Podcast Summary – #SistersInLaw: "Shattered Norms" (Episode 277)

Date: February 11, 2026
Hosts: Kimberly Atkins Stohr & Barb McQuade
Theme:
This episode of #SistersInLaw, dubbed the "Sister Sidebar," dives into the fragility and evolution of constitutional, legal, and governmental norms in the United States in the aftermath of recent political events. The hosts address listener questions about constitutional amendments, DOJ transparency, civil rights in law enforcement encounters, judicial career trajectories, major civil litigation, and Supreme Court accountability. The episode is conversational, clear, and in-depth, with the hosts drawing on their legal expertise and personal experience.

Main Topics & Key Insights

1. Guardrails on Executive Power: Statutes, Norms, and Constitutional Amendments

[01:35–05:08]

• Listener Chris from Maine asks whether strengthening constraints on presidential power requires congressional action or a constitutional convention.
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr explains that numerous "guardrails" for executive power in U.S. governance are traditions—gentlemen’s agreements—rather than law, but recent events have exposed their limitations.
  • On presidential immunity: “Congress could try to pass a law. … Then you have the problem that you would need the president to sign it. So I really think that it would take constitutional intervention in something like that to make it clear.” [02:46]
  • Election/voting rules can be reinforced by Congress without constitutional amendments, citing the amendment to the Electoral College process post-January 6 as an example.
  • Ammending the Constitution is difficult but not impossible: “We have 27 times that our Constitution has been amended, even at the … most difficult times in our nation, like after the Civil War… So it is possible.” [05:09]
  • Expresses cautious optimism about the public’s role in driving reform: “With the people being as active as they are in what is happening in their government… it could happen in our generation.” [05:25]

2. DOJ, Congress, and the Epstein Files Transparency Act

[06:03–09:56]

• Listener Donna from North Carolina asks why Congress cannot force the DOJ to release all Epstein files and whether withholding them is “obstruction.”
• Barb McQuade clarifies that the law contains exceptions, but DOJ (via Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi) may be overusing them:
  • "It says that they can redact or withhold documents that might reveal private information about survivors… but it may not withhold information that just might be embarrassing… or covers deliberative processes…" [06:19]
  • DOJ’s claim that pending investigations justify withholding is questioned since they claim no further charges are expected.
  • Congress can compel testimony and request a log of withheld documents, and could sue DOJ if unsatisfied.
  • Noted tension even within Republican ranks over full document disclosure: “We’ve got Republicans like Thomas Massie… pretty offended that all of these documents have not been turned over.” [08:39]

3. Observers, ICE, Civil Rights, and Qualified Immunity

[09:56–12:53]

• Janice from Tampa, FL inquires about legality of following and recording ICE agents and the lack of repercussions for ICE’s destructive actions.
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr reinforces that observing and recording is protected by the Constitution; ICE’s retaliatory actions are likely violations of the Fourth Amendment.
  • “Recording them or following them on foot, none of these things amount to obstruction. And all of those things in fact are constitutionally protected.” [10:20]
  • Civil redress is possible in theory under the Federal Tort Claims Act but “there is qualified immunity for federal agents… that makes civil actions all but impossible.” [11:16]
  • Provides a sobering conclusion: “Constitutional rights are valid, but they don’t protect you in real time.” [11:46]

4. District Attorney Versus Judge: Career Pathways and Diversity

[12:53–14:57]

• Linda from San Francisco asks about the difference in career paths for DAs and judges.
• Barb McQuaid: Prosecutors have traditionally been appointed judges, especially federally; however, Biden’s administration is pushing for more diversity.
  • “For a long time, many judges had prior careers as prosecutors… It used to be that if you wanted to be a judge, being a prosecutor was a great career path.” [12:56]
  • Calls for more judges from defense, civil rights, and private practice backgrounds and greater geographic diversity.
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr notes: “Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only former prosecutor on the bench.” [14:37]

5. Status of January 6 Civil Suits Against Donald Trump

[14:57–17:56]

• Caroline from Providence, RI asks about the Bennett Thompson, Eric Swalwell, et al v. Trump civil suits and reasons for delays.
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Explains the civil suit accuses Trump of inciting Jan 6. Both trial and DC Circuit Court have held Trump does not have immunity for civil suits related to non-official conduct.
  • “No, Trump does not have immunity from this civil suit for many reasons, including… the rally… was technically a campaign rally, a political rally.” [16:09]
  • The appellate court isn’t holding up the case but, “Civil suits are rarely decided in a year or two. They usually take many, many years.” [16:43]

6. Supreme Court Justice Removal – Myths and Mechanisms

[17:56–20:24]

• Jill (possibly co-host Jill Wine-Banks) asks about mechanisms for removing a Supreme Court justice and specifically if a president could remove a sitting justice, e.g., if Trump appointed Ted Cruz.
• Barb McQuaid firmly debunks the myth: “The president cannot remove a justice of the Supreme Court, even though it’s the president who nominates… This is really very much about the checks and balances.” [17:57]
  • Only impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors”—not for political disagreements or convenience.
  • Historical impeachments have occurred for grave misconduct like corruption or “chronic drunkenness on the bench.” [18:45]
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr quips: “I am more likely to be appointed to the US Supreme Court than Ted Cruz. I could say that with strong confidence…” [19:38]
• Reinforces that only formal retirement by the justice or impeachment can create a vacancy.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On constitutional reform:
  • “I think that it could happen in our generation. So let's hope that it does.”
    —Kimberly Atkins Stohr [05:25]
• On DOJ transparency:
  • “If Congress is not satisfied with this, they have the right to sue the Justice Department to get a court involved to order them to disclose the remaining documents.”
    —Barb McQuaid [08:12]
• On the realities of civil rights protections:
  • “Constitutional rights are valid, but they don’t protect you in real time.”
    —Kimberly Atkins Stohr [11:46]
• On Supreme Court removal:
  • “It would really require misconduct to be able to remove a justice from the Supreme Court. So I think we won’t be seeing Justice Ted Cruz anytime soon.”
    —Barb McQuaid [19:24]
  • “I am more likely to be appointed to the US Supreme Court than Ted Cruz. …Ted Cruz never. It's not going to happen, so rest assured.”
    —Kimberly Atkins Stohr [19:38]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Strengthening Executive Guardrails: 01:35–05:08
• DOJ & Epstein Files: 06:03–09:56
• ICE, Civil Liberties, Qualified Immunity: 09:56–12:53
• DA vs. Judge Career Paths: 12:53–14:57
• Jan 6 Civil Suits vs. Trump: 14:57–17:56
• Supreme Court Justice Removal: 17:56–20:24

Takeaways

• The episode highlights the urgent need for hard legal protections—not just traditions—to defend constitutional democracy.
• Legal battles around Trump, ICE, and DOJ exemplify how statutory exceptions, executive-congressional tensions, and evolving court doctrines shape justice and accountability.
• The hosts stress the essential role of public participation, active oversight, and wise, informed reform—tempered by the recognition that change is often slow, uneven, and hard-won.

Tone:
Smart, authoritative, slightly irreverent, and deeply committed to clear public education about government, law, and civil rights.

For Listeners:
This episode is a must-hear for anyone wanting insight into current constitutional crises, American legal process nuances, and practical ways citizens' questions shape the public conversation—made approachable by two seasoned legal experts.