D (2:51)

I really do love the question and answer part of the show. And for people who are listeners who've maybe thought about sending in a question but haven't done it because they were worried we wouldn't have time, now's your opportunity. We really do want to hear from you. We want your questions, we want to know what's on your mind. And we will do our best to give you more answers every week. It's going to be a crazy year heading into the midterms and now more than ever, knowledge is power. So let's all go for it together.

A (3:21)

It'll be really worth your while. So tune in to sisters sidebar.

C (3:35)

Joyce, I have to tell you something hysterical. Snickers has learned to talk. And I've realized this because usually, you know, we feed her after a walk. And increasingly once we get back from the walk, like before I even can take off my coat or my shoes, she's looking at me going, and I'm like, what? Like, what's your problem? And I realize it's because she's like essentially saying, feed me now. And this has happened ever since I started feeding her the Pets table. Right? So it's the pets table is this prepared, delicious set of meals that you can give to your dog. You know, I know we talked about cat food in the past, but our dogs deserve the best too. And Snickers clearly is over the old kibble that I used to give her. And you know, I can't really blame her. If I was eating kibble and then I got something far more delicious, I'd go crazy too, and I'd probably talk about it. Snickers knew there had to be a better way. But you know, I didn't really know what to do until I discovered the Pets Table. We all did to fill the rest of you in. The Pets Table is a personalized dog food from the team behind HelloFresh. And we've been fans of them for a long time, so it's an easy switch. They offer both fresh human grade and gently air dried options that you can mix to see what your pup prefers. I'm telling you, Snickers and that chicken casserole, she literally woofs it down. Pun intended. Like she, like, I sometimes worry that she'll choke herself because she eats it so fast.

D (5:14)

Joyce, you know, I have two German shepherds but I can tell what they really, really like. You know, they just perk up for good food and it makes me feel so good to see them eating something fresh and healthy. With nine recipes to choose from, there's so much variety here. Each one is formulated by a board certified vet nutritionist, so you know it's the good stuff. The air dried plan is shelf stable and needs zero prep and that's handy to have on hand when you're expecting cold weather. But unlike kibble that's highly processed at high temps, the pet's table is minimally processed to preserve actual nutrients like protein, vitamins and antioxidants that your dog needs to support gut and immune health, a healthy coat and an active lifestyle. Then they have the human grade. Honestly, it looks table ready and just like the food we'd all recognize on our plates or in our kitchens.

A (6:12)

With choices like fresh beef with sweet potatoes and turkey with blueberries, your dog will live his best life. It's practically a Thanksgiving feast with every meal and based on how quickly the food gets eaten, I know that your dog is going to be a fan. It's been great seeing Rizby with such an appetite. I feel so much better knowing that he's getting real food that is designed with his health in mind. He even seems like he has better skin and more energy and that's something we'd all like to see.

B (6:47)

Each plan is customized for your dog's specific needs based on their age, weight, activity level and more to keep them lean and healthy with allergen friendly and seafood options. Get that? There's something for every pup plus they back it up with a 100% money back guarantee on your two week trial. So there's zero risk. So help your dog live their best life with high quality food from the pet stable. Take advantage of this limited time offer to get 55% off your first box plus 10% off your next two. And@thepetstable.com using the code sisters55 that's thepetstable.com code sisters55 the link is in our show Notes. This week saw reporting of stepped up immigration enforcement in Minnesota. The Associated Press actually reported something that I think is very disturbing to all of us and that's that ICE Immigration Customs Enforcement has authorized its agents to enter homes to make arrests using what are known as administrative warrants. So I want to talk about this and help our listeners understand why this is so concerning. Jill, can you tell us about what it is the AP is actually reporting.

A (8:14)

And what their source is absolutely. And I just want to start by saying my first arguments in court when I joined the Department of Justice were on the Fourth Amendment. And so I really am a big fan of its protections. The AP reported that they had been shared a copy of a memo from May 12, 2025, so right after the Trump inauguration that said that the Office of Legal Counsel had now said free forcible entry to arrest a person with a final order of deportation with only an administrative warrant. Which means there's been no independent judgment by a judicial officer. There's been no approval by someone outside the agency so that they would be free to just, hey, I want to get this person. I'm going to knock down their door. And it came to AP from some whistleblowers, two federal officials who really felt that this was going way too far. And so they wanted to try to make everybody aware of it. And aside from getting a. Somehow a legal copy, because they go out of their way to say, we found a way to legally obtain this copy of the memo, which is attached to the whistleblower report, which everyone can see. In fact, we'll attach it to our show notes so that you'll see it. It lays out how secretive the existence of this memo was. It indicates that they knew that it was definitely not legitimate. It led to the resignation of a training officer because he believed that the Fourth Amendment had to be in place and he wouldn't train people on doing a forcible entry without having a judicial warrant. It's really a serious problem because a neutral arbiter is essential, because there are mistakes, even when you go to court and convince them that there's probable cause to do something. But, you know, we've seen mistakes made. Now you don't even have to get it reviewed. You just say, I want it, and you get it from your own agency.

B (10:27)

Kim, Jill mentioned the Fourth Amendment. Can you just tell us what the Fourth Amendment says? You know, maybe the text of it, what it says about searches and seizures, and it talks about a warrant. It doesn't actually use the word judge, but we know about the way it's been interpreted. You know, as Jill said, there are. There are such things as immigration judges, but I believe this memo, which is an authentic memo, actually says ICE supervisors themselves can sign these warrants.

A (10:55)

Right?

C (10:55)

Yeah. This has nothing to do with actual immigration judges, which are not Article 3 judges, but that's part of the judiciary. But at least there are people who have some experience, right, with adjudicating these kinds of things. So the text of the Fourth Amendment says, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. And no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things being seized. That's the actual wording of it. And, you know, there is a reason for that. Those set out legal standards. And so for that to be, you know, it's meant in part to keep the foxes from guarding the hen houses. Right. If just to allow ICE agents to say, nope, okay, we did it. We had. Trust us, we have this. That is not in comporting with what the framers had in mind here at all. It's really. It's really unbelievable.

B (12:04)

So, as I agree with Kim that the idea of an ICE supervisor signing a warrant is really concerning because that is an executive branch employee. Joyce, I know you do some of this training to help people know their rights. And it has long been expressed that even a warrant from an immigration judge is not enough under the Fourth Amendment. Can you explain why a warrant signed by an immigration judge is still not sufficient to satisfy what Kim just talked about, this idea and, Jill, this idea of a detached and neutral magistrate signing off on these warrants.

D (12:42)

Yeah. So, for starters, it's important to understand that immigration judges are not Article 3 judges. They are actually executive branch employees, and they are fireable by Donald Trump at will. So, you know, I'm not feeling too hot these days even about immigration judges issuing these kind of orders. But leaving that aside. And look, I will just say there are some technical legal arguments on both sides about whether or not an immigration judge can sign a qualifying order. I think that the answer is no. But there are good arguments to be made on both sides there. But that's not what this is about. So to understand the question that you're asking, Barb, you have to know the difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative warrant. And a judicial warrant is one that's signed by a judge who hears whatever evidence the agents have and makes an independent decision about whether it rises to the level of probable cause that you need to search someone's home. You know, law enforcement can't enter your home or private parts of your business without a judicially approved search warrant. So this new ICE policy claims that something called an ICE Form I205, which is a notice that there is a deportation order for someone who is a noncitizen. That's a document signed by, quote, any immigration officer. So to your point and Kim's point, an ICE employee. Now, ICE is saying that that document is sufficient, and it just isn't. The Fourth Amendment provides that law enforcement cannot search your home without a search warrant. That has been supported with probable cause to believe that there's evidence or fruits of crime there. That applies even if they're going in right to grab someone who they have a deportation warrant for. And so ICE can't just blow past the Fourth Amendment with their little Form I 205. They can't change what the Fourth Amendment has provided for in this country for almost 250 years. And you ask a great question about how the law has worked in this area. The Supreme Court has made it really clear that a search warrant has to be signed by a judicial officer or a magistrate. The idea is the detached, neutral judge that Jill was talking about, not someone who's involved in investigating the case or someone who's on the same team as the agents who were investigating the case. This has to be an independent assessment. So the Supreme Court explained it really well in 1948. This is not new law. This is law of longstanding. In a case called Johnson v. U.S. where they wrote, the point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by. By a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Bottom line, you can't have someone from your own agency sign your warrant and bust into my house tonight.

B (16:02)

Yeah. And, you know, these orders of deportation certainly allow an ICE agent to arrest somebody in a public space, but the idea that they're gonna enter your home, I think, is where they're crossing the Fourth Amendment line. And, Joyce, just one last quick question. If there is such a thing. I don't know if you saw in Lawfare an online blog. Oren Kerr, who is a Fourth Amendment scholar, shared your view about the Fourth Amendment, but he also said he's concerned that individuals might not have a remedy to sue because of qualified immunity, which requires that an officer breach a clearly established constitutional right. Do you agree with him, or do you think the Fourth Amendment here is clearly established?

D (16:45)

You know, unfortunately, I do. And I thought it was really interesting. Oren did something in his piece for Law Fair that you don't see lawyers do a whole lot. He just said, this isn't really my lane. So I'm not going to weigh in too heavily, but I have concerns that it might be hard to get into court, and I find myself in very much the same position. You know, there is a civil remedy called Bivens that people can use when law enforcement violates their constitutional rights. But this Supreme Court is not super friendly to Bivens claims. They've really narrowed their scope. And beyond that, what's really necessary here is a vehicle for telling ice, you know, not just in one case after the fact, after they've broken down somebody's door, telling ice, look, going forward, you guys can't do this. You want to go into a house, get a search warrant. Y' all know how it's done, or at least you used to. And so the problem will be finding that voice vehicle to get into court. The Supreme Court has said no nationwide injunctions, so perhaps we will see some clever lawyers, maybe our friends at the ACLU go into court seeking some form of declaratory judgment designed to prevent ICE from breaking down people's doors as cold weather descends on the country in what's just gotta be the clearest violation of the Fourth Amendment I can imagine.

A (18:09)

And the real problem is they're deporting people before they could even think about bringing a civil suit.

B (18:14)

Well, we've also seen DOJ using some federal statutes to investigate a protest that occurred at a Church in St. Paul last Sunday. And I would not have seen these particular statutes coming. Apparently, protesters found information on the church's website that a top ICE official in the Twin Cities is a pastor at the church. And so they entered the church during services on Sunday shouting things like, ICE out and justice for Renee Goode. Renee Goode, of course, is the motorist who was shot and killed by an ICE agent a couple of weeks ago. They used the ice, the KKK act, and the FACE Act. Jill, first, what's the FACE act, and how could it apply here?

A (18:53)

You know, it's so interesting because Joyce just mentioned she was hoping that some clever lawyers, like maybe from the aclu, would find a way to seek justice for violations of constitutional rights. This was not something you would have necessarily automatically thought, oh, I can use the FACE Act. But the FACE act is freedom of access to clinic entrances. It's clearly an act that at least two of its sections relate to the right to have an abortion and not be interfered with. But there is one section that the name is kind of misleading because there's one section that says you can't interfere with someone's exercise of their first Amendment, right of religious worship in a place of worship. And it has been used before. It was used in New Jersey in somewhere 24 or 25 for disruption of a synagogue event. And now it's being used here to say that when they entered and interrupted the service, that they were violating the FACE Act. And the law does say that. So we're going to have to see what happens in court.

B (19:59)

Yeah, I was really surprised to see the use of the FACE act because, of course, it stands for freedom of access to clinic entrances, as you said. I think most frequently thought of as protecting people who are trying to enter a clinic facility, an abortion facility. And I get the sense that they just sort of relish this idea of taking these progressive laws and turning them on the libs. Right. Doesn't it? Don't you get that sense?

A (20:28)

Absolutely.

B (20:29)

But, you know, I am sympathetic if somebody is worshiping that. You know, protesters are disruptive, but, you know, is it a crime? And, Kim, the other one that they are looking at is the KKK Act. Can you tell us what that is and how that could apply here?

C (20:46)

Yeah. So the KKK act, the Ku Klux Klan act, has been on the books since 1871. And as its name suggests, it was passed in response to the terror that the Klan was reigning in Southern states during reconnaissance construction and beyond, trying to prevent black people from fully being able to exercise the rights that they had been granted under law and under the Constitution. It came after the 14th Amendment, and what it does was make it a federal crime for anyone to deny someone based on the group that they belong to, any group or individual their rights, privileges, immunities, or protection named in the Constitution. And it's basically been a vital tool that prevents people from discriminating in communities and elsewhere widely based on race. Well, they're bringing this now under a claim that these protesters who were, in my opinion, exercising their First Amendment rights were somehow taking someone's privileges, immunities, or protections away due to their religious beliefs, which anyone who saw what was happening knows that that was not, in fact, the case. And I think you're right. I think there is this idea of, like, turning the libs rules back on the libs, although this is a principle that should not be liberal or conservative. It should just be American. There's a bit of projection there, and. And this is not an administration that is acting in good faith. The White House put out a photo of one of the people who was arrested and doctored her face to make it look like one of the council members. Doctored her face to make it look like she was crying when she was not. She was let out when she walked out with dignity, but they took her dignity away. On the White House's official.

B (22:47)

It's so childish, isn't it?

C (22:48)

It's so awful, it's dehumanizing. Yeah, it's more than childish. It's really awful. But that gives you sort of an idea, the intent of those in charge here.

B (22:59)

Yeah, I don't care about good faith law, integrity. I'm gonna do whatever I can to make you suffer. It just really has that vibe. And, you know, and I mean, I'm no fan of disrupting a church service, but the idea that this is somehow attacking people because of their religious beliefs, like, no, they just hate this guy. You know, he's an ice. They wanna protest about ICE conduct. So, yeah, maybe not the best time, place, or manner for a protest, but I don't know. That violates one of these crimes. Joyce Pam Bondi and Cash Patel have now announced that three people who are arrested in this investigation, including the woman that Kim just mentioned, Nekima Levy Armstrong, who's the head of the local naacp, and another woman who's a member of the board of education for the St. Paul Public Schools, Chantelle Louisa Allen, have been arrested. What do you make of their arrests? And do you think that these are legitimate criminal charges? Are these crimes or are these sort of, I don't know, acts with which reasonable people could disagree?

D (24:04)

Surely you're not suggesting, Barb, that this administration would bring weak charges that won't hold up in court? Like.

B (24:13)

I don't want to suggest that. Like that. I agree with their conduct. I think it's wrong to disrupt a church service personally. But does it amount to a crime?

C (24:21)

Probably a local noise ordinance or something that they may have violated, which I think would suffice as punishment here, right? In the grand scheme. This is not a federal criminal offense.

D (24:33)

Well, look, ultimately that question will be up to a jury if these cases get that far. Like Kim, I sort of have my doubts, but you don't have to take Sisters In Law's word for it today because as we were getting ready to tape the podcast Friday afternoon, a federal judge declined to force these folks to stay in prison pending trial. The government asked to keep them in custody. Judge said, no, this ain't the kind of violent crime that qualifies. And the government, with a straight face, you know, the face act is a fairly violent prone statute. As. As you said, Barb, it's used more frequently for Abortion clinics. I have some experience with using it and indicting cases under it, and those are usually fairly violent acts that involve a lot of interference with other people. You know, I agree with you. There might have been a better way to do this sort of protest, but using the FACE act and the KKK act, it's just overkill. And the judge very clearly said that in declining to detain these folks pending trial.

B (25:38)

Yeah. You know, I also recall, remember when Pam Bondi first started, she issued that memo about the weaponization of government, and one of the things she targeted was prosecutors who worked on Face act prosecutions. Now, I think she was thinking of the abortion.

D (25:51)

She was thinking of me. Yeah, right.

B (25:53)

And charging them with crimes for weaponizing the Justice Department. And now, you know, here we go with using that very same statute. Well, Jill, in a very improbable series of events, there's also this crazy twist to the whole thing. In addition to the three people who were arrested for protesting at the church, prosecutors are now attempting to charge Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor. What was that all about?

A (26:18)

Oh, it is insane. Of course. He joined the protesters entering the church, and they were disrupting the service with their shouts. But as you said, not related to religion, related to the pastor, who's an ICE official. He said, I'm here as a journalist, not a protester. And even though the prosecutors are trying to charge him as a protester, he did report, by the way, from Chicago, from the Broadview facility when Operation Midway Blitz was going on. The judge in this case in Minnesota has rejected the bid to bring federal charges against Lemon, as other courts have in other cases, because they are going way beyond the intent of laws. He was fired by CNN, but he has a YouTube channel and is reporting. So he should have a First Amendment right to cover a news event.

D (27:19)

Yeah.

B (27:20)

Kim, what do you think about this? You're our journalist. Do you agree with Jill that he has a First Amendment right to cover this, even if it's occurring in a church?

C (27:31)

Of course he does. Of course he does. Anybody who is covering this has the right to attend and see what is going on in that. But here's the problem with protections like that. I mean, you talk about the First Amendment protections that these protesters or members of the press have, or constitutional protections of people who even may be detained by ice. Those protections don't help you in real time. It's sometime down the road. It's used as a defense when criminal charges are already filed against you and you may already have been jailed. You can try to assert it. If you're harmed, and you're trying to bring a case alleging that your constitutional rights are violated and you want some civil redress, it's after you've put out money. It's after you've already really suffered the problem that the First Amendment was supposed to protect you from. So in this way, it's not an even game.

B (28:27)

Yeah, right. That's right. And, you know, regardless of what happens to Don Lemon, he's still has faced some consequences. Right. Some suffering, even if he didn't. Absolutely.

C (28:40)

It may stifle members of the press, particularly smaller independent outfits who don't have a lot of lawyers and money to try to defend or get, you know, if they get arrested, it could be. Have a chilling effect on the press, and that's exactly what they're trying to do.

B (28:54)

Yeah. Now, after this protest, President Trump made some comments about how despicable this conduct was. Joyce, what's your sense of whether this is an effective strategy for protesters and whether there's something unlawful here? You know, you have said before, there's this whole idea of awful but lawful, and just because something is something you find disagreeable doesn't mean it's criminal. Do you think this is an effective way to get people's attention, or is it likely to have a boomerang effect? You know, I sometimes worry when people talk about defunding ice ISIS engaged in some despicable conduct. But we do need a border law enforcement agency, and I often worry that tactics like this can be counterproductive. What's your view?

D (29:40)

Yeah, so, you know, I don't want to discourage anyone from exercising their First Amendment rights. I mean, I think this is a moment to exercise democratic muscle and protest. I do think it's important for us to be smart because doing this in this way gave the administration a free, you know, in essence, a free throw, to use a bad sports analogy. And we don't need to be giving them free throws. So I think when we figure out ways to protest, we should do it in ways that are smart, in ways that are effective. If you read my newsletter, Civil Discourse, you know that I'm a huge fan of following the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, who taught the principles of nonviolent protest and taught that the right way to stand up to power was to speak truth to it. I think those are some great touchstones for us to use right now as we move forward.

A (30:42)

Running a small business can get crazy. So make 2026 the year to simplify your workflow and take things to the next level. Whether it's a law firm or a podcast, you want to focus on the cases, the show or client management instead of the stuff that feels like busy work. Unfortunately, there are a ton of hats to wear. It's distracting and can take the focus off your mission. That's why we wanted to tell you about Gusto. It's perfect for anyone who wants to take charge of their operation. And I know that in addition to my sisters, there are so many law firms and other small businesses that would benefit.

B (31:22)

Gusto is an online payroll and benefits software built for small businesses. It's all in one remote, friendly and incredibly easy to use so you can can pay, hire, onboard and support your team from anywhere. If you've ever had one of those days where filling out forms and handling logistics burned all of your time, you'll definitely benefit. Speaking from experience Repetitive paperwork can take up so much energy when all you want to do is focus on the work you actually enjoy. Now the process of running a business is so much easier and more efficient thanks to Gusto.

D (31:57)

Gusto has so many automated tools to help you save time, and they're built right in. Imagine how much simpler your workload would be with quickly accessible offer letters, onboarding materials, direct deposits, and more. It's so easy to enter a flow state when you know you're taking care of the things that actually matter. But there's more. With Gusto, you even get direct access to certified HR experts to help support you through any tough HR situations that.

C (32:27)

Can save you so much money, time and worry. And best of all, it's quick and simple to switch to Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, you don't have to pay a cent until you run your first payroll. Don't just take our word for it. Gusto was named the number one payroll software according to G2 in fall 2025 and is trusted by over 400,000 small businesses. Join them and start optimizing your business. Try gusto today@gusto.com sisters and get three months free from when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll@gusto.com sisters one more time gusto.com sisters and the link is in our show Notes.

D (33:27)

If you're keeping up with the news, it only takes a few stories before you want to pull the sheets up over your head and escape. There's still so much we can all do to make a difference, but having a place that feels safe and gives you a sense of huggy is essential. And with Bolin branch sheets, I have to tell you, I think that's the case. So right now, while we're taping the podcast, I actually have a brand new queen sized set of Bolen branch sheets in the washing machine ready to go on one of my kids beds and I think that might be the bed that I sleep in tonight. It's amazing. These sheets are so soft. It feels like you'll be ready to refresh and recharge for the work ahead after sleeping in them overnight.

B (34:10)

Yeah. The comfort and quality you get with Bole and Branch's signature sheets is like beyond imagination. They're so soft, the attention to detail is unmatched. Each sheet is woven by artisans using the finest 100% organic cotton. And you can feel the difference in the craftsmanship right away. They are buttery soft as soon as you put them in your bed. Do you guys put butter in your sheets? Because you should.

D (34:33)

I have not done that. No.

B (34:35)

Well, you don't need to with bowl and branch. And incredibly, they get softer with every wash. Unlike most sheets on the market, bowl and branch sheets are expertly designed for breathable sleep so you can add cool layers in summer and cozy essentials in winter.

C (34:52)

So I'm a bit of a sheet snob. I do believe in having good sheets, so I don't just buy them from anywhere. And when I tried Bull and branch, I became an instant fan. Ever since I put them on the bed, I've been so snug that it's really hard for me to get up in the morning for real. There's actual term for it. It's called Hercule Durkling. It's Scottish. And I Herkle Durkle, everybody. I will answer my emails on my phone. I will start, make lists, do anything so that I don't have to get up, especially this time of year when it's so cold. I think I'm going to have to get more sets to travel with. Maybe because these are good, good sheets. You need to experience their unmatched softness for yourself. Once you do, there will be no going back.

A (35:42)

You know, it's not just their softness, which definitely they are soft, but their colors are so terrific. I really love how they complement my bedroom. And it's no surprise that Bolen branch sheets are loved by millions of sleepers, including us. And now they're available in over 25 colors, from cool blues to warm neutrals to deeply romantic purples and light green, which is my favorite color. So you can combine luxurious comfort with the Perfect aesthetic vibe. Bolen Branch is so confident you'll love them that they're yours to try with a 30 night worry free guarantee. Discover a softness beyond your wildest dreams. With Boland branch get 15% off your first set of sheets plus free shipping at bolandbranch.com sisters with the code Sisters that's Boland Branch B O L L a n d branch.com Sisters with code sisters to unlock 15% off exclusions apply. The link is also in our show notes.

C (36:58)

Well, happy weekend to everyone, but especially to Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve official who Trump is trying not very successfully, to fire on an unproven claim of mortgage fraud. The Supreme Court hinted strongly during oral arguments on Wednesday that Cook can probably keep her job at least while while her challenge to her firing is proceeding through the courts and that is teeing up one of Trump's likely biggest high court defeats. We talk a lot about how the Supreme Court gives him what he wants. I don't think it's gonna happen this time. And one of the justices who seem to be mostly on Cook's side is an appointee of Trump. Joyce, before we delve into how the argument went, remind us why Trump is trying to fire Lisa Cook. And why do you think Fed Chair Jerome Powell, a very busy man, took time out of his schedule to be seated there inside the court watching these arguments along with Lisa Cook?

D (38:03)

Well, at least to the first part of your question, the answer is because she's a black woman. Is that the answer?

C (38:10)

Yes.

D (38:12)

I mean, look, under the Federal Reserve act, members of the Fed's Board of Governors, they're nominated by presidents to these really long term, 14 years, they're staggered. The structure is intended to prevent a president from stacking the deck with his own nominees. And so Donald Trump wants to do just that. He wants to stack the deck. So he ginned up these charges. And y' all will remember this. I think Lisa Cook was the first victim of this. He claimed that she had committed mortgage fraud by designating two separate houses as her primary residence on mortgage documents and, and said that she'd committed a crime and so he was firing her. Of course, it's never been proven. She denies that there's any vitality to the charges. And this is just Donald Trump trying to remove people on the Fed as he has on other quasi independent boards whose presence is inconvenient for him. You know, I suspect that the reason that Fed Chair Jerome Powell was in took the very unusual step, I might add, of going to the Supreme Court and Sitting there during oral argument is because Trump is now suggesting that maybe he should, should be prosecuted for perjury resulting from some testimony before Congress in a case that would make even the charges against Jim Comey, those charges that have now been dismissed, it would make even those charges look like they might be a little bit stronger because this stuff about Powell, it's just crazy sauce. So, look, I mean, the reality is this case is what we all feared. This is a case where a banana republic dictator, a tin pot dictator, is using the considerable powers of prosecutors to pursue his own ends. The warning signs are all here, the lights are all flashing. Anyone who's not seeing it is simply not paying attention at this point.

C (40:04)

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more, Joyce. So, Barb, the Trump is arguing through his attorney, the Solicitor General, John Sauer. He's basically arguing that he can fire whoever he wants at federal agencies because, you know, the unitary executive theory, he is in control. He alone is in control of the executive branch. And not only that, he's claiming that a court can't even review the decision to fire, which is one of the things that the court had to consider. How did the justices, particularly one Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who Trump appointed back in 2018amid a lot of fanfare and such, how did Kavanaugh seem to take this argument? President was making?

B (40:52)

Oh, yeah, he, he thought this was ridiculous. And, you know, I would love to hear Donald Trump either reading about, hearing about, or listening to Brett Kavanaugh's questions, because you could just bet he's fuming, right? Like what? He owes me loyalty.

C (41:06)

What.

B (41:06)

What is this? What is he doing? Because he says when, when, when sour mentioned. And you know, by the way, Kim wrote a very nice piece about this in her weekly newsletter, the Gavel, and, and focused on this. So this is how I know about it. But, but Justice Kavanaugh says, when this argument comes up, let's talk about the real world and explain. Like, you know, if this is allowed, the president can just remove people for, you know, perceived misconduct. He said it would mean what goes around comes around. And he certainly, I think, is, you know, suggesting that the president, number one, President Trump, has the ability to exact vengeance, as he might. But also he said all the current presidential appointees will be removed on January 20, 2029, if there's a Democratic president. You know, I often wonder, like, do these people not realize like this, this administration is only for four years, or do they know something I don't? That because if they give all these powers to A president, then a new president is going to have the same powers. Right. And he said, well, aren't we just going to be an at will employment situation? We're going to completely eviscerate this law that requires these sort of, you know, notice and cause as opposed to at will. And so one of the things I thought was especially good about this, I was actually discussing this with a colleague today about the notice point where they said, you know, she. Did she. Did she get any notice at all? Like, well, yeah, she got it in.

C (42:44)

A truth social post. Actually said that in court. I died.

D (42:49)

Yeah, right.

C (42:49)

I absolutely died. There was like. Was there. Was there some process? Well, yeah, there was a. There was a social media post and she responded with defiance. I was like, what?

D (42:59)

Yeah.

B (42:59)

And that was also to Kavanaugh. I wondered, you know, Kim, I only read about this. I didn't listen to the argument. And my colleague and I were saying, like, did Kavanaugh react at all or was it just like stunned silence?

C (43:11)

I. He did. He did. He was not silent. I was. I regret that I wasn't actually in the courtroom because I would have loved to seen that exchange and also keep looking back at, you know, Jay Powell's face.

D (43:23)

Right.

C (43:23)

But I was. I was only listening in. But, Jill, you know, there was one particular part of the exchange with Kavanaugh that I thought was really great. I'm actually, I actually am gonna put a clip, a YouTube clip of this exchange in the show notes, if anybody wants to listen, because it is so brilliant. Tell us about the exchange between Kavanaugh and Sauer about the independence of the Federal Reserve.

A (43:49)

So, you know, you're right to put the clip in because no matter what I say in describing this will not capture as well as listening to the exchange, which is a tongue tied. Solicitor General unable to explain or even address the question which is asked multiple times about, well, what about the independence of the Fed? Why is that important? Why do we have it? They go back and forth and, you know, it's clear from the objections to the President's position, including of course, Kavanaugh's, that I would say Trump's chances of winning this case don't seem very good. And some of the quotes, I mean, Barb mentioned, the what comes around goes around. It's sort of like, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And so this is going to be just a continuation. I think that the notice to the point you made about notice is, yeah, he said you did this, but there's never Even been a charge, a grand jury has looked at it, and there's no charges against her. A truth social post is not anything near a due process notice. But, yeah, the exchange with Sauer and his absolute inability to address the question about it and the part of Kavanaugh saying, look, we live in a real world, and it just makes me think, okay, maybe this will not only guide the outcome of this case, it will guide the outcome of other cases where they're gonna have to look at, how is Trump actually using this? You know, I wanted to answer for Sauer that, you know, our economy depends on experts making independent long term judgments, and that's why it's important and not acting on the president's short term political goals. So they went way too far in the argument. And I think Sauer just got caught on his own petard.

C (45:57)

Yeah, I mean, I hate to say that a part of me feels a little bad for Sauer because there isn't. What you said is exactly right. The Federal Reserve of all agencies, right. The one in charge of the central bank, the one that can make or break our entire economy, they need to be acting in a way that is free from political influence. Right. Sauer can't say that his client is the president. Right. So that's why that exchange was just so. It was just so, you know, you just couldn't turn your ears away from it because it just laid bare.

A (46:34)

It should make everyone who heard it realize the consequences of the unitary executive theory and how dangerous it would be for an untethered president or even a tethered. Even somebody who really meant well and wasn't seeking personal aggrandizement and power. How dangerous that theory is.

C (46:55)

Yeah, just a misguided one. So I don't want to send you out on the ledge. I think the Supreme Court has already, in terms of maybe they'll act this way. You know, if they're. If they see it this way for this, they'll see it this way for other parts of the unitary executive they already sort of have been teeing up in, like in the Wilcox decision, for example, about the nlrb, the fact that the Fed is different, like, they're creating this, the Fed is different rule. So don't expect this to go beyond this. But I think he is gonna lose here. Just really quickly, before we wrap up, another interesting point Kavanaugh made to Cook's attorney was with respect to what remedy is it then if a president cannot fire whoever he wants to, how do you remove somebody who actually is doing bad things on the Fed, like maybe there's somebody who is frauding on the Fed, right. Using their position to enrich themselves, doing something else that's nefarious. Is there any other remedy?

B (47:49)

I guess I would suggest a couple of things. I mean, one is it does say that they may be removed for cause. So if the President were to say, you know, this person hasn't gone to any of the meetings and so I think that's good cause we need members to show up and participate and exercise their best judgment, they might say that's for cause. And I suppose they would have a legal remedy. They could file a lawsuit to say that was inefficient. In fact, you know, they get notice, an opportunity to be heard and they could challenge that in court, I suppose. And I guess the other one, Kim, that you mentioned in your note was impeachment. I suppose these individuals could be impeached.

C (48:27)

And Lisa Cook's attorneys conceded as much that that is something if ultimately you have a rogue member of this board, that that is a way that they can be taken out. And yeah, I'm glad you mentioned for cause. We almost forgot about that. Generally speaking, that would come if there were criminal charges or a conviction maybe that certainly I think would be seen by any court as cause. But what Trump is doing here at the very least does not seem to pass muster, not even with the court, a third of which he himself appointed.

A (48:59)

I think we have to be clear that cause is not just that the President says, I believe because one of my appointees has gone through the records and made an accusation against you, that that's cause. That is not. He would have to have charges brought and proved because otherwise they're going to just be making up. Sorry, I almost said something that Barbara would have totally disapproved. They're just going to be making stuff up and we can't have that.

B (49:37)

When you love seafood, you deserve the best. At the grocery store, you never know where it came from and what it might have in it or whether it's sustainable. That's why you need a provider you can trust. For us, that is wild Alaskan. It's the best way to get wild caught perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Trust me, you have not tasted fish this good. We always recommend them. It's wonderful and we know our friends, family and I are all getting the best.

C (50:07)

Tonight I'm going to make my now famous. I've only been making it since I've had wild Alaskan, but it's one of my new favorite dishes, which is salmon fried rice. It takes like 20 minutes and it's so good. And you can't mess it up because the salmon is so delicious. It just turns out perfectly every time. And that's because everything from wild Alaskan is 100% wild caught and never farmed. This means there are no antibiotics, GMOs, or additives in their catch. Just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and fishing communities. Don't settle for less. Go with fish that are nutrient rich and full of flavor. With Wild Alaskan, that's a given. Their fish is frozen off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s. And you can tell the difference right away.

A (50:59)

You absolutely can. But I absolutely want your recipe. That sounds delicious. Gotta do. Please send it to me. That sounds good. And I know that all of our listeners are going to be like us and love that. Everything from Wild Alaskan is sustainably sourced and wild caught from Alaska. With every order supporting sustainable harvesting practices. Plus, becoming a member means your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. You'll even get chef tips from the pros. It's an endless smorgasbord of truly feel good seafood. I love the Pacific halibut. It's one of my favorites. For a tasty treat that's low in fat, high in protein, and rich in omega 3s. I also just cooked one of their cod in my air fryer with a little coating on it. And it was really, really tasty and delicious. Juicy, tasty. It's a delicious whitefish that's perfect with just a sear or a grill. And if you're feeling adventurous, it's also amazing in tacos and. And so is the pollock in tacos or curry. You'll need to try it all. And there are so many other amazing options to choose from.

D (52:13)

Okay, if Jill has just succeeded in making you hungry, which is exactly what she's done to me, you can go ahead and order with comfort. Because if you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan Company will give you a full refund, no questions asked. There's no risk, just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first order. So here's a big thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode. The link is in our show notes. So Doge was back in the news this week, and I gotta say, I have not missed them at all. I mean, this was not a welcome development. I'm sure everybody saw the headlines this week. We learned that DOGE may have misused confidential personal information held at the Social Security Administration. And the way the news surfaced is really interesting to me because it wasn't a whistleblower. It wasn't some intrepid reporter who broke the story this time. It was the Trump administration telling on itself. Jill, talk with us a little bit about how that came about.

A (53:44)

Well, talk about unusual things. This is the Department of Justice actually admitting its own misleading of the court. They actually filed in front of a federal judge in Maryland something called a Notice of Corrections to the record. And this is in a case by AFSCME versus the Social Security Administration. And for full disclosure, I'm a member of AFSCME as a former municipal employee. The document said that members of DOGE working with the Social Security Administration may have misused the data that it obtained from Social Security. And it said that Social Security and the undersigned counsel bring these matters to the court's attention to ensure full candor to the court. Something. That's my comment. I'm quoting, but this is my comment. Something that's highly unusual these days. They go on to say a review of the Social Security DOGE team's actions is ongoing, and Social Security and the undersigned counsel will continue to ensure that the record and representations made to the court are accurate. This is different than DOJ has done in other cases where judges no longer give them a presumption of honesty and regularity because they have misstated things and lied so often and ignored orders of the court. So this happened last Friday, just a week ago, from the date of our recording. And it's really a danger. Think about how worried we all are about being hacked with our Social Security number, which gets you so much in danger. And now they may have given this to a team looking at how to affect elections. This is a real danger.

D (55:32)

Yeah. So, Barb, given all of that, why do you think that DOJ went ahead and made the disclosure? It seems a little bit unusual. And do we know whether or not this information, whether folks privacy was actually violated by dogecoin?

B (55:48)

Yeah, you know, I actually know one of the undersigned lawyers on this. I worked with her a little bit when I was at the U.S. attorney's office. This is a longtime career person. I think, you know, there's still a lot of very good people left at the Justice Department. I think she was doing her work as required to do because this is part of an ongoing lawsuit. As Jill said, there is an order in place by a judge, a temporary restraining order that blocked Doge's access to Social Security information. And they were required to do this audit and analysis. And I think they discovered this, like, to their horror. And what they say in the pleading is that Jill just mentioned this in our duty of candor to the court, we are sharing with the court that this thing happened, that it appears that this information was shared with this advocacy group. They do say that there's no evidence that it was used. But because the whole point of this lawsuit was about protecting sensitive, confidential, personally identifiable information, that they thought it was important to share this information with the court, that it appears that when Doge was doing its work, it may have done exactly what people have always suspected it was doing, which is taking Americans information and sharing it with outside actors to either monetize it or to use it against our general social interest, including by interfering with elections.

D (57:16)

Yeah, you know, I had the same reaction that you did when I saw the name on the signature line that this is a career person that knows what they're doing. I mean, the Social Security administration was DOJ's client in this matter. And it seems to me that they were just trying to protect their client by making sure that they, the court knew that they had learned that Doge had in essence, violated their operating directions at Social Security administration and that SSA's lawyers wanted to make sure that they didn't take the fall for that by concealing that from the court. It's a very unusual situation, and I have to say I'm a little bit concerned about whether or not there might be an effort to retaliate against the DOJ lawyers who went into court and did the right thing here. So we'll just put that marker down for now and see where this goes. But Kim, we've asked you to put your journalist hat on a lot on this episode because there's so much at the intersection of law and journalism in this show. Can you maybe speculate a little bit about what's going to go. What's going to happen next here? You know, I fear we have not seen the last of this and that there may be perhaps more information and maybe even a scandal here that's about to unfold.

C (58:36)

Yeah, I'm glad that you sort of anticipated. One thing that I fear might happen is, you know, to Barb's point, and I'm so glad that both of you know who signed, who was the signatory on this, that it's a reminder that there are still good career folks working in our government to make sure that it operates as it should. A lot of them are friends of mine. A lot of them are friends of yours, former colleagues. And I'm so grateful to them. But I do worry when something like this makes a headline that that person could be imperiled. So I hope that nothing, there is no retaliation. But I doubt that the DOJ is going to investigate anything because they don't think that anything went wrong. Right. What are they going to investigate now? Can we get to the bottom of what happened? Yes, in a number of ways. If somebody's identity or information was compromised and they were harmed, there will be a lawsuit. And in that, that will mean that there will be discovery and they will have to show what happened and we can learn a that way. Also Congress, remember them, Congress, they have an oversight role over the doj. The first thing, they should be setting a hearing should already be set by now. If it's not. I mean, you know, and granted, this may have to happen after the midterms because the current leadership in both the House and the Senate may not be super stoked to open such an investigation. But that brings us to you, dear listeners, when you go cast your votes in, in 2020, in November. We are in 2026 already. When you cast your vote in November, keep that in mind. Elect people who will actually get to the bottom of protecting things like your rights, your identity, your data, because that's the only way that this stuff happens. If we do have a Congress come next January that is interested in that, then that is how we get to the bottom of it, regardless of who is still at doj.

D (60:39)

You know, Jill, you flagged early on in the conversation the risk that this data might be used to suppress voting. And that's one of the major concerns that hangs over the whole year. Right. What is the administration gonna do to try to put its thumb on the scales during the 2026 midterm elections? Should we have any concerns that that's what this is about? Doge getting this data? They were, after all, talking to an entity that has played a role in part of the conservative voter suppression mechanism. What do y' all think?

A (61:12)

It's sort of like a rhetorical question, Joyce. They did talk to an advocacy group that was trying to influence elections. And, you know, if we go back to the beginning, if we can remember the creation of DOGE and the things that we all said about this is dangerous for them to be getting this. And by the way, to Kim's point, when you're voting, just remember that it was the Supreme Court that gave DOGE the right to have access to this data and how dangerous it is for particularly Social Security. But all the other data, the medical data, everything that the government has, the Medicaid, Medicare, DOGE was never about stopping fraud. It was a race ridiculous idea. And they have not reduced any fraud or waste in government of any significance. They cost us more than they've saved us. So yes, I think that in this case voting rights are at risk.

D (62:23)

2026 has only just begun, which means there's still plenty of time for new goals and a fresh start for us that's launching a companion show to Sisters in Law and Finding Time to Enjoy Small Things no matter what your vision is, the best way to reach it is to do a bunch of little things that make everyday life more vibrant so you can enjoy the journey along the way. And thanks to Laundry Sauce, we found an easy switch we can all make to freshen up our laundry routines and and make our clothes and our lives more pleasant. Tell us about it. Kim.

C (63:00)

Yeah, the name is Laundry Sauce and it sounds delicious, right? Well, it smells delicious too. It's a premium collection of high performance detergent pods and other laundry essentials infused with bold, sophisticated fragrances crafted by the world's top perfumers. We all love when our skin feels and smells great and the same goes for our outfits. It's not the typical detergent you grew up with. They have so many amazing scents that you can choose from or choose your own signature fragrant for your wardrobe. It's such an effortless way to take laundry day to the next level and make it something you can actually find pleasure in.

A (63:40)

The pre measured pods make life easy. There's no guesswork, clunky bottles or mess. Say goodbye to the stale chemical smell that you've been experiencing. Laundry Sauce seriously smells so you'll never go back. My favorite is Italian bergamot. Every time I use it it feels like spring came early. And boy did I need that today with its modern citrusy blend of sweet Mandarin, vetiver, sandalwood and Indonesian patchouli. But I can't wait to create a cozy vibe with their new hypoallergenic limited release Himalayan Cashmere. Doesn't that sound good when I want to mix it up? I also recommend the warm and wild Australian sandalwood with its hints of cedar, eucalyptus, suede and amber. It's so versatile and its aromatic freshness gets so many compliments.

B (64:34)

Subscribe to the signature package and never run out again. Laundry Sauce comes right to your door on your schedule and also offers scent boosters, dryer sheets and more, all designed to infuse your laundry with high end fragrance fight stains and elevate it to five star status. And for a limited time only, our listeners get 20% off their entire order. When you use code sisters@laundrysauce.com that's 20% off@laundrysauce.Com with promo code Sisters. After you check out, they'll ask where you heard about them. Don't forget to drop our name. Trust us, your laundry's never smelled this good. The link is in our show notes.

A (65:21)

As we said at the beginning of the show, we love your questions so much that we're starting a new thing called Sister sidebar. But today we do have some really great questions and I want to remind you that if you have a question for us, you can email us atsisters in lawoliticon.com or tag any of us on social media using Sisters in Law. And again, if we don't get to your questions during the show, watch our feeds throughout the week and listen to our new show Sisters sidebar. And we're going to answer as many of your questions as we can today. And in that show, we have some great ones today. Our first question I'm going to ask you, Kim, is from Elaine. I hope I'm saying your name right. It's a L, A Y N E. She asks, with so many roadblocks to access to evidence, any lack of cooperation between the DOJ and DHS and Minneapolis, can Minnesota ask for a congressional investigation? Would that open access to evidence?

C (66:28)

So this is a great question, Elaine. Thanks for asking asking it. Minnesota doesn't even have to ask for a congressional investigation. This involved federal law enforcement. So this is a part of Congress's inherent oversight and investigative capabilities. Congress can open an investigation into this right now and use their power, including the subpoena power, to get access to evidence in this case. And if the, if the government, if the executive branch wants to fight that, they can fight it in court. That can already happen. And again, it just takes the political will and that gets back to elections and why they matter and why they happen. I do hope, I do hope the fact that there is an election this year, then it would not take that much time for the next Congress, if it is one made up of people who are willing to do this, that this can happen before too Much time is passes.

A (67:26)

And Joyce, there's a great question that I want to ask you from Bebo in Springfield, Mo. In the case where the Washington Post reporter's devices were seized, if a court determines that they were obtained unlawfully, is the evidence gleaned from their seizure inadmissible against the investigation's target individual?

D (67:46)

Yeah, it really is a great question. You know, this is one of those sort of black letter law rules that has a little bit of a surprising twist to it because not all of the evidence from an illegal search is automatically suppressed. The exclusionary rule, the rule that excludes evidence that's illegally seized, generally prevents the use of illegally seized evidence and its fruit, sort of secondary evidence that comes from it in court proceedings. But there are a couple of exceptions to be aware of. The biggest one is the good faith exception that comes from a case called Leon. There's also an inevitable discovery rule and something called independent source. And so just quickly, because it's not clear to me that any of these will apply here, I rather suspect that if the judge does indicate that this evidence was obtained illegally, that it will be suppressed. But the good faith exception involves law enforcement officers who are executing a search warrant that they have a good faith reason to believe is good. And subsequently it's found out that there's a flaw in it. Maybe the law changes or something like that. And so it's a very narrowly construed exception. Inevitable discovery is used for evidence that law enforcement would have found anyhow if they didn't get it in this search, it was inevitable that they would have discovered it through other lawful means. And then finally, the independent source doctrine simply says that if the law enforcement folks obtain this evidence from both the improper search, but also from a separate lawful source that's completely independent of the bad search, that they can use it. So a couple of exceptions. I know that's sort of intricate stuff to try to cram into a short answer, but I think by and large the rule here is going to be excluding the evidence from the government's case. And of course, as Barb knows, often if you're a prosecutor and your evidence gets excluded as the evidence that you've obtained during a search, your case is over and you're going to have to dismiss it it.

A (69:52)

And finally, Barb, I have a question for you from Rev. Diana. She says, as I watch people being grabbed off the street, I never hear anyone read them the Miranda warning. Is it required? And if so, does that give these people any legal recourse?

B (70:09)

Oh, such a Good question, Rev. And I hope that means you are Reverend Reverend Diana I will call you Reverend if I may. You know, of course, we don't know that we're hearing the whole exchange. We don't know if rights are being read that we're missing. But I will tell you why it is quite possible we are not. Miranda warnings are required if there is a custodial interrogation. Both of those elements are required and it is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment. It's part of the right against compelled self incrimination. And that is people have a right to be warned so that they can exercise that right knowingly. That is the right, of course, dear listeners, that you've all seen on these cop shows. You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, et cetera. But it only kicks in for custodial interrogation, those two components. So what does it mean to be custodial? Well, under arrest. So the first element here is met. But the second one is interrogation. I'm going to question you and for the answers to be admissible in court, you must have been Mirandized so that we know that your confession was not just voluntary. But knowing in most of these immigration cases there's not going to be any trial, there's not going to be any questioning. I've got a warrant for your arrest. You have been ordered deported already by an immigration judge. So I'm just scooping you up and I'm going to have you deported. So there's unlikely to be any need to question or any need for this information. Now sometimes there is a verbal exchange when they're talking about I'm a citizen and other kinds of things like that. So my guess is that they are not interrogating these people and that's why there may be no Miranda warnings given.

A (71:58)

Thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkinstore and me, Jill Wine Banks. Follow Sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. That's what other people will use to help find the show. Don't forget to pick up Sisters in Law Merch and other goodies@politicon.com merch and get ready for the debut episode of Sisters sidebar on Wednesday. We can't wait to have you there. And please show some love to this week's small sponsors, the Pets Table Gusto Boland Branch, Wild Alaskan Company and Laundry Sauce. 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.

D (72:50)

You guys, it's snowing right outside my window, and it's unbelievable.

C (72:54)

It's snowing in Alabama?

D (72:57)

No, it's not Alabama. I'm in Maine. Big deal.

B (73:03)

Big deal, then.

C (73:05)

So a dog barked, Joyce. A dog barked.

B (73:08)

Yeah, exactly.

D (73:09)

I heard that. I got banished from home because I have a torn ligament in my hand and our German shepherds were tough on me, so Bob sent me up here for Ellie to take care of me. But the snow is quite a fringe benefit. I know no dogs is really bad, but snow is good.

A (73:24)

Did you ever get snow in Alabama, Emma?

D (73:28)

So I'm flying home Saturday. We're supposed to get it. I think we're going to just get ice, not snow. That's the Alabama way, right?

B (73:37)

I heard they're getting a lot of ice in Minnesota, too. Oh.