you pointed out, his lack of control. So I think it was really interesting. And I'm sorry it offends Barb's sensibilities, but we all need to know about it. So thanks for sharing your views.
- [08:38]
Barb McQuaid
Can I just. It isn't that it offends my sensibilities. I think that suggests that, eek, I'm a prude. And it makes, and it makes me uncomfortable. I think when civil discourse uses vulgarity and just words that are not descriptive of what's happening, it brings all of us down a level. So it's really more about language in society than it is about my sensibilities. And I'm not suggesting that it's, it's okay for one group and not another group. I would like everybody to just raise their game. And is that too much to ask of the President of the United States? I understand words slip out about, of all of us from time to time, but in, in this case it seemed like a deliberate effort to make a point. And he clearly. And the context is important too. Right. He wasn't just like he was mad that Israel and Iran had backed off the ceasefire that he wanted to take credit for. So that's important too. So. All right, sorry, Jill, we probably talked about this too long.
- [09:40]
Jill Wine Banks
Very interesting and I'd love to hear from our listeners how they feel about it. You can always email us@politicon.com Sisters in Lawoliticon or on any of our social media sites.
- [10:01]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Well, sun's out, fun's out. And that means it's the perfect time to make sure we are all on top of our self care routines with the help of Flamingo. Their shaving, hair removal and body care products were designed with you in mind so they focus on what's truly important. High quality, simple grooming solutions that will allow you to sit back, relax and enjoy a day out in the summer sun. Flamingo's line of essential body and hair care tools bring eye catching and innovative design to your bathroom counter. And their high performance and affordable prices make Flamingo a must for any shower experience.
- [10:41]
Barb McQuaid
You know, the razor comes in many stylish colors, but I don't know why anyone would choose any color other than blue. Because it's the perfect color. There are other great options. The weighted handle I also want to compliment. I love something that feels weighted in your hand. It feels substantial, it gives balance, it's smooth, providing for a close and comfortable experience. Plus, when you need new blades, you'll pay as little as $2 per refill. That's half of what other big brands charge. And they make sure there is no pink tax, if you know what I mean.
- [11:16]
Jill Wine Banks
That's really important, Barb. But in addition, the new Moisture plus razor is a one step razor that's perfect for women on the go. It's one of the many products that explain why Millions of women trust Flamingo to provide a premium body hair and care experience, including us. They have so much to offer. In addition to razors, they have amazingly effective body wax and hair removal creams, pre and post shave essentials to keep your skin sleek and hydrated and much more. So keep smooth and refreshed with Flamingo hair removal products made with your body and mind. Get started with an extra exclusive offer for our listeners. 25 off your first order at shopflamingo.com sisters that's shopflamingo.com sisters. The link is also in our show Notes.
- [12:21]
Kimberly Atkinstore
So I have to say this has been a very, very rough week, especially for the rule of law. We are recording this mere hours after the Supreme Court issued yet another gobsmacking ruling rolling back the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide preliminary injunctions, also known as universal injunctions, in cases where the harm presented to the challengers could very well be just dramatic if not irreversible. And this comes right on the heel of another ruling in the same vein that allows the administration to continue removing immigrants to countries where they have absolutely no ties, even though it is very clear, if you look at federal law, if you look at international human rights treaties, that the America that the United States is a party to and just the basic principle of due process and common decency would tell you that that isn't what we should be doing. The Supreme Court gave the administration a blank check to continue doing that. So to me, I feel like probably more than at any point since becoming a lawyer that the Supreme Court has so undermined the rule of law. I can't see how we get back from it. But let's walk through what happened this week, Jill. As I said, the, the, the full frontal attack on the rule of law began with that order wasn' a merits decision. It was a shadow docket order which allows the administration to keep sending people to countries they've never been, where they have no family, where they have no resources. Explain what the court did and your reaction to it.
- [14:11]
Jill Wine Banks
My reaction is that I am appalled. This was one of the worst decisions ever. It ignores giving any rationale for simply doesn't just says you can do it. And it was, as you said, on the emergency docket, which means there wasn't any kind of argument and there wasn't any analysis of the facts. And all the courts below had reached a different conclusion having heard arguments. So this is even worse. The court here and you know, I mean, if I'm trying to find something good, it isn't on the merits. It doesn't say that this is a merits decision. It's just, it's letting them do it. But to me, one of the worst things about it was it's an equity decision, which I know that sounds like a technical legal thing, but it just means it's based on the equities. But they didn't weigh the equities. To me, the harm to the immigrants who are being housed in these horrible places is far worse. And if you can believe one of the arguments that Donald Trump's department made was to say this is going to harm the DHS personnel who have to guard these people in temporary detention in Djibouti. Well, they put them there. If they don't think it's safe for the guards, how do they think it's safe for the immigrants? And if they think it's not safe, why don't they bring them back to America? It's in their power to do that. To me, that was one of the most, and I can't even think of what the right word is to describe how horrible I think that argument was. But the court said, yep, you can keep on doing it while this case goes forward with litigation. You can send them anywhere. Now, this is without any due process hearing. It's without their having clean hands, which is again, going back to equity. There's an, you know, I feel like I'm in first year law school again, that you can't get relief at equity if you haven't acted equitably. And when you violate court orders, you're not entitled to get relief at equity. But yeah, okay, in this case, the Supreme Court says you can. Of course, the dissent is much more brilliant than the non decision decision. The non opinion decision. So it's a really bad decision that allows people to go to places that are war torn countries where they are subjected or could be subjected to torture, to hunger, to not getting. Right now it looks like they're not getting proper food and water. And I just don't see how we can allow this to happen. It's like a nightmare movie.
- [16:57]
Kimberly Atkinstore
It really is. And just adding to your great analysis, Jill, one thing that these immigrants also are not getting, which under both the law and this international treaty is notice. So you have situations where people are being whisked away and their families don't know where they are. They may not know where they are. They don't get notice of where they're going. There's no preparation, there's no way to, you know, get them ensure that they are even taking care of themselves or where they are, let alone ensuring that they maybe can get a lawyer or something else. It's just so unbelievable. And we are seeing with our own eyes the way a lot of these people are being apprehended by masked ICE members in something that looks like a horror movie. So it's really awful. And yes, I just want to read a little bit of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent on that balance of equities issue you talk about, Jill. She writes, rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly deserves, the Court now intervenes to grant the government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court's equitable discretion. Amen. Justice Sotomayor. So, Barb, what do you think? To me, this seems to go hand in hand with the immunity ruling in being exactly what Donald Trump thought the immunity ruling was. The court actually gave it to him this time.
- [18:36]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, interesting. Yeah. You know how he always likes to talk about, I have Article two, I'm Article two, as if that means I get to do anything I want as the President. And I think that's what you're suggesting.
- [18:44]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Losing no irony that it's not Article one like it's two.
- [18:49]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [18:50]
Barb McQuaid
You came second. Yes. I really found this decision perplexing because, you know, so many of these decisions we're seeing from the Supreme Court on the emergency shadow docket are procedural questions that don't necessarily go to the substantive question. And so the substantive question itself, I think has some risk to it because Congress has said that if you're going to send somebody to a third country, you know, it's, I'm originally from El Salvador, but I can't go back there because I will face torture if I go back to El Salvador. And the US doesn't want you here. So where do you send them? The law says you're supposed to first try every feasible possibility to effectuate either removal to their home country or the country of their choice. And some countries won't take people and only then do you send them to a third country. The places they wanna send these people are Sudan, Libya, you know, places where they're like raging civil wars and civil unrest and sending them there. And as you point out, the procedural problem to me in this case is this lack of due process. And depending on the situation, different process is due. But at the very least, due process usually includes notice and opportunity to be heard and an Impartial arbiter. And as you said, these people aren't even getting noticed. It's like suddenly you find yourself on a plane, stuck in Djibouti because.
- [20:19]
Kimberly Atkinstore
In a shipping container.
- [20:20]
Barb McQuaid
In a shipping container.
- [20:22]
Kimberly Atkinstore
The detention center is made up of shipping containers, which I just can't even wrap my head around that.
- [20:27]
Jill Wine Banks
And Kim, when you said that they were being pulled off the street by masked ICE agents, in some cases, we're not even sure that they are ICE agents. They are masked men pulling people off the street.
- [20:40]
Kimberly Atkinstore
They could be contractors. They could be. Who knows who they are.
- [20:43]
Jill Wine Banks
Exactly.
- [20:43]
Kimberly Atkinstore
That's a very important point.
- [20:46]
Barb McQuaid
Just to get back to the point, the court below had issued a temporary restraining order saying, number one, we think that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. But most importantly, irreparable harm. These plaintiffs, if they are sent to Sudan or Libya or some other place, they could absolutely face torture. I mean, what could be more irreparable harm than that? And instead, the court has said, nah, you know, go ahead, proceed away. That's the part.
- [21:14]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Right. Because the irreparable harm would be done to the government.
- [21:17]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I mean, really, like. Cause you have to wait. That is just not irreparable harm. It's the opposite of irreparable harm. Eventually, if you want, you can get these people out of the country if you give them due process. And if you conclude that this is a country where they will not face torture or persecution or some other thing. So the idea that while this case is pending and it might take a couple years to work its way through the system, go ahead and ship them off, as Justice Sotomayor says in her dissent, that, like, this is just lawless and she cannot abide the court's. You know, she said it's kind of ironic that the court is rewarding the administration for its lawlessness.
- [22:02]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Yeah, really did. So, Jill, if that order was a punch in the face, it was. Came almost simultaneously with a backhand, which is a whistleblower report being made public which claims that Emile Bove at the Department of Justice said that doj, the doj, could defy orders if that's what it takes to implement the president's immigration agenda. It's worth saying that Bovet denied this in a congressional hearing this week. But why are these two things. Why do these two bits of things, this order and this whistleblower report, go hand in hand, Jill?
- [22:45]
Jill Wine Banks
So. Well, first of all, yes, he denies it, but if you've read the reporting on the whistleblower complaint, there Are documents that support this proof of the meetings? I think the evidence is pretty strong that Bovet did say that, and of course, the government did that. Now, does his saying that matter? Well, apparently not. The Supreme Court has just said, we're going to grant you what you're asking for, even though you clearly did violate our orders. So saying you can violate them is less than actually going ahead and violating them. So I don't see what difference it makes. The importance of this, of course, is that Bovet is up for a lifetime appointment to a Circuit court of appeals, the intermediate court above our district trial courts and below the Supreme Court, and is even being talked about as a potential Supreme Court nominee. That is really bad. If you have a Supreme Court or a circuit court judge who feels that you can avoid any culpability by evading court orders, why would you be on a court if your orders can be not followed? So I think that's the importance here, is that if he weren't being up for a judgeship, he shouldn't even be in the Department of Justice, but he certainly shouldn't be a circuit court judge.
- [24:12]
Kimberly Atkinstore
And Barb, the piece de resistance, of course, was the decision in the birthright citizenship case on that issue of universal injunctions, which just really broadens the power of the executive. I decided today I'm no longer saying three separate and co equal branches of government, because it's not like this is not. That's just factually incorrect. So what happened in that case and tell us what your thoughts are on it.
- [24:40]
Barb McQuaid
You know, before I answer that, I did want to just point out that when Email Bove was suggesting that they defy court orders, you know what he actually said?
- [24:49]
Kimberly Atkinstore
What did he say?
- [24:50]
Barb McQuaid
He said that they should tell the courts fu. But he actually said the word. Oh.
- [24:55]
Kimberly Atkinstore
I'm seeing a pattern.
- [24:56]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah.
- [24:57]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, right.
- [24:57]
Barb McQuaid
This is a pattern in this. In this administration. Yeah, this case. I have to say I was astonished at this case. And the idea that I can still be surprised, I suppose, speaks to shame on me. But I really thought, based on the questioning of these justices, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, that, you know, they were asking questions like, but wouldn't it be crazy to have this patchwork of different laws in different parts of the country? And how are we going to deal with this? And people are going to have to like, who's going to issue a birth certificate? It's going to be crazy at hospitals. How are we going to deal with that? Despite all of that, Friday, the court issued a ruling that basically said that they are ending this idea of universal injunctions, and that alone is huge. And then, of course, as we've discussed before, the question that decides whether a temporary restraining order can go forward is whether there's a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this is birthright citizenship. This is the Trump administration taking the 14th Amendment and changing the definition to exclude babies born in the United States, as it has always been understood if their parents are undocumented immigrants. And so they haven't ruled on the merits yet, but I don't think it bodes well for their decision on the merits. Now, the significance, though, of this ending of nationwide injunctions, universal injunctions is, I think, something that is easy to miss but should not be ignored for its significance. You know, you think Back to Marbury vs Madison, right, where the Supreme Court said, it is the job of the courts to say what the law is today. When we get pushback from Justice Sotomayor, Justice Jackson in their dissent, they say things like, they accuse her of wanting to create an imperial judiciary. Are you kidding me? I mean, they basically say, we don't want to tell the president what to do if he wants to have this new birthright citizenship. Who are we to stand in his way? Because if you look at the history of injunctions and equity and tradition and et cetera, the power of the courts to grant injunctions was quite narrow at the time of the founding. So we don't want to overextend ourselves here. Well, of course, you know, in 1787 or whenever it was we're talking about, we didn't have the kind of executive orders, a president issuing massive amounts of executive orders the way we do today.
- [27:33]
Kimberly Atkinstore
And so imagine, like, George Washington, a general, like, sitting up there, like, you know, just whipping off executive orders, signing ceremonies.
- [27:43]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah.
- [27:43]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Yes. Yeah.
- [27:44]
Barb McQuaid
Like, not his bag. But I mean, the court really says we don't want to kind of, you know, overstate our power here. We want to restrain our power. And so I found it really astonishing, and I really worry that how it bodes going forward, because as Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent, you know, today it's about birthright citizenship. But what's to prevent a future president from just creating some edict, say, you know, I don't like gun rights, and so I'm issuing an executive order that says gun rights in the Second Amendment only work when there's a militia serving me and nobody else can have a gun. So you file your lawsuit in your district and say, this violates my Second Amendment rights. The judge issues A restraining order against you and only you. And you keep my gun. Yeah, only you. And so 330 million more Americans will now have to file their own lawsuit to protect their rights. And so it really opens the floodgates. And I don't know what they were thinking.
- [28:39]
Kimberly Atkinstore
I don't either. And a lot of people on social media have already been asking, so wait, does that mean there are 50 different jurisdictions that need to be sued in or, you know, every. Every district? And I said, no, it's worse than that. It's case by case. Because in this, it would be one thing if a district court issued an injunction and it applied to everyone in that district. No, it applies to the parties of the appliances. And so only if they're able to at the early. Early stages. And we're. Because we're talking about preliminary injunctions, this is at the earliest stages of a trial that they could somehow certify a class that they can get any sort of broader relief. And the bar for that is so high. To call that some sort of backstop to this just isn't nice. And I just wanted to. Isn't correct. And I just wanted to make one point during oral arguments. Basically, Solicitor General Sauer was basically arguing that. That if there was a. Would they would. When he was asked would he obey a court order against birthright citizenship, he would say, yeah, as to that case, like, he was basically telling the court that that was the way to go. And it sounded crazy at oral arguments, but here we. Here we are with a ruling that does.
- [29:57]
Jill Wine Banks
Can I just add one thing to expand on something Barb said, which I definitely agree with? I think one of the worst parts of this was that the court said they have a likelihood of success on the merits. And that's so astounding to me because the 14th amendment was passed to undo Dred Scott. To say that people born in America, even when their parents weren't citizens, they were enslaved, people who weren't citizens, are citizens. And so it's so clear from the language and the history and the harm that was undone by the 14th Amendment that the 14th Amendment means its language, all persons born on the land of the United States are citizens. It's just astounding that they would think that there's any possibility that the merits of this executive order could withstand scrutiny. And that fact still does astound me. So I'm like you, Barb. I'm surprised that I'm still surprised by anything. Yes, they do. But I. Shame on me. Yeah, yeah.
- [31:02]
Kimberly Atkinstore
They've tried they're trying to narrow that ruling down to its narrow, narrow this provision down to the facts surrounding pre, you know, antebellum racism. I mean, it's just, you can't, like, no matter how you try to explain it, it doesn't make any sense. So, Jill, I also want you to talk about the dissent in this case also from Justice Sotomayor. You know, I feel like she needs a moniker. You know how they used to call Justice Ginsburg notorious rbg? I feel like Justice Sotomayor needs a moniker because she really is. She is singing the song of freedom and democracy time and time again in these rulings.
- [31:45]
Jill Wine Banks
She has taken on a burden that no person should have to take on in trying to clarify the rights that are being abolished by the Supreme Court, the rights that we should all expect. And she wrote a great dissent. You know, she analyzed the 14th amendment and dred Scott. And I don't know if we've given the name of this case Casa versus Trump or Trump versus Casa. And she questions what harm will the government suffer if this injunction isn't lifted? And that's, I think Barbara mentioned that as part of, you know, like, what's going on here? What harm is the government going to suffer by having to wait? And she notes that every court that's looked at this below has said it's unconstitutional, but now the court says, oh, well, there's a possibility they'll actually survive this and that it can't be enforced against anybody except those who are named plaintiffs, which makes it, you know, burdensome beyond belief. And maybe we need to change our class action rules so that you can get an immediate certification of an emergency class action where a law or a executive order, not even a law. An executive order says all people born here are not citizens. That applies to all people born here. And so we need some kind of way to have that be a universal holding. I think she wrote a beautiful, not only in this case, but in all the dissents she's been writing, she's really been a powerful voice who makes clear why these are the wrong decisions.
- [33:40]
Kimberly Atkinstore
You know, I didn't realize until recently that cat food so often contains really sketchy ingredients. And as a pet owner myself, I could never imagine giving my pet, who is a family member, anything other than the best. So that's why we're so glad. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls Smalls Cat Foods. Protein packed recipes are made with preservative free ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. And right now you can get 60% off your first order plus free shipping. Just head to smalls.com and use our promo code Sisters for a limited time only.
- [34:24]
Barb McQuaid
Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. A few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the United States. Plus, Smalls works with the Humane World for Animals, donating more than a million dollars worth of food through them to help cats. They even give you a chance to donate at checkout, whether you donate $5 for flea and tick medications or $7 for vaccines. But don't just listen to us. Smalls customer Elizabeth C expressed how her cat was always so so with her usual food but is very enthusiastic about Smalls and her breath is much better. And let's just say that the litter stays fresher too.
- [35:11]
Jill Wine Banks
So as you all know, I am a devoted dog lover and of course so is Kim. Joyce has both cats and dogs and chickens and she has told us that she has seen a co crazy change in her cat's energy once they realized they could enjoy real food from Smalls instead of burnt out kibble. She said she's never going back. One of the things that cat owners love most about Smalls is that you can even add other cat favorites like amazing treats and snacks to your Smalls order to give your cats the total feline feast. What are you waiting for? Give your cats the food they deserve for a limited time only because you are a Sisters in Law listener, you can get 60% and I'm not misreading that. 66% off your first Smalls order plus free shipping. By using our code sisters that's 60% off when you head to smalls.com and use promo code Sisters. Again, that's promo code sisters for 60% off your first order plus free shipping@smalls.com the link is in our show notes Medina is another assault on women. Along with the stay home movement and have babies, there is that movement which seems to be proliferating. They also have a law that required a brain dead pregnant woman to be kept on life support so that she could be an incubator for a child to be delivered as part of the movement toward fetal personhood. But Medina is another whole thing. So Barb, can you tell us what the majority held in that case?
- [37:05]
Barb McQuaid
Well yeah, you know, it's another case that looks kind of at the procedure right It's a case, really, about standing. It said that this woman who was getting her medical care at a Planned Parenthood clinic and Planned Parenthood itself lacked standing to file a civil lawsuit. And that lawsuit was challenging a decision by the state of South Carolina to say, we are going to defund any provider of healthcare that also performs abortions like Planned Parenthood. And so, you know, they kind of took this rule, new law, newish law in South Carolina that prohibits abortion, and there's a federal law that prohibits the funding of abortion through the Hyde Amendment. But they used it to create, I think, this very wide net to say, even though the care this patient is seeking at Planned Parenthood is not abortion care, she is just seeking ordinary gynecological care. She's diabetic. She has a doctor she likes there. The Medicaid program says that you get to choose your doctor. She chooses someone who works at Planned Parenthood. But instead, South Carolina says, because the money flows through us, the Medicare funds, we are cutting off Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds because they also are in the business of performing abortions. But what the court said, Justice Gorsuch wrote, she lacked standing, and Planned Parenthood lacks standing, and suggested that really, the only person who could have standing to attack this is Congress itself. To say that South Carolina is misappropriating its funds, using it in an unlawful way so Congress can file a lawsuit if they want to. Well, I don't know that we're going to see that happen. That seems a little wild. There is another remedy that they reveal that Planned Parenthood could sue the state for stripping its funding. It would have to go through administrative proceedings and then through the state court system. But, you know, good luck, I think, in the state of South Carolina.
- [39:16]
Jill Wine Banks
Exactly. So, yeah, they looked at the requirements of the law that allows people to bring a suit to enforce their own rights. And they are very careful in saying that it has to be a law that creates individual rights to a particular person. And it seemed to me that this Medicaid law does exactly that, where it says that you get to choose the provider of your choice. That is a right. It's people who are on Medicaid. That's the group, and they have the right to pick the person they want to be their physician. And this particular plaintiff chose a doctor at Planned Parenthood, and then they said, no. Well, it's not really a right that you have. So section 1983 doesn't give you the right to do that. They ignored the exact language. You know, these people who are, you know, textualists, except when they don't like the text. I mean clearly the text of the Medicaid law says you have a right to do this. And they also ignored to me pass law. I mean Kim, maybe you can talk about both the televesky which said you could and now they're ignoring it. But also the concurring opinion that is a little different.
- [40:40]
Kimberly Atkinstore
So there is a very recent precedent in the Televsky case which basically held that the law that provides nursing home assistance does grant people the right to file suit if they are entitled to that under this law that we're talking about section 1983 that we've spoken about before. And the court really does not distinguish that or really show in any meaningful way why they're taking this about face right now. Other than one thing is different here and that's the fact that Planned Parenthood with the use of zero taxpayer dollars, it is illegal for Planned Parenthood to use any federal funding toward abortion services at all. That includes the actual procedure itself. That includes support surrounding that procedure that is funded by an entirely different mechanism under the Planned Parenthood auspices so that they don't run afoul of the law and they, they can continue to give non abortion care to the people who rely upon it. And you have to understand this is about the, the right to choose one's own doctor. This is not a choice to most Medicaid recipients. There are often very few providers that take Medicaid in the places where they live. It creates healthcare deserts and I can't imagine what the impact of that could be. I mean just my, I was, I was not a Medicaid recipient. But when I was in my 20s and I was going to college and I was living at home with my parents, I was on my parents insurance. So when I was in a relationship and I wanted to get birth control, I couldn't really have that conversation with my parents at that age. When I was like you know, 18, 19 about that. And so I went to Planned Parenthood. I went to Planned Parenthood because I could afford to go to Planned Parenthood and get this care and not have the paperwork for it go directly to my parents. When I had a allergic reaction, I went back to Planned Parenthood to get that care to make sure that I was safe, that I, that I was healthy. And so I can't even imagine someone that that was a choice for me. But you know, with the, with the money that I had at that time, I can't imagine having no choice at all. And having that stripped from you. And that's what this does. So yes, you mentioned the conclusion concurrence. Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence essentially saying that this law section 1983, that the court, he would like the court to revisit all the rights that this.
- [43:20]
Barb McQuaid
While we're at it, let's get rid of all the rights.
- [43:23]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Why are we giving rights anyway? Like what is all with all this, all these rights. So the, the one good thing about a two points on that one, that's a very Clearance Thomas concurrence. He often concurs, but bases it on the most far reaching rationale, most extreme position that one can take. The other point is he was alone in that concurrence. Not as like he couldn't even get Lido on board that. So take some solace in that. I guess. I don't know.
- [43:53]
Jill Wine Banks
So what? Go ahead, Barb.
- [43:55]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, I was just gonna say, you know, but I think when he writes these things, even when he doesn't, you know how Justice Ginsburg used to say when you write a dissent, you're writing for the future because you know this court isn't gonna agree with you, but maybe you put some ideas out there and someday you can evolve to the point of that. I think Justice Thomas writes for the future too. I think he writes invitations. Hey folks, why don't you come on down to the court and ask for more rights to be taken away? Cause I am on board.
- [44:22]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Remember, like that he's not just, he's not just an old man screaming at a cloud.
- [44:25]
Barb McQuaid
He's just, he's actually, I'm a Supreme Court justice. It's like in Dobbs when he said, you know, time to review all those substantive due process rights. Come on down.
- [44:34]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Same energy first.
- [44:36]
Barb McQuaid
Come on down.
- [44:36]
Kimberly Atkinstore
It's like, why are we giving people all these rights?
- [44:38]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. And the last point I just wanted to make is Justice Jackson's dissent. And one of the points she makes that I think is so interesting and profound is that she says that the court's decision thwarts Congress's will twice over, once in dulling the tool Congress created for enforcing all federal rights. That's the statute, 42 USC Section 1983. That is the statute that says individuals may file civil lawsuits when they have been deprived of a legal right, a federal right, by someone acting under color of law, which is what happened here. The city of the state of South Carolina took away this right to choose your provider when you are on Medicaid.
- [45:19]
Kimberly Atkinstore
And they took it away from Planned Parenthood, specifically to punish Planned Parenthood.
- [45:24]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, and she's not even getting abortion care. And then. And then she goes on and says, and the second one is in vitiating one of those rights altogether, which is this right to choose your qualified provider. And, you know, once again, Justice Gorsuch, as we so often see with textualists and originalists, they look at the language from the Televsky case that you mentioned and says, well, it doesn't use the exact same words as that case. So they forgot the same other. May I?
- [45:52]
Kimberly Atkinstore
So you lose.
- [45:53]
Barb McQuaid
It is such a disingenuous way to parse the law.
- [45:57]
Jill Wine Banks
Exactly. And as we've said, the consequences are far beyond this case. And they do mean that the services that you got, Kim, and that people on Medicaid now get from Planned Parenthood will not be available, and there are no substitutes. You can't go to an emergency room to get STD treatment, to get contraception. It's just. You can't go to just any random doctor. They won't take you as a Medicaid patient. And so it's really depriving women on Medicaid of their right to medical care under the Medicaid laws. And that is what is so terrible about it.
- [46:47]
Kimberly Atkinstore
You know, Joyce isn't here this week, but I want to go visit her pretty soon in Alabama for a lot of reasons. One, I adore her, but also, I know her. She has a house full of Helix mattresses, and I know that those are great, and great sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better than a Helix mattress. We first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show. But. But, you know, we're very selective here on Hashtag Sisters in Law, so we wanted to try it out ourselves. Of course. And so, like all of us, Joyce took their quiz to tailor her mattress to her sleeping style and got matched with the Helix midnight mattress. She's told us time and time again that she must have aced that quiz because she's getting the best sleep of her life ever since it arrived. After trying it, she got Helix for the whole family. House full of Helix. I can't think, why would I ever. Why would I ever stay in a hotel, you know? And Helix. Helix makes it easy. They have so many options. And you'll love how they combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the perfect blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm when the heat wave hits. And, man, has it been hitting, you.
- [48:09]
Barb McQuaid
Know, Kim, it's funny that you mention the house full of Helix because I just got back from Alabama where I was visiting with Joyce and man, was it hot. I did book talks in Alabama, including Birmingham, and turns out I was not invited to the house full of Helix. So I don't know. Maybe. Maybe we all need so you're not.
- [48:27]
Kimberly Atkinstore
As pushy as I am.
- [48:28]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, maybe we all just need to show up and say we're here for the Helix. Helix has been a part of my hashtag Sisters sleep habits for more than 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 choice.
- [48:59]
Jill Wine Banks
And it's even easier because right now Helix has an incredible 4th of July sale for our listeners. Go to helixsleep.com sisters for 27% off site wide. That's exclusive only for the listeners of Sisters In Law. And so just go to helixsleep.com sisters for that 27% off sitewide one last time helixsleep.com sisters or go to the link in our show notes.
- [49:41]
Barb McQuaid
Well, we have even more opinions from the Supreme Court to share with you. The court wrapped up its term on Friday and issued its remaining decisions. And we have a few more to talk about. But don't worry, dear listeners, it wasn't all bad. We have some hope for you, and we have at least one opinion that I think was useful and good for the rights of American citizens. We'll get to that in a minute. Before we do, we do have some others we wanted to discuss. Why don't we start with this one case called Mahmoud vs. Taylor? This is a case regarding the free exercise of religion brought by parents who want to opt their children out of school discussions or readings regarding the LGBTQ community. So this is not one of the ones that I found to be hopeful. But Jill, can you tell us about this one, what the court decided and your view of it?
- [50:38]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes, and you're right, this is sort of a depressing week because we're being overwhelmed by really poor decisions from the Supreme Court. But this one is very troubling to me. It is a case in Maryland where parents of certain religious beliefs sued to say that their children could not be exposed to storybooks. This is kindergarten through fifth graders could not be exposed to storybooks that have anything to do with gender Identity or sex, a same sex marriage would be barred from this. And when the school board said, well, we think that we need to have an inclusive curriculum so that people understand that there are people who have different gender identities, that people who have same sex parents, and it doesn't hurt to have people just be exposed to it. We're not telling them to be that way. But to say that there are people like that and that they are loved and celebrated by their families, well, the court said, nah, we're not going to do that. You have to allow anybody who has a religious objection to those sorts of things to opt out of the class. That means that if you have a child in a classroom and you think that God divined that there be only heterosexual marriages, that if there's a book being discussed that shows something different, your child cannot be in the classroom, that's going to be a real burden on the schools. But the court said, yep, that's how it is. We are going to allow them to not be in the classroom. And they delayed their order a little bit so that the schools could work out how this is going to all work. And it's just sort of interesting because it is part of the expansion of religious rites that are taking over the football coach who can pray at the 50 yard line. So, you know, this kind of decision is very worrisome to me, as you know, formerly with the Chicago Public Schools, as to what power individual parents are going to have to control the curriculum because it's going to be really hard to let people opt out of a classroom. What are you going to do with those kids? Where are you going to send them? How many are there going to be? How many absences will there be? And so what if the parents don't like teaching Darwin, for example? I mean, are they going to have to opt out of that class because they think there's something different going on? I think it could be really, really troublesome. I just think that I'm wondering, for example, I've been working on a children's book and one of the things I talk about is sex based discrimination, which I certainly endured, and I bet you did too. Is my book going to be banned? Because I mentioned that there's sex based discrimination that is like race based discrimination, except that it's based on my gender.
- [54:02]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, we got to keep that woke stuff out of our schools, Jill.
- [54:05]
Jill Wine Banks
I know.
- [54:06]
Kimberly Atkinstore
And can I just say something? I'm honestly really mad at the school district in Maryland that allowed this case to even move forward. Because listen, school administrators if you are listening, write your rules, and state lawmakers write your rules carefully at a time where you are under attack. Because Maryland did have an opt out provision which would have knocked this case out from jump if they had tried to sue then. Because that was sort of what the court hung its hat on. Right. That there was no way for parents to avoid having their child see a book that acknowledges that LGBTQ people exist, the horror. And all they had to do is put an opt out in and it would have made this legal choice.
- [54:50]
Jill Wine Banks
They did have an opt out and it didn't work. And that's why they said, it's just too cumbersome. It doesn't work.
- [54:55]
Kimberly Atkinstore
They said, right.
- [54:56]
Jill Wine Banks
And that's all the parents are asking for. They aren't asking that the book be banned. They're saying, I don't want my child to see it.
- [55:02]
Kimberly Atkinstore
If they left the opt out in, we wouldn't have this broader ruling. Now, that opens the door to more litigation is what I'm saying. That's always a danger when you have bad policy. You know, bad facts make bad law. And so I would greatly encourage local and state legislators as well as school officials to not do things right now that will create bad facts that will end up making bad law that affects the entire nation.
- [55:29]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, you know, and I agree with you, Kim, and I think that, you know, parental control of what's going on with your kids is very appealing. The idea that you can have an opt out of certain kinds of things is. But I really do think that there is, in this case, such a message that my religious views trump the rights of the LGBTQ community on its face. And, you know, Jill mentioned the case involving teaching Darwinism and evolution. You know, there was a case decades ago called Tennessee vs. Scopes, where a man was criminally convicted for teaching evolution in schools despite a law in Tennessee that prohibited it. And it, you know, it's the same kind of argument that people had this, what is it? Good faith, sincerely held religious belief that, you know, there was no evolution and that people descended from Adam and Eve and we should have a right not to expose our children to this indoctrination of other kinds of things. If you can send a message that it is somehow indoctrinating you against your religion to talk about the LGBTQ community, I mean, what's next? Like, I don't believe in interracial marriage, and so I shouldn't have to have my child exposed to that in the classroom or, you know, what else are they going to claim in the Name of religious liberty. So I think this really portends a dangerous thing. I agree with you. Right now, the time is perhaps to have opt outs, but this idea that.
- [57:14]
Kimberly Atkinstore
You know, this particular case, that this could. I don't mean that. Yeah, no, I'm with you. And I. I want to be clear. I'm in no way saying that this is the fault of the school administrators in the states. It is not. But I was pointless.
- [57:27]
Jill Wine Banks
They tried it and it didn't work. It was too. They. They also are trying to make the point that public education is in part intended to bring together diverse views. We have an integrated classroom in terms of race, in terms of gender, and we want people to understand.
- [57:46]
Kimberly Atkinstore
I was making a very minor point and I feel like we're making too much of it. So I agree that the book should be there. Let's. And just on another point to what you were talking about, Barb, you know what the challenge I want? I want the challenge of parents who. Who have a sincerely held religious belief that their kids should be able to get gender affirming care and that they have parental rights in order to. Their parental rights should be protected in order to ensure that their children get that care. And it is up to them, the parents, to make that choice for their child and not members of the state legislature. So I want that case. I will start a religion of the. Take care of my own kids, medical needs, church, and let's bring that. Because I don't understand how the Supreme Court can give it to strong parental rights in one case where the threat is that your eyeballs may lay on a book that shows that gay people exist. Or the threat from having one's gender, not. Not being able to affirm one's own gender in a way that allows them to move about the world in the way that they choose. I just don't understand how they square that circle.
- [58:57]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. The offending books, by the way, were called Uncle Bobby's Wedding and Pride Puppy, about a puppy that gets lost during a pride parade. Scandalous. Scandalous.
- [59:08]
Jill Wine Banks
Now the opinions include the books and pictures. It's delightful. You get to see how unharmful all these books were by reading the opinion.
- [59:21]
Barb McQuaid
Well, Jill, let me turn to another parental rights case to some extent, I guess the Texas law that prevents minors from accessing porn online. What did the court decide in that case and what's your view of that one?
- [59:34]
Jill Wine Banks
So in that case, there was a Texas law that said you have to. If you're in a. I think it was like, if you have more than 30% of your content is adult. That is online pornography. You have to be able to check the age of anybody who is opening that website. And adults brought suit saying, well, that's interfering with my First Amendment rights. If I have to put in that information, which is something like putting in a copy of your driver's license, I'm subjecting my personal information to being hacked or used inappropriately, and that interferes with my First Amendment rights. And the court said, no, no, that's okay. We're protecting children, and so they can do it. Whether there's consistency in all their decisions, as I said, we'll get to that when we talk about the ACA case, which was also based on religious rights, but came to a completely different conclusion. I'm not so upset about this one, and I guess that's my feeling that we put a lot of personal information in the computer to get a lot of things, and so I'm not that upset. If, on the other hand, there is a much less intrusive way of doing this, which is to have parents do the kind of oversight of their children in the same way that they can teach their children that gay marriages are bad, if they want to, they can teach their children that porn sites are bad and are prohibited, and they can put locks on the screen. So I'm not sure that we need the court to impose a law or to uphold a law that requires it rather than having people do it. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did talk about her own experience as a parent and how hard it is to put those filters on. Well, okay. I don't think it's all that hard for a Supreme Court justice to be able to put the filters on so that her children cannot access those sites. And that if people's First Amendment rights are violated, I would possibly go in the other direction.
- [61:45]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, you know, I'm not sure I disagree with this one. It does create a burden for adults, and adults certainly have First Amendment rights to, you know, view whatever pornography they want to. But the law has always had protections for children, for minors. You know, you can't go buy a Playboy magazine at the store. You can't go see certain kinds of movies. And so the idea that. And, you know, there's some. Some pretty hardcore stuff available on the Internet. And so trying. I agree with the spirit of this, of trying to protect children from it. If it is thereby collecting private data of adults, I would say let's address that problem. But the idea that we want to shield children from pornography, I don't have a concern with one thing, although I think that is interesting, is that teens who are questioning and looking for education on, you know, issues of sexual health and sexuality. I don't know, you know, to what extent this is going to have a hampering effect there. Like, I just don't know how broad this is. Is it just pornography per se, or is it also about sex education? And if it's about sex education, then that to me is a different question than if it's just about pornography. But I think it's porn sites. Certain porn sites have this age requirement.
- [63:11]
Kimberly Atkinstore
So I dissent. My concern here, and it's not that I don't think it's important for there to be guardrails when it comes to sexually explicit content. And children, of course, I believe that it is. My concern about this case is that, that this is content based. This is a content based law that impinges on the First Amendment. And given the broader sense of this Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence that has fortified and reinforced and betrassed the First Amendment's religious exercise clause at the expense of other clauses in the First Amendment like the establishment clause and now the free speech clause, I am worried about that. This Court is on a trajectory that it's basically picking and choosing what parts of the First Amendment ought to get the broadest protection. So while the outcome of this case. And let's. Come on, let's be frank, any, any kid over 8 knows how to use a VPN and get around this thing anyway. Right. But I'm more worried about where this is pushing First Amendment jurisprudence. So on that basis, I understand both of your arguments, and they're totally reasonable and I respect them, but I take a different view here.
- [64:29]
Jill Wine Banks
No, I was just going to say I'm glad you said that, Kimberly, because it's making me think. I mean, I think protecting children's important, but I think protecting the First Amendment is more important. And so I think you've made a very good point. Thank you.
- [64:47]
Barb McQuaid
Well, let's end with some better news. We've had a term with some pretty challenging decisions. Some of them that I think it is not an overstatement to say have really changed the dynamics of judicial power when it comes to presidential power in a way that I think we can only. We cannot begin to imagine the impact that that's going to have on the Trump presidency. But, Kim, the court also decided another case today regarding the Affordable Care Act. Yes, this has been under attack since the day it was enacted 15 years ago. There have been legal challenges up and down. But the court has upheld it, and it did so again on Friday. Can you tell us about what the court decided in this case?
- [65:32]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Yeah, the only certain things in life are death, taxes, and challenges to the Affordable Care Act. But, yes, as you said, once again, this is one area where the Supreme Court really cannot telegraph enough that it has zero interest in efforts to overturn the Affordable Care act, no matter how many postures that it comes in. This one was somewhat legally technical, but the point was there is a task force that is in charge of determining what medical procedures ought to be included in the mandate that doctors. That people are entitled to healthcare, preventative healthcare at no out of pocket cost. And the challenge was based on the fact that this committee had recommended prep and other preventative health care that is really crucial for health in the LGBTQ community, and they did not like that. So there was a challenge to say that this task force was unlawfully or unconstitutionally constituted. It's the same kind of challenge that has been used to try to, you know, strike down the Consumer Financial Protection Act Protection Board. Thank you, Jill. Have only, like, covered that agency since it was created. Yeah, you can tell we're all tired. I'm a little sleep deprived. But the Supreme Court said, no, they were properly constituted. You know, sorry, try again. I'm surprised that this case was even taken up to the point of argument, honestly, to begin with. But they heard it out and they said no. So as of now, preventative health care is still covered under the ACA at no cost to most Americans.
- [67:23]
Jill Wine Banks
So I have a question about it, because it seemed to me it was in direct conflict with another case we've talked about today, because this was also a religious objection saying, I don't want to have to provide insurance for HIV preventative care because it's a terrible thing. And the court said, yeah, you have to do it. As opposed to the other cases where they said no, religious rights trump everything else.
- [67:47]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Well, what they've done actually in other cases. That's a great question. What they've done is ensured that there is some sort of carve out. More akin to the books case, the LGBTQ books in school case, where there was no carve out for parents. You have other cases, like if you recall, Little Sisters of the poor and others, who claim that these mandates violated their religious. Their religious rights by forcing them to cover things like contraception. And basically the Supreme Court said, look, if you. If there's a carve out, that opts them out, as long as they can opt out. Then it's, it's okay. And that's essentially where the law is. So it didn't say that everybody had to do it, but that gave the religious freedom. And now. So I really just think this court does not want to strike down the Affirmative Care Act. The Chief Justice Roberts wrote a very controversial and complicated opinion year, over a decade ago now, keeping it in place. And I just think that they're at this point, they're tired, like they've moved on, like the justices have moved on. They're no longer interested in this.
- [68:48]
Barb McQuaid
They get bigger rights to eviscerate.
- [68:50]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Exactly. Oh, my God.
- [69:05]
Jill Wine Banks
Now it's time for our favorite part of the show, which is answering your questions. We really do like hearing from you and we learn a lot from what's bothering you. And I would say this week we had a plethora of emotional cries for help that you are all feeling the same pressure and concerns that we're feeling. And anyway, we've picked up a few questions to answer today. And if you ever have a question for us, email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. If we don't get to a question you ask on the show, follow us on our feeds throughout the week because we often answer questions that we didn't get to in the show on our own websites and on our own social media feeds. And today, the first question I'm going to ask Barbara to answer that question comes from Jay. How is it that ICE does not have to wear a uniform and instead play dress up?
- [70:11]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, interesting question, Jay. You know, this comes from, I'm sure what you are seeing is ICE all over the country wearing masks, not wearing insignia that specifies who they are and being mistaken for assailants. I mean, if a car pulled up next to me on the street and a bunch of guys dressed in plain clothes, you know, black caps and masks, jumped out and grabbed me, I would be very concerned about who they are. And so it, interestingly enough, there is no federal statute that requires law enforcement, federal law enforcement agencies to wear uniforms. And there is a reason for it. You know, most FBI agents wear plain clothes. They show up in a suit. And some of that is by design. It is because they are in the business of usually conducting interviews. Many of them are financial crimes. They will go to someone's office, knock on the door, sit down and ask for questions. And I think the absence of a uniform wearing just a business suit makes them appear less intimidating and probably causes people to be more comfortable and is more effective in eliciting information when you're conducting an interview. But there are other kinds of functions of federal law enforcement agents when they're involved in arrest situations, detention situations, crowd control situations, where a uniform really is, I think, very appropriate because it allows the person to recognize that this is a law enforcement person. I think it would prevent them from fighting back, from thinking I'm being kidnapped. I think it gives authority to the law enforcement official to issue commands and an understanding that the person has to comply with it. In a crowd control situation, I think it can cause people to dissipate. And I also think that in this day and age, when we've got these militia groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers sometimes showing up and trying to, you know, play dress up, it allows law, legitimate law enforcement to distinguish itself from these other people. So we did see a law get passed or proposed this week in California to require uniforms for law enforcement officials. I think it is going to apply only, though, to state officials. It will not constitutionally be applied to federal law enforcement officials because of the Supremacy Clause. But we have seen proposed legislation by AOC in the past to require federal law enforcement agents who are involved in arrest, detention and crowd control to wear uniforms. And that is a place where I think it should be outside of this, you know, proactive interview situation of FBI agents. But if you are going to effectuate an arrest, as these ICE agents are doing and know they are doing, they should be wearing uniforms.
- [72:59]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Can I just add a quick addendum? Jamelle Bowie in the New York Times had a great piece this week about the masks that these ICE agents have been wearing. And the rationale that is given by the Department of Homeland Security is that they, it's to protect their identities because they don't want them to be docked. But Jamel does a beautiful job in comparing the. Balancing the equities here about exactly what you're talking about, Barb. Having these mass people grab you, whisk you away. It also goes to the idea that these folks are not getting noticed. One minute they're thinking they're being kidnapped, and then very soon after they're on a plane heading to a country that they've never been to. So all of this is part of that just undermining of the rule of law. Even if it doesn't violate a specific provision, it overall is just an autocratic, awful way to conduct this.
- [73:51]
Jill Wine Banks
It is. And it's fair to say that the masks are not, you know, like the Lone Ranger mask. They are Baklavas that are hiding their whole face except for their eyes.
- [74:03]
Barb McQuaid
And baklava, Jill, not, how do you say it? How do you say baklava is the delicious dessert?
- [74:07]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Delicious. If they had baklava on their face, I might go with them.
- [74:14]
Jill Wine Banks
That's the answer we need. Baklava.
- [74:17]
Kimberly Atkinstore
There you go. Go.
- [74:18]
Jill Wine Banks
Thank you, Barbara. Now I'm going to go to our second question of the episode. And it comes from Blue sky from Chenriches, who asks, is the judiciary the only hope for our democracy? And basically, Kim has actually covered that pretty well, which is the answer is, no, it isn't. In fact, growing suspicion from me is that the Supreme Court is actually doing the exact opposite. And so we can't count on the judiciary. We have to count on ourselves. We, the people are the ones who will save democracy. And we can do it. Our next question comes from Paula and Kim. I'm going to ask you to answer Paula's question. Ultimately, when courts decide against Trump, how can their decisions be enforced? I'm worried about Andrew Jackson redux.
- [75:13]
Kimberly Atkinstore
Yeah. You know, I really feel this question. So I'm going to answer it in the micro and then pull back to the macro a little bit. And in the micro, listen, what we have already seen, trial level and even some appellate level federal judges doing is really examining these cases carefully looking at existing Supreme Court precedent and trying to rule in a way that is not just judge, but that can be upheld on appeal. That is the job of a judge. And they have been trying their hardest. Now we have the Supreme Court up at the top that has been moving the goalpost, like with these immigration cases. And so what's going to happen is these cases are going to be remanded back down to the trial court and they're going to have to try to do their best to issue these rulings, including at times, preliminary injunctions, very limited ones, in order to effectuate that. So, yes, I did just write a column saying that the courts will not save us from tyranny. I, I do believe that. But that doesn't mean writ large that you also don't have trial level judges who are working their hardest to try to, within the bounds of their limits, effectuate justice. So I think we can take some heart in that, but just sort of backing up a little bit. We got a lot of questions this week like this that you can tell. I can tell we can all tell that our listeners are just some of them are demoralized. They're terrified. They're afraid about what is happening as tyranny seems to be march more and more forward. They want to know answers. And a lot of the time we were just chatting offline that we don't know all the answers to these questions. We don't know everything that might happen. This is all just so uncharted. And all we are doing is trying to find the best ways to uphold what little is left of the rule of law and to build it back and fortify it. There are also a host of public interest groups who are pushing very, very hard to ensure the rights that we have are protected as much as they can be. You know, groups, I was going to start naming them, but there are literally so many. When you look at any one of these cases and you look at the amicus brief, there are groups, everyone from the ACLU to the lawyers committee to just so many that are fighting so hard. You have law firms that are fighting the good fight. You have law schools and clinics. I mean, there are so many people who are at work here. I know that these times are hard, but we cannot bend the arc of the universe back toward justice if we give up. And we have to all work together and do what we can. Support organizations, support immigrants organizations in your community, see what they need. If they need clothing or if they need money or if they need your volunteer. Just, just there are a thousand points of light, to use a phrase from a previous president, but in its actual correct sense that we can all be to try to foster justice. So I know we all have questions about what happens legally, what the courts might do, who can enforce these things. We have to hold tight on that just to see how this plays out. But that doesn't mean that we have to sit idle or lose hope or to lose the fight. So we are here with you. We feel it, we feel the same way. And we hear you, to borrow a phrase from Joyce, we're all in this together.
- [78:48]
Jill Wine Banks
I just want to add one thing to that beautifully said answer, Kim, and that is to give the name of an organization that I just learned about from a friend who's volunteering with them. It's called we the Action. And they will match you with something you can actually do to help to save democracy. It's a really, really good organization. I recommend everyone go to we the Action. I'm not sure if it's.com or.org but you will find it and we'll post it in our show notes. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkinstore, Barb McQuaid and me, Jill Wine Banks. Follow sister, wherever you listen to your podcasts. And please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Flamingo Smalls and Helix. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode, Sisters in Law.
- [79:57]
Kimberly Atkinstore
And so he, you could tell he just calls women honey all the time. That when he was just like, no, well, honey. And then he stopped and then he was more. And the best part wasn't even the judge he was talking to. It was the other female judge who was sitting right next to her, who.
- [80:13]
Barb McQuaid
Was like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll bet. You know they've got history, right? She's just been waiting for this moment. Hilarious.
- [80:22]
Kimberly Atkinstore
It was crazy.