#SistersInLaw Podcast: Episode 266 - "Two Days"
Date: December 13, 2025
Hosts: Barb McQuade, Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Episode Overview
This week, the #SistersInLaw team dives into a range of pressing legal and political issues:
- The Department of Justice’s repeated (and controversial) attempts to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James
- An important federal court injunction against the Trump administration’s efforts to federalize more National Guard troops in California
- The Supreme Court’s consideration of executing a man with an intellectual disability
Throughout, the hosts reflect on the power of human kindness and recent personal moments of beauty amid a heavy news cycle.
Opening Reflections: Finding Beauty in Tough Times
[00:39–07:24]
- Barb McQuaid opens, noting it’s been a “heavy week” with Michigan football scandals and ongoing Trump controversies. She urges everyone to look for moments of kindness and awe amidst chaos.
- Joyce Vance shares her joy over glimpsing a wild bobcat on her new wildlife camera — an unexpected reminder of nature’s wonders.
- Kimberly Atkins Stohr finds beauty walking her dog Snickers at night, appreciating her neighbors’ creative holiday lights.
- “Instead of trying to get Snickers out by dusk… I wait till it’s fully dark because it just looks so pretty.” — Kim [03:27]
- Jill Wine-Banks revels in “amazing sunsets” and celebrates her dog Brisbi’s miraculous recovery after acupuncture therapy.
- “There’s nothing more beautiful than his being better.” — Jill [04:49]
- Barb highlights acts of tenderness at an assisted living facility, especially among staff, aides, and patients.
- “Human kindness there… it’s actually been a really beautiful thing to see this community in action.” — Barb [06:23]
- The theme: Even in turbulent times, beauty and kindness are always present if we look for them.
DOJ’s Triple Failure: The Letitia James "Indictment Shopping"
[10:23–13:29]
- Jill gives a scathing overview: DOJ has failed for a third time to indict New York AG Letitia James, describing the repeated attempts as “humiliating.”
- “Not only is the third time not the charm, but I'm wondering if DOJ is humiliated and tired of losing.” — Jill [10:23]
- Barb breaks down why the grand juries keep rejecting the case:
- The claim that James lied to defraud is baseless; she still controls the property in question, and renting to her niece is permissible under relevant rules.
- Suggests the persistent efforts reflect Trump’s political vendetta, not evidence-based prosecution.
- “The system is designed to weed out baseless cases… It’s clearly not there for Letitia James, and they really ought to just go away and stop embarrassing themselves.” — Barb [13:29]
- Key message: Legal institutions—grand juries in this case—do require real evidence, even when political pressure mounts.
DOJ’s Other Legal Setbacks
The Comey Prosecution Blocked
[13:29–17:17]
- Jill and Joyce detail another “loss” for DOJ: a judge blocked use of key evidence against former FBI Director James Comey, related to a constitutional violation (improper search and seizure).
- Joyce explains that excluding evidence is the “consequence for misconduct” and a critical check on prosecutorial overreach.
- “Making mistakes with evidence has consequences, and people whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated have the ability to go into court.” — Joyce [16:00]
U.S. Attorney Appointment Scandals
[17:17–20:42]
- Jill and Kim discuss the resignation of Alina Habba as US Attorney for New Jersey, part of a pattern of unconfirmed and improperly serving U.S. Attorneys.
- Habba’s departure was inevitable after being blocked in the Senate; other controversial nominees like Lindsey Halligan are still maneuvering to be confirmed.
- “If she's heading off, that kind of sounds like incompetence to me.” — Kim [19:44]
- The pattern raises separation-of-powers concerns and reflects repeated attempts to bypass legal norms.
DOJ Scraps Disparate Impact Civil Rights Protections
[20:42–27:39]
- Jill: DOJ dropped its “disparate impact” cases under Title VII, a major step back for civil rights.
- Barb explains disparate impact: policies that harm specific groups even without intent can be unlawful if effects are discriminatory.
- “This is…an incredibly significant case…and one that could very well fly below the radar.” — Barb [20:42]
- Describes how this doctrine—rooted in 1970s–2015 Supreme Court decisions—protects against systemic racism.
- Joyce tells of using disparate impact in fair housing cases, noting that ending this tool “is bad for communities that have problems they need help fixing.”
Immigration Detentions and Judicial Pushback
[27:39–32:15]
- Jill and Kim report on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, detained without lawful authority for months despite a court order.
- Judge Zinna ordered his release, affirming basic habeas corpus rights:
- “There’s something called habeas corpus in this country that means you cannot detain someone indefinitely…without giving them a chance to defend themselves.” — Kim [28:34]
- The segment highlights inhumanity and legal violations under current immigration policies.
The National Guard Federalization Fight
[38:44–51:50]
Overview
- Joyce introduces Judge Breyer’s (N.D. California) preliminary injunction, blocking Trump from further federalizing California's National Guard.
- “The founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.” — Judge Breyer, quoted by Jill [39:30]
Timeline & Substance
- Jill walks through the timeline: multiple executive orders, TROs, and appeals since protests in June.
- Barb details the core legal finding: The deployment likely violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from domestic law enforcement.
- “If there’s any harm to be done here, it’s going to be to the communities…who [are] arrested or questioned or stopped or detained by these officers who have no legal right to do that.” — Barb [43:59]
- The ruling is preliminary; the Ninth Circuit now takes up the appeal.
The Stakes
- Kim and Joyce emphasize why Trump wants to federalize the Guard:
- It’s about creating a quasi-military domestic police force—particularly in cities led by Black Democrats—which is both “tyrannical” and “racist.”
- “He wants a federalized police force. That’s what he campaigned on.” — Kim [48:23]
- National Guardsmen aren’t trained for law enforcement, putting communities and the troops themselves at risk.
Supreme Court: Death Penalty and Intellectual Disability
[56:10–66:02]
The Case
- The Court hears arguments on whether Alabama can execute Joseph Clifton Smith, whose IQ hovers just above the typical cutoff for intellectual disability.
- Joyce reviews the legal standard since Atkins v. Virginia:
- Bright-line IQ cutoffs are unconstitutional; courts must consider test error margins and adaptive functioning (Hall v. Florida, Moore v. Texas).
- “There has to be some individualized assessment of these people's situation.” — Joyce [57:22]
- Jill recounts Smith’s troubling background and supports considering the full picture: “When we're looking at determining intellectual disability…we would see clearly that this person…is intellectually disabled.” [59:44]
- Barb notes the profound stakes: The case tests both life-or-death justice and what kind of society America wishes to be:
- “The stakes here are not about polling. It's not about a political horse race. It's about a matter of life and death, somebody's life.” — Barb [63:57]
Q&A Highlights
[68:54–76:34]
-
What happens to fines for frivolous lawsuits?
- Jill: Fines compensate the parties harmed, including legal fees and sometimes the court’s administrative costs.
- “It is a good way to prevent future bad behavior by lawyers.” — Jill [69:35]
-
Could Democrats impeach Trump if they win the midterms?
- Kim: Unlikely without a shift in current Democratic leadership (“no appetite” so far for further impeachments).
-
If the Supreme Court overturns birthright citizenship, does the Constitution need to be amended?
- Joyce: No, the Court’s (potentially bad) interpretation would be the law and not require ratification. She calls such an outcome a “nonstarter.”
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- “Those little Murder Paws.” — Joyce, on the bobcat [03:03]
- “Are you sure it wasn’t generated by AI… Trump’s face but as a baby?” — Barb [03:06]
- “He wants a federalized police force. That’s what he campaigned on.” — Kim [48:23]
- “I think that the way we treat the least of us is a reflection on society.” — Barb [61:56]
- On the court case delaying Trump’s use of the National Guard: “The only check they want is a blank one.” — Judge Breyer, quoted by Jill [39:30]
Timestamps for Key Segments
- Reflections on Beauty/Kidness – 00:39–07:24
- Letitia James/DOJ Failures – 10:23–13:29
- Comey Evidence Blocked – 13:29–17:17
- U.S. Attorney Appointment Scandal – 17:17–20:42
- Disparate Impact Scrapped – 20:42–27:39
- Immigration Detention Ruling – 27:39–32:15
- National Guard Federalization – 38:44–51:50
- SCOTUS & Intellectual Disability/Death Penalty – 56:10–66:02
- Listener Q&A – 68:54–76:34
Closing Notes
The hosts blend incisive legal analysis, political insight, and personal warmth—underscoring the real-life stakes and human impact of complex legal battles. The episode is riddled with sharp humor, expert explanations, and a spirit of camaraderie that makes even the heaviest topics accessible.
For Further Reference
- The hosts promise links for in-depth legal timelines, columns, and resources in the show notes.
- Merch reminder: Two days left for holiday orders.
“There’s beauty all around us, dear listeners, if we just take time to look for it.”—Barb [07:24]