Sisters In Law – Episode 251: Nullification

Podcast: #SistersInLaw by Politicon | Date: August 30, 2025
Hosts: Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade (Joyce Vance absent)

Overview

In this episode, the Sisters in Law team explores the evolving challenges to independent institutions in the United States government, focusing on President Trump's high-profile attempts to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and CDC Director Susan Menarez. The episode also examines recent incidents of jury nullification around “Sandwich Gate,” and Trump’s renewed effort to criminalize flag burning. Listeners are treated to the hosts’ signature blend of legal analysis, history, and cultural context—plus their thoughts on Labor Day, unions, and more.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Labor Day: Meaning, Memories & Modern Reflection

[00:12–04:51]

• The hosts open with personal stories about their connections to labor unions and the original significance of Labor Day.
  • Kim shares about her father’s lifelong union commitment in Detroit:

    "He put a sticker on each check saying, this payment made possible by union labor." (01:45, Kim)

  • Jill and Barb discuss their union affiliations and experiences.
  • A nod to the history of Labor Day, especially the Pullman Strikes in Chicago.
  • Recommendation: The PBS “Chicago Stories” episode on Pullman Porters.

The Attempted Firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook

[11:22–29:02]

Fed Independence & The Trump Factor

• Context: Trump moved to fire Lisa Cook, the first Black female Fed governor, citing supposed cause (alleged mortgage fraud regarding primary residence declarations).
• Kim lays out the role and deliberate independence of the Federal Reserve:

  "The last thing you need...is at the whims of any president who wants to just advance his policy over what the overall good is for the U.S. economy." (13:03, Kim)

The Pretext of Cause

• The hosts express skepticism regarding the “mortgage fraud” claim—Cook has faced no charges or civil action, and the claim surfaced via a political referral.

  "It feels to me like that's a witch hunt..." (17:08, Kim) "Are you surprised that there's no referral for Paxton? No, I bet you're not." (19:22, Jill)

Cook’s Legal Resistance

• Barb outlines Cook’s response: filing suit to challenge Trump’s action, asserting:
  1. The alleged offense doesn’t meet the “for cause” standard for Fed governors.
  2. She is entitled to due process (advance notice and a hearing).

  "A box on a document alone does not make a mortgage fraud case... Governors are appointed to 14 year staggered terms to avoid any political interference, and they can be removed only for cause." (21:20, Barb)

Supreme Court Precedent & Institutional Integrity

• Discussion references Trump v. Wilcox (NLRB firing case), which carved out distinctly higher protections for Fed governors.

  "It almost felt like a little ham handed, you know, because they're saying, oh, God, we can't let Trump touch the Federal Reserve Board." (25:13, Barb)

  • Kim tempers optimism, noting that the relevant SCOTUS language comes only from a shadow docket, not a binding decision.

    "That ground is shaky. Shaky." (28:58, Kim)

  • The hosts agree the outcome will set a critical precedent for Fed independence.

CDC Director Susan Menarez’s Stand

[30:04–37:29]

• Trump (via HHS Secretary RFK Jr.) attempted to force Menarez out over disagreements with anti-vaccine policy changes.
• Menarez refused to resign, stating only the President (not a Cabinet Secretary) can fire her:

  "She said that they go against science, they go against the evidence... and that she could not countenance signing onto policies like the restriction of vaccine schedules" (30:41, Kim)

• Barb states Trump could fire her outright but is dodging political blowback:

  "If Donald Trump really wants her gone, he certainly has the ability to fire her. But until he does, I think she is calling him out." (33:40, Barb)

• Four other top officials have resigned, and even Senator Cassidy now protests the vaccine policy direction.

“Sandwich Gate”: Jury Nullification in Action

[41:19–54:24]

• The D.C. Grand Jury declined to indict Sean Dunn (ex-DOJ paralegal) on a felony for throwing a sandwich at a CBP agent, despite video proof.

  "If everybody knew that this thing had happened. And if you bring [it] In a grand jury. Like, are you serious? Where you brought us in for the sandwich, man? Like that? No, we're not. Give you a true bill on this. This is ridiculous." (47:47, Kim)

Jury Nullification Explored

• Jill and Barb explain grand jury rules and the roots of nullification, referencing precedent and history (e.g., Zenger trial, Emmett Till, O.J. Simpson).

  "Jury nullification is when a jury finds a defendant isn't guilty, even though the evidence is pretty clear that the defendant did exactly what the law prohibits." (49:55, Jill)

  • Pros: Public check on government overreach.
  • Cons: Undermines the predictable application of law.
• The hosts note the friction between the moral conscience of jurors and the rule of law, with Barb saying:

  "I think we're gonna see more of it because the example has been set." (54:24, Jill)

Trump’s Flag Burning Executive Order

[61:13–71:56]

• Trump issues an executive order mandating DOJ prosecution (and minimum sentencing) for flag burning.

  “It's literally written like a statute, which of course the president can't do. Only Congress can pass a law.” (61:45, Jill)

Legal History: Texas v. Johnson

• The Supreme Court held (1989) flag burning is protected speech. Even Scalia voted with the majority.

  "Flag burning is free expression protected by the First Amendment." (64:12, Barb)

• Congress’s similar effort after the Texas v. Johnson ruling was also invalidated.
• A veteran protested the order almost immediately by burning a flag in front of the White House, prompting arrest (likely for violating park rules, not for expressive flag burning).
• The hosts are divided on whether SCOTUS might revisit the precedent; some optimism that current law will hold.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the attack on Fed independence:

  “Of course, Donald Trump wants lower interest rates because that's good for him politically. That will allow more people to buy houses like that Bill Pulte wants because he's in the housing business.” (23:38, Barb)

• On the hypocrisy of mortgage fraud charges:

  “It looks like really hypocritical for Donald Trump to be claiming any kind of mortgage fraud as a reason for her not to serve when he is convicted of fraud.” (36:25, Jill)

• Reflecting on nullification:

  “If they see some nonsense being brought before them, they have the right and the duty to call nonsense nonsense.” (53:16, Kim)

Timestamps for Critical Segments

• [11:22] Start of Lisa Cook/Federal Reserve Board firing discussion
• [21:20] Barb details Cook’s legal case and arguments
• [25:05] SCOTUS precedent and Fed independence
• [30:04] CDC Director Menarez’s resistance
• [41:19] Start of “Sandwich Gate” grand jury nullification discussion
• [49:55] Deep dive on the doctrine/history of jury nullification
• [61:13] Flag burning executive order and First Amendment analysis
• [64:02] Supreme Court history with flag burning (Texas v. Johnson)
• [68:44] Prospects for Supreme Court revisiting flag burning precedent

Listener Q&A Highlights

[76:22–81:14]

• Redistricting fairness: Independent commissions and smaller district formulas can ensure fairer maps, but political will is key. (76:22, Kim)
• Trump’s appeals: He is appealing his felony conviction (and related civil judgments); process could be lengthy.
• US Government’s stake in Intel: Legal but highly unusual—reminiscent of the auto bailouts; reflects government intervention contrary to the traditional capitalist approach.

Tone & Takeaways

The conversation blends deep legal knowledge with pointed wit and lived experience. The tone is analytical but laced with indignation at assaults on institutional checks and balances (“this just screams bad”), and a passion for the stakes behind abstract-sounding controversies like independence, due process, and First Amendment rights.

Best for listeners seeking:

• Up-to-the-minute analysis on legal-political clashes under Trump’s administration
• Clear explanations of precedent and institutional design
• The real-life effects of bureaucratic “resistance”
• Emotional, personal, and historical context on legal controversies

For more, follow the Sisters on social or listen in next week for further legal and political deep dives.