SistersInLaw Podcast Episode 270: “Make 1984 Great Again”

Date: January 10, 2026
Hosts: Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Barb McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, Joyce Vance
Podcast: #SistersInLaw by Politicon

Overview

This episode tackles a tumultuous and concerning week in American politics and law, discussing:

• The fatal shooting of Renee Goode by an ICE agent in Minneapolis and the legal aftermath
• The controversial U.S. military-led arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro
• The upcoming Supreme Court cases involving the rights of transgender student athletes
  The hosts pull back the curtain on legal procedures, government overreach, and the impact on democracy and human rights, all while seeking hope in dark times.

Finding Hope in Dark Times (00:50–06:10)

Theme: The heaviness of the news cycle, and personal/familial acts of kindness that restore faith in humanity.

• Barb McQuaid: Looks for kindness—helping at her church’s homeless shelter, observing “helpers” as Fred Rogers encourages.
  “Just seeing individual kindness at a human level, I think can restore your hope for humanity.” (02:00)
• Jill Wine-Banks: Actively finds positive news—House GOP majority reduced gives her hope for change.
• Joyce Vance: Observed heightened kindness from strangers while traveling post-Renee Goode shooting.
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Finds hope in their thoughtful, engaged listeners; sees collective engagement as a sign that justice and democracy still have defenders.

Segment 1: The Killing of Renee Goode and Federal Accountability (09:35–36:24)

Immediate Issues and Jurisdiction (09:39–15:08)

• Jill outlines the facts: ICE agent shot Renee Goode, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother, in Minneapolis. The administration claims self-defense. Republicans label her a terrorist. Another ICE shooting followed in Portland the next day.
• Key Legal Question: Who investigates and can prosecute—federal or state?
• Joyce: Dual jurisdiction is possible, but this case, involving a federal agent, is complicated. Both state and federal governments could pursue charges.
  “It takes time. Often video has to be enhanced and carefully reviewed to make a determination about what happened along with ballistic evidence.” (13:33)

Federal Exclusion of State Investigators (15:08–20:13)

• Jill and Barb: Normally, investigations are collaborative. The FBI taking control and ousting the state is "highly irregular" and disturbing.
• Barb: Stresses importance of evidence sharing for thorough, fair prosecutions.

Implications for Prosecution (20:44–25:26)

• Kim: If the DOJ removes the case to federal court, it remains a state prosecution under state law. However, federal blocks on state access to evidence threaten public trust. “I can't emphasize enough how dangerous and outrageous that is... any federal investigation now cannot be trusted.” (24:09)

Can We Trust the DOJ? (25:26–28:54)

• Joyce: The administration’s rush to declare self-defense and exclude the state has eroded trust. The Justice Department's community relations unit—a vital peacekeeping and transparency tool—was dismantled early in Trump’s term.
  “There is no investigative authority that everyone in the public will have confidence in in this situation.” (26:19)

Officer Immunity and Prosecution Barriers (28:54–33:20)

• Barb: Federal agents have qualified, not absolute, immunity—if actions are outside federal duties (unnecessary force), state prosecution is possible. But it’s a high bar.
  “It's just not that they acted unreasonably, but that they acted criminally—that this was a murder.” (33:17)

Civil Litigation Pathways (33:20–36:24)

• Kim: Civil suits (Section 1983) generally do not apply to federal agents—“Bivens” actions are now heavily restricted by the Supreme Court, so it’s unlikely Goode’s family will find remedy there. “There’s going to be very little remedy, if any, for those left behind.” (36:18)

Segment 2: US Military Takeover in Venezuela and the Arrest of Maduro (41:51–57:14)

Legality of the Operation (41:51–45:36)

• Barb/Jill: Rubio calls it a law enforcement operation; Trump, others claim U.S. now controls Venezuela and its oil. Jill, a former Army General Counsel, unequivocally deems the intervention illegal under international law and the U.S. Constitution. “It is not lawful for the US to go into a sovereign nation, bomb it, arrest a person ... to remove them to stand trial in the U.S.” (44:32)

Oil Claims and Motive (45:36–48:54)

• Kim: Venezuela nationalized its oil decades ago; U.S. claims “our oil” are baseless. Even oil companies are wary of re-entering. “It was never their oil. It was companies that had an agreement at some point to extract this oil from Venezuela...” (46:06)
• Jill: Oil companies don't want to go back—economically unsound and unstable.

Comparison to Noriega and Venue Discussion (49:02–56:20)

• Joyce/Jill: Comparison with Manuel Noriega highlights differences—Noriega’s arrest, while controversial, had different predication (U.S. marines killed, existing U.S. troop presence). Maduro argues illegal arrest, but under U.S. law, this doesn't entitle him to release—Kerr-Frisbie doctrine applies.
• Kim/Joyce: The case is in SDNY due to alleged acts on NY soil and prosecutorial expertise. Federal authorities “manufactured” venue.

Immunity Debate (58:16–60:24)

• Jill: International law provides limited, not absolute, immunity for heads of state. Once out of office, that protection disappears.

U.S. Installation of Venezuelan Leadership (60:24–61:45)

• Kim: U.S. should not be installing leaders; claims of supporting democracy contradicted by installing the old regime’s vice president. “It’s important to remember the US shouldn’t be installing anybody. This is for the Venezuelan people to decide...” (61:07)

Trump and Greenland (61:45–65:40)

• Joyce: Trump administration openly discusses annexing Greenland, attacking Denmark if necessary; disregard for international law is clear and concerning. “The part we should pay attention to ... is that the United States, that this president had no interest in following international norms or international law. Right. That's not a barrier if Trump wants to do something.” (63:09)

Segment 3: SCOTUS Preview – Transgender Athlete Cases (68:11–76:48)

What’s at Stake (68:11–70:25)

• Jill: Court will hear two cases (WV and Idaho) about whether transgender girls can participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. The scientific and legal complexities overlap.

Predicting the Outcome (70:43–73:09)

• Barb: Expects the Supreme Court to uphold bans on transgender athletes, based on a recent ruling (Scarmetti) and its rationale. “What I would hope would happen is that trans kids would stop being a political football.... They just want to throw a ball around with their friends. Do we really have to make a Supreme Court case of it?” (72:44)

Why Target Trans Youth—And Why Does The Court Accept These Cases? (74:15–76:48)

• Kim: Conservative use of anti-trans sentiment as a political wedge. Court’s idea of “fairness” is problematic; likely to defer to states with rational basis review. “The Supreme Court has this weird idea of fairness that is completely removed from the way America actually works.” (75:13)

Memorable Quotes & Notable Moments

• Joyce Vance on DOJ trust post-shooting:
  “I know and have worked with a lot of the ... FBI who will probably be called upon to investigate this... They’re great..., but we’ve seen far too many instances where this administration has tried to put its thumb on the scales of justice.” (26:38)
• Kim Atkins Stohr on transparency:
  “Local and state officials are the only games in town... The state cannot just throw up its hands and walk away. That would be outrageous.” (25:19)
• Jill Wine-Banks on Venezuela:
  “It is not lawful for the US to go into a sovereign nation, bomb it, arrest a person... It violates the UN Charter... So, no, it's not legal, period.” (44:32)
• Barb McQuaid on criminal justice:
  “It is what makes it so very difficult to obtain convictions against officers who are acting in ways that people would consider unreasonable.... But because it's criminal, it's just not that they acted unreasonably, but that they acted criminally, that this was a murder.” (33:17)
• Discussion on SCOTUS and trans youth:
  “Trans kids would stop being a political football.... They just want to throw a ball around with their friends. Do we really have to make a Supreme Court case of it?” —Barb (72:44)

Key Timestamps

• Hope amid dark news: 01:41–06:11
• ICE shooting of Renee Goode – introduction: 09:39
• Federal vs. state prosecution, evidence access: 11:43–20:44
• Immunity & legal analysis for federal agents: 28:54–33:20
• Civil remedies (limitations): 33:20–36:24
• Venezuela intervention, legality & oil discussion: 41:51–48:54
• Noriega precedent and venue: 49:02–56:20
• Immunity for heads of state: 58:16–60:24
• Greenland & expansionism: 61:45–65:40
• Transgender athlete SCOTUS preview: 68:11–76:48
• Q&A segment: 80:12 onward

Final Thoughts

This episode is a sobering and incisive look at abuses of power, erosion of legal norms, and the struggle for justice under a hostile administration. The hosts’ expertise and empathy ground the conversation, offering insight—and hope—amid ongoing threats to democracy, civil rights, and the rule of law. The upcoming Supreme Court hearings and ongoing investigations remain critical flashpoints to watch.