Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Jill Wine Banks, and me, Barb McQuaid. Kim will be back next week, and we already miss her. Just wanted to remind our listeners that we'll be doing live shows in Denver, Colorado, at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd and at the Buckhead Theater in Atlanta, Georgia on May 3rd. We love these live shows. Not only is it really fun for us to be able to get together in person, but we love the energy of the people who come out to the shows. So we hope you'll join us. Tickets are available@politicon.com tour and we can't wait to see you there. We will have more live shows to announce very soon. In today's show, we will be talking about the New York Times First Amendment victory over the Pentagon, Anthropic's preliminary injunction against the Pentagon, and jury awards that have been returned against social media companies this week. Pretty interesting. But first, friends, sisters, I have to say I couldn't be happier because it is baseball season. I love all sports, but there is no sport that tops baseball for me. I just love it. The Tigers had their opener on the road yesterday, and they had a big win against the San Diego Padres, and I just love it. You know, there was a writer for the Washington Post named Tom Boswell who wrote a column and then a book about why time begins on opening day. And I really have to say I share those sentiments. I love baseball. It is part of my daily rhythm, and I really miss it when it's not going on. So how about you guys? You like baseball?
- [01:54]
B
Joyce, Are you a baseball fan? Shout out to Barb. Our friend Laura Duffy, Judge Duffy in San Diego, who's not nearly as delighted with the Padres losses. You are one of our former U.S.
- [02:04]
A
attorney, sorry, Judge Duffy.
- [02:06]
B
And a listener of this podcast. But you know, Barb, I grew up in Los Angeles, and that meant because my granddad was really into baseball, you guys would have loved each other. I spent a lot of time at Chavez Ravine watching the Dodgers play. I remember getting to meet Casey Stengel as a kid. Um, we loved the Dodgers so much. And for whatever reason, that has never transferred for me down to the Deep South. I'm not an Atlanta Braves fan, but my law firm in Washington, Aaron Fox, we used to shut down for opening day, and everybody would go up to Baltimore and we would watch the game and, and eat crabs and drink beer, and it was such a wonderful occasion for me. Baseball is really associated with these warm, lovely memories. So maybe I just need to restore my love of the Dodgers. Or maybe I need to start thinking about the Braves. We do have minor league ball in Birmingham, and I know you love seeing stadiums, so I will make this offer if at some point our evil overlords will let us do a live show in Birmingham. Yeah, we'll make sure we do it during baseball season. And I'll take you to a Birmingham Barons game.
- [03:16]
A
Didn't Michael Jordan even play for the Birmingham Barons?
- [03:19]
B
He did the first year he played. It was a big deal, but we love the Barons. The ballpark is downtown, and it's really one of those places where everybody comes together. You see people you wouldn't see any place else. It's lots of fun.
- [03:32]
A
Yeah, I love minor league ballparks.
- [03:34]
B
Great.
- [03:34]
A
How about you, Jill? Are you a baseball fan?
- [03:37]
C
Well, it is one of the few games where I actually understand the rules and can follow the game. And so I do enjoy it. And, of course, in Chicago, we have the most iconic stadium. Wrigley Field for the Cubs is just a breathtaking joy to see. I'm sure you've been there. I know you love it.
- [03:58]
A
It's great.
- [03:59]
C
It's a great stadium. One of the highlights of my life was that I have met Ernie Banks. He was a guest at one of my best friend's weddings. And that was such a thrill because he is just a great player. But the thing I'm really excited about now is Chicago has a new team called the Chicago Snowballs. And they're like the Savannah Bananas. And so they do pitches while they're doing somersaults. Yeah, yeah. I've signed up for the lottery for tickets to the Savannah Bananas and to the Snowballs. And then it turns out that I actually know the owner of the team. And so I'm thrilled because she has invited me to see them practice. And I am going to be able to see them before they even open. Well, I'll ask her. Probably is a fan of the show and maybe she'll let us all come.
- [04:53]
B
I would drive up.
- [04:55]
A
That's a blast.
- [04:56]
C
Well, I love that. Fabulous.
- [04:58]
A
It is great. I love baseball. You know, it's a game I started watching with my dad when I was a kid. He taught me how to keep score. You know, I had my own mitt. We play catch. And so I just love everything about it. I'm sure a lot of it is wrapped up in just warm memories of, you know, springtime and play and those long summer nights listening to the game on the radio. I had the transistor radio under my pillow listening to Ernie Harwell, all the games. I just loved everything about it. And you mentioned Joyce My quest to go to every major league ballpark. I have been to 42, and you may wonder, how can you have been to 42 when there are only 30 teams? And the answer, of course, is that I started this Quest in the 1970s and in the 80s and 90s, and to this day, tons of new stadiums have been built. So I've been to, you know, multiple stadiums in the same city. So whenever I travel, if there's a ballpark in the area, I'll go. I'm really hoping to hit the Phillies and the Padres and the Braves this year because I haven't been to their new stadiums. So those are on my list in my my travels in my my book tour. So so.
- [06:14]
B
Deleteme makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable, it's worse than you think. Data brokers make a profit off your data by commoditizing everything you do online, even if you think you have nothing to hide.
- [06:33]
C
And I'm sure everyone knows that anyone on the web can buy your private details like your Social Security number, address, contact info, family connections, and so much more. This can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts, and harassment. But now you can protect yourself and your family's privacy with Delete Me. Consider it like your personal warrior, defending your data autonomy and privacy, even if
- [07:00]
A
you're not a public figure. In the Internet age, all of us are potential targets for malicious actors, blackmailers, and worse. Especially if you have minors or children in your family. Delete Me is a must. Once we got started with them, the peace of mind was such a relief. I trust them to protect me, my sisters, and my loved ones. And I know that they can help keep you and your family safe, too. Join us and refuse to be a victim. Start taking steps to protect your privacy today with Delete Me.
- [07:30]
C
New York Times wirecutter named Deleteme their top pick for data removal services for a reason. So. So don't wait. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com sisters and use promo code Sisters at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com sisters and enter code sisters at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com sisters code sisters. And the link is also in our show notes. The Trump administration has been fiddling with press freedom for a long time, kicking the AP out of the White House for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, restricting journalists physical access within the Pentagon. Last May, and then in the fall, in September and October, they issued two similar policy changes that required Pentagon journalists to sign a new agreement to keep their press credentials. Those agreements meant, in my view, that they could not be journalists. They could not ask questions. Legitimate DoD journalists refused, turned in their credentials and sued. The credentials were then given to Trump loyalists like Laura Loomer and Mike Lindell, hardly serious reporters. Last Friday, after we finished recording, they won big on that lawsuit. The U.S. district Judge Paul Friedman issued a 40 page ruling that parts of the Trump administration's changes to the Pentagon press policy were unconstitutional. He ordered DOD to reinstate press access for the seven New York Times journalists who had refused to sign the new policy. And as of yesterday, not only hadn't the Pentagon done so, but they came up with what I think was their attempt to work around the judge's order. So I want to dig in with you, Barb. What were the September and October restrictions?
- [09:49]
A
Oh, I'm really glad we're talking about this topic, Jill, because I teach this course on national security and civil liberties and we talked about these orders when they came down in September and October. And it's interesting now to see the judge's perspective on it because some of the issues that the court raises are the same issues that our students identified. So, you know, some important things that the public should know is that the Department of Defense, the Pentagon has dedicated space for journalists to be in the building. And that's important because as the court says in its opinion, they have access. If there's a briefing that's called on short notice, members of the press can show up there after the briefing is over. They can chat with government officials and say, can you explain this? They can provide context and other information. The reporters also develop relationships with these government officials and so they can call them when they have a question or they can be sources of information for them. So that's important. And so to get into this special room at the Pentagon and be able to be sort of resident there, the Justice Department has these too. You have to get a special credential and you have to agree that you're going to follow the security protocols. You're going to have to agree. You don't go to certain places you know, I'm going to sneak into the secretary's office and other kinds of things. And so getting one of these press credentials was something that members of the press have done for decades. Well, in September, to finally get to your question, the Pentagon put out a policy that said all members of the press, in order to get this press credential and have permission to come inside the building, were required to read the policy and sign off on a form agreeing to be bound by this policy and under penalty of potential revocation of that credential. And one of those policies was that you would not disclose any information that was not explicitly authorized for disclosure by the Pentagon. So, you know, think about this from time to time. You get leaks, you get people sharing information on background. You get people saying things that they want to disclose because they think that there is some problem with a policy. That's how we become aware of certain things. So that was in September, in October, there were complaints about this policy coming down. And so in response to complaints, rather than withdraw the policy, the Pentagon actually just provide more detail. And they said a couple of additional things that I think were even more alarming, which is that journalists were not only not permitted to print information that was not authorized by the Pentagon, but they could not solicit information from members of the Defense Department that was not approved public information. And in addition, they would assess violations on a case by case basis so that they could decide whether someone is in violation and their credentials could be withdrawn. So those were the policies that gave
- [13:02]
C
rise to this lawsuit. I'm glad you went into that detail because it was alarming. As I say, to me, this was the end of journalism. You can't ask questions if you can't solicit information. It is. It was an appalling state of affairs. So the New York Times sued, and Joyce, I want to ask you, what did they allege as the grounds for their lawsuit, and what did the Pentagon argue in defense of that?
- [13:30]
B
You know, it's. I'm glad you asked me this question, because I've been sort of tracking, almost keeping a tally sheet of how much of the litigation involving the administration right now involves the First Amendment. It seems to be happening across the board in a lot of cases, and this case is one of them. The plaintiffs, the New York Times, they filed their lawsuit in December, and they argue both first and Fifth Amendment violations, so free speech and due process. They also accused the government of violating the law that governs rulemaking by federal agencies, the Administrative Procedure Act. And it's important to understand that these aren't interlocking, that each of these arguments has the potential independently to justify a win in the New York Times favor the administration's argument in response. Response is, I think, just about what you would expect. Right. They argue that restricting journalists from soliciting, quote, unauthorized information was necessary to protect national security and that these are rules that are merely enforcing existing prohibitions on unauthorized leaks. So yet again, we have a solution in search of a problem. Right. This is just classic Trump administration trying to tamp down on the free press so that you and I are not well informed.
- [14:54]
C
And Judge Friedman did a very good job of analyzing those arguments and completely rejecting the Defense Department's comments. What did he say, Barb?
- [15:07]
A
Yeah, I mean, one of the things he said is that this is something that has been a tradition, this idea that we would have this openness, that we would have access, that throughout history, we have seen moments when the. The access provided to the Defense Department has led to revelations of what is happening in the law, and that has led to beneficial policy changes. And that although it is understandable why the government might want to control and prevent these kinds of reporting or disclosure that might be unfavorable to an organization. He quotes from prior case law to talk about the dangers when the government gets involved in censoring the press and putting controls on the press and found that these were indeed violations of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- [16:02]
C
And he also pointed to the fact that it was especially important at this particular time when we are in a war with Iran. But, Joyce, the Pentagon said, of course, that they are going to appeal. You're our appellate expert. Is that going to succeed or will the Judge Friedman's decision be upheld?
- [16:23]
B
You know, the appeal shouldn't succeed, and the courts have been increasingly bullish on the First Amendment and those issues lately. But I think we have to be realistic. It's very likely that this case will go all the way up to the Supreme Court. There are two votes on that court that seem to be locked in in favor of Donald Trump. And so the question will be whether there will be five votes among the remaining seven justices to do the right thing and uphold the rule of law.
- [16:53]
C
And, Barb, you mentioned something about the Pentagon has always given space in the Pentagon for the press. And they have now come up with what I think is a Machiavellian way to control the press and to overcome this decision. And it in part relates to the fact of space. And so I want you to talk about what it means for them to now not have space in the Pentagon, to have it in an annex. And, and whether this will actually hurt all press, you know, even the Laura Loomer, Michael and Dells won't be there. So what does it mean if. If no one can be in the Pentagon and has to be escorted anytime they are in the Pentagon?
- [17:46]
B
Yeah.
- [17:46]
A
This is sort of like, well, if you won't play by my rules, I'm going to take my ball and go home. Nobody can come in the building there. How do you like that?
- [17:54]
C
That's.
- [17:54]
A
That's kind of what it feels like to me. So what they have said in response to this is, fine, if you won't follow our rules, then nobody gets to come into the building. If you're going to report, you have to. We're going to set up a little annex outside. You can stay in there. And when we feel like it, and we want to invite you in for a press conference, we can bring you in. You have to be escorted, but you don't get to roam around the building and talk to people that you want to talk to. And so we'll see how that change in policy affects things. But I do want to point out, I remember when I was. Why this is valuable to the public. Certainly there are certain spaces where members of the press should be precluded from. Right. They can't always be on the inside of every meeting Secretary Hegseth is holding when he's discussing war plans and things like that. But, you know, restrictions on First Amendment rights, like all fundamental rights, are permitted when, when the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. And so you could have rules like, you know, we've got certain secure areas at the Pentagon. You can't go there. But I've been to the Pentagon, Jill. I'm sure you have in your work as general counsel of the Army. It's an enormous building. There's all kinds of people roaming around there, you know, cafeterias and other kinds of things. So the idea that press aren't allowed in there is. Feels a little draconian. But I'll also say, based on my experience, when I was working as a prosecutor, I found it beneficial that we had reporters who could roam around the courthouse. It kind of feels parallel. I mean, that's a public place, but people still have to go through screening. They have to go through, you know, security to be able to get into the building. But they were allowed to wander in and out of courtrooms and see what was going on, to report on things. If they thought things weren't right, but I thought one of the real values of it is. And I encouraged our prosecutors not to leak and share non public information. And we had press policies about those kinds of things, but to explain to reporters what was going on. Because very often something will happen in court and people are speaking in jargon and things move quickly and you can't always hear from the back of the room what's happening in the front of the room. That we should make ourselves available to reporters after a hearing to answer their questions. Like, can you tell me what the court just did there? You know, I heard him say the PE is going to be in 14 days unless there's a waiver or what? What was that? What did that mean? Like, what just happened there? And, you know, sometimes the old hands who had been there a long time on the beat understood what that meant, but not everybody does. And so, you know, I encourage our AUSAs assistant U.S. attorneys to say, oh, a PE is a preliminary exam. The court rules provide for that to be held within 14 days. But it is common to indict the case before that happens. And so for that reason, oftentimes those hearings aren't held. Right. It's a simple explanation, but if the reporter understands it, their story's gonna be better and the public will better understand what's going on. And I think the same is true when you're at the Defense Department. Certainly, as we said, there are certain secrets that are classified, need to be protected, and those are already criminalized from disclosure. And so this really feels much more like an effort to just control the narrative, which is what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
- [21:09]
C
Absolutely.
- [21:10]
B
You know, amen. Barb. Can. Can I just say I agree with that so much. I actually wrote a law review article on the import DOJ being as transparent as possible. Right. We can't talk about our cases since we can't discuss substance. We should talk about process and make that clear. And what you said that I think is so important is. And then the reporting is more accurate. Right. We're all helping people to understand what we understand. They're free to vet it and use it. But this, I think, is so important here, and it's why I'm glad we're taking up this topic, because this is about giving the public access to accurate information. It's not about playing hide and go seek with the Trump administration.
- [21:53]
C
You know, as. Of course, you're right, Barb. I worked in the Pentagon. I was in the E Ring, which if you're familiar with the Pentagon, there are five rings and the E ring is the outer ring. So it is the longest part of the Pentagon and it would take hours to walk through the entire Pentagon. It's gigantic. But it is important to have people who report to the public on what's going on. And you're right, of course, classified information is not reportable and shouldn't be shared. But there are other things that are going on that you want to have publicized. And having the kind of relationship with the press is a good and positive thing. There was no restrictions when I was there, and I think it's really important. But I want to go back to focusing on, you know, Judge Friedman was really almost prescient in what he did in foreseeing what I consider this workaround, because there's a lot of language in his opinion that refers to the dedicated space and why it's important. Joyce, can you talk about some of that language? Because I think that really gets to why it matters to have the pressure there. And, and again, given the size of the Pentagon, if you put someone in an annex that is at the end of the parking lot you're talking about, it's going to take them an hour to get to the actual entrance to the Pentagon. And so being inside is very, very important. Talk about that.
- [23:28]
B
Yeah, I mean, you know, if you move somebody, you know, to an outbuilding away from the main house, it's hard for them to get dinner while it's still hot. Right. The most recent reports that I've seen, and Jill, you know the Pentagon way better than I do. But it sounds like the move is from this long standing indoor workspace that's known as Correspondence Quarter to this external annex. So that just sounds like it's designed to keep them from doing their jobs. And the decision to do this is clearly a direct response to this ruling that we're talking about that finds that the Pentagon strict media policies are unconstitutional. You know, I think the timing issue here is a very interesting one.
- [24:11]
C
Right.
- [24:11]
B
The new and improved press workspace will be available when ready, but there's no specific date that's been provided for when that facility will be fully functional. And I mean, we're laughing about it because what else are you going to do? But I'm glad that the Times brought this lawsuit. It took them a little bit of time to file after the Pentagon did this. I think everybody was shell shocked and trying to figure out what it meant and if some sort of voluntary settlement was possible. I'm glad they're in court. I think it's reassuring that they've won. Unfortunately, I think the takeaway from this conversation about remote annex space is that the government is not acting in good faith. And the silver lining to that is that what they're doing here will only make the New York Times case stronger on appeal.
- [25:10]
A
I just love the seafood from Wild Alaskan. You get it and it's ready to go. Seafood at the grocery store, you never know where it came from, what it might have in it, whether it's sustainable. That's why you need a provider you can trust. And for us, that's Wild Alaskan company. It's the best way to get wild caught, perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Trust us, you haven't tasted fish this good. We always recommend them and it's wonderful to know our friends, family and I are getting the best.
- [25:44]
B
Everything from wild Alaskan is 100% wild caught and never farmed. And that means no antibiotics, no GMOs, no 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.
- [26:16]
C
I used to be afraid to cook fish. I really thought it was a really tricky thing to do until I tried Wild Alaskan. Like us, you'll love that. Everything from Wild Alaskan is sustainably sourced and wild caught from Alaska. And every order supports 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 for a tasty treat that's low in fat, high in protein and rich in omega 3s. It's a delicious white fish that turns a savory looking bright white when you cook it. And it is perfect with just a little bit of a sear or a grill. But if you're feeling adventurous, it's also amazing in tacos or curry. You need to try it all. And there are so many other amazing choices.
- [27:16]
B
You know, every week when we do our ads, I end up hungry, but I do like curry a lot and curry on fish sounds great. So at least I know what I'm making for dinner once we're done. And best of all, if you're not completely satisfied with your first Box Wild Alaskan company will give you a full refund, but it's really unlikely that you won't be satisfied. They don't ask any questions. There's no risk. It's just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust and enjoy. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first box of premium 40 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. We love their food and we love them. The link is in our show not. Well, Sisters, I have a question for you that's not actually about the legal topic to start this off, but do you guys use AI at all for anything?
- [28:34]
A
I've been using it a little bit, you know, more for personal things, like I have a group of friends in town and I want to go out to dinner to a place with good food, reasonable prices, and doesn't require a reservation on a Friday night, you know, and. And they'll give you, like, here are five restaurants that meet your description. So I've been using it for those kinds of things. Um, I haven't used it for work so much, although my students say they use it all the time to generate like hypos for them to summarize documents, to shorten papers. Um, so, you know, it's definitely of growing use.
- [29:12]
B
You know, my students use it too, and my daughter, who's a climate scientist, they use it to create these closed universes and summarize their work. But I'm like, my biggest use, and I use ChatGPT, is if I want to go hiking on the weekend, I'll say, give me a hike that's really good at this time of the year that's within the trailheads within 30 minutes. It's fabulous for that. Jill, are you using it at all?
- [29:38]
C
I have used it to write a poem with an invitation to my best friend. We're spending time together and it did such an amazing job. I couldn't believe it. And I was first introduced to it by an expert in the field. I was at a Chicago network dinner and I had never used it. And she said, well, what do you have coming up? I said, well, I have a speech to the American Bar Association. She said, give me five things you want to say in it and talk into my phone. And I did. And it wrote a speech that if I had showed up and had nothing to say, I could have actually delivered I didn't because it wasn't in my voice.
- [30:25]
B
It wrote a speech.
- [30:26]
C
I have a feeling if I wrote a speech, honest to God. And I mean, I said, here's the things I want to cover. And it wrote those five things up. It was amazing. And that was chatgpt. Now, of course, I have a connection to Anthropic and Claude, So I have signed up for Claude, and I'm going to have to test Claude and see what he does for me.
- [30:48]
B
Well, and that takes us just to the point of today's topic because, you know, a lot of people, including the government, are using AI in these large language models. And Claude, which is Anthropic, and the lawsuit that we've discussed in past episodes of the podcast, back in the news this week, because there was a really important decision earlier this week. Barb, can we start here? There are so many different lawsuits, but percolating right now involving the Trump administration that I struggle, to be honest, to keep on top of all of them. So remind us about the Anthropic lawsuit. What's it about?
- [31:23]
C
Who sued who?
- [31:25]
A
Yeah, and Joyce has a great analysis of this lawsuit as well in her Civil Discourse substack today. So certainly recommend that to everybody. You know what's great about your substack, Joyce, is you'll take these legal issues in the news that matter, do a deep live. And my favorite thing is that you often paste right into the substack a portion of the original documents, like a relevant portion of it. And I know you did that in this one. So I read that.
- [31:52]
B
I'm nerdy. I like to go back and read the original documents.
- [31:55]
A
Me, too.
- [31:56]
B
Yeah.
- [31:56]
A
You know what I have no time for. Dear members of the media who are out there listening, do not write an article in your publication without linking to the original document. It'll say, like, you know, a brief was filed today where the government argued X, Y, and Z, or an indictment was filed, a complaint was filed. Like, give me a link, man. I want to look at the document. So some publications are better at that than others. And Joyce not only links to it, she'll also take a screenshot of, like, a relevant provision, which I really like to see. So that's great. But anyway, to answer your question, this you may recall, and I think we have a little bit of insight from, in retrospect, about what. What prompted this. So the Defense Department uses Claude, which is an AI platform. It's an AI model, and it's part of the company called Anthropic and Anthropic unlike some other AI developers, has as its mission and as its name suggests, using AI for the good of humankind. It's got an ethical component to it. And so it entered into an agreement with the Defense Department to allow the Defense Department to use Claude in its work. But one of the provisions was that Claude not be used for either mass surveillance of the American people or to identify military targets. And that was in the contract. And it came to a head. And I remember at the time thinking, like, what was this? There was some speculation that maybe it was war games or tabletop exercises that caused them to realize this could be a problem. It happened just on the eve of the Iran attack. And so I think in retrospect it probably related to that. That is my speculation. But what they said to Claude Anthropic is no, no, no, we're going to do this first. They asked like, can it be used for this purpose? They said, no, that is not the use case that we have developed. We do not know that it can be done ethically. And that's why we entered into that contract with you that said it cannot be used for that purpose. And then the Defense Department said, well, unless you give us permission by 5:00 clock tomorrow morning, this deal's off. We are canceling this deal. And Anthropic said, no, like we just don't think it can be used safely and that we've never tested it for that. That's not our use case. That's not how we think about this. And so at 5 o', clock, 5:01 they canceled the contract. And not only did they cancel the contract and say, we're not going to use you, they went even further. And while these negotiations were going on, they said a couple things they threatened them with. Number one, we're going to threaten you under the Defense Production act and we're going to make you do this for us. Remember we talked about the Defense Production act way back in the COVID days because that is a statute that says the government may order companies to produce what they produce and sell it first to the government before they sell it to private companies. So if I need tanks, I can say to General Motors, you got to make me some tanks, I'll pay you for them, but you gotta make me some tanks because we need them in the national defense. That's the Defense Production Act. They said, we're going to make you do that Anthropic. The other thing that the government threatened was to designate them as a supply chain risk. This is something that is typically done for companies that are headquartered in hostile foreign nations. You know, maybe like a Chinese company that is producing software might be something that gets designated a supply chain risk. And so that's what they did. They designated Anthropic a supply chain risk. It's highly unusual to see this happen to an American company, but that is what Anthropic is challenging in this lawsuit.
- [35:34]
B
So, Jill, that takes me to the question that I wanted to ask you, because what happens this week is Anthropic wants a preliminary injunction. All this stuff that Barb's talking about, they want a judge to take that off the table so that the government can't do anything related to Defense Production act or designating them as a supply chain risk. But we've also talked a little bit with Barb about the fact that the government took Anthropic off of the project. So can you maybe analyze for us, is this about taking Anthropic off of the project or something else? What's the, the deal here? Why does Anthropic want a preliminary injunction from the government? And what do they. Well, let me just go with that so far. Can you analyze what the motivation is?
- [36:23]
C
Yes. And as Barb mentioned, this is a unusual AI company that has a ethical mission. And this became an ethical issue for them. They didn't want autonomous weapons, fully autonomous. They wanted human oversight. They didn't want mass surveillance because they said they hadn't tested Claude for that and that it wasn't safe to use for those purposes. But it wasn't that. They just wanted an injunction or to be on this contract in particular. In fact, they said, hey, it's up to you who you contract with for this. We'll even help transition if you pick someone new. They weren't really being sticky on that. They didn't want to be barred from all other government contracts or from working with other government contractors who have Pentagon contracts. And the way this was phrased was if you are a government contractor and you work with Anthropic, you're going to lose your government contracts. So it was a real threat, not just to billions of dollars in revenue for Anthropic, but from the government, but from other contractors. And that was, I think, the real problem was this supply chain risk, which, as Barb said, it's been applied to foreign countries that you can't rely on them because they might do something bad to us or use it against us in some way. And so I think that's really what was of more interest to them. And the opinion that was written said nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the US for expressing disagreement with the government. What this really came down to in her decision was that this was retaliation for them speaking out and trying to establish that there should be guardrails on the use of AI in these kinds of things. So the dispute wasn't about this particular contract. It was about the total loss of their ability to do business with the government, or at least with the Pentagon.
- [38:38]
B
Yeah, you know, this is like so many of these settings where we're dealing with an administration that seems to be deceptive and trying only to expand its power here to, you know, tell Anthropic we don't care what your ethicist says. And I love that, by the way, that Anthropic has an ethicist and her job is to sort of be a philosopher king and think about what it means for AI to become sentient and to try to assess whether they're getting to that point. Because that's obviously one of the big issues that's underlying this whole case. I mean, I think we have not come out and explicitly said this, but in many ways, right. This is about whether an AI should be able to decide who targets are, who live targets are. Is it stake here? And so, Barb, we get into court this week, we get the preliminary injunction hearing. Jill has read a little bit of the language of it. How does the judge rule, and how do you think that assesses the relative merits of the party's arguments?
- [39:39]
A
Yeah. So this is a judge in the Northern District of California where Anthropic is located. She did agree with Anthropic and granted that preliminary injunction. As we've said before, a preliminary injunction either requires someone to engage in action or forces them to stop engaging some action. So it blocks the Pentagon's order. That would put them on this supply chain risk list. But it's preliminary. To obtain one of these, you have to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a risk of irreparable harm, a balancing of the interests of the parties, and a consideration of the public interest. And so the court found that Anthropic had prevailed under those standards. But that doesn't mean the case is over, that there can continue to be litigation to get more information. But it seems to me that this is the end of it, because it's a legal question. Right. We don't really know, need to know more facts, just the legal Question. And it seems to me that what really is going on here is an effort to just punish Anthropic for doing what the government does, for refusing to do what the government demanded. And, you know, lest people think that this is just anthropic trying to be, I don't know, overly sensitive, it's a really interesting battle. It got prompted because Donald Trump posted on social media, we will never allow a radical left woke company to dictate how our great military fights and wins wars. Of course, that's not what's going on here. But they have a product, and they cannot attest that this product can be used safely for the reasons the Defense Department wants. And it was contracted with them with the explicit provision that it not be used for these purposes because it did not conclude it could be used safely. Joyce mentioned that they've got an ethicist. They also have a constitution that talks about the way their company is run and will not be run. And so imagine if you had some other product, I don't know, a lawnmower. And you said, you can use this product to mow lawns, but it cannot be used for other purposes. Like don't try to use the lawnmower to cut your hair, because we don't think a lawnmower can be safe to cut your hair.
- [41:53]
C
Right.
- [41:53]
A
And they said, we're going to use it anyway to cut people's hair. And don't tell us how to do things. The lawnmower company would say, we are not guaranteeing our product for that purpose because it's not designed to safely cut hair. We didn't design it with that purpose in mind. And we don't think it can be done safely. And I also, you know, we tied it to this speculation that this issue came to a head because the Defense Department was contemplating this attack on Iran and wanted to use Anthropic and Quad to help identify targets. There is some thinking that Anthropic can very quickly look at potential targets and do it much more quickly than a human could to figure out where are the targets? Where would we maximize lethality, which is the phrase Pete Hegseth loves to use. And again, I am speculating that it was connected to the Iran war. But keep in mind that sometimes AI can hallucinate. I recently asked it. My husband said this is the most Barb McQuaid thing he's ever heard. I asked Claude whether it thought the Tigers, Detroit Tigers, would win the World Series this year. He said, you know, you couldn't find anybody else to talk to about this. So you asked your chatbot friend to talk with you about the prospects of the Detroit Tigers, and Claude came back with a nice list. It said, well, they have a very good pitching staff and so that bodes well. They also have some pretty good hitters, but some of it's going to depend on whether they have a good season. You know, here's a good hitter. Maybe Riley Greene will have a good season. We need Spencer Torkelson. Have a good season. Okay, all makes sense. And then it said, we also need Jace Keith to have a breakout year. There is no player named Jace Keith, and only a diehard Detroit Tigers fan would know this. There's a player named Jace Young and there's a player named Colt Keefe, but those are two different players. So sometimes AI, despite the large language models out there, hallucinates and it makes mistakes. And that's why you need a human to assess the accuracy of some of the things it's doing and recall that there is reporting. I don't know to what extent it's been confirmed by the United States, but there is credible reporting that says the United States struck an all girls elementary school and killed 175 people in its attack on Iran. I can't help but wonder if they didn't use AI for this purpose. And AI said, oh, here's a good target with maximum lethality where we can kill 175 people and accidentally hit a school. I don't know that I'm speculating, but I do want to make the point that if Anthropic, who is positioned to make millions of dollars by having the Defense Department use it, says it's not safe to use our product in this way. Isn't there perhaps some value in honoring Anthropic's own assessment of the safe uses of its product?
- [44:37]
B
You know, the real kicker for me, Barb, is the fact that Anthropic, when the government sort of said no mas, Anthropic offered to help them disentangle their relationship and get them situated with a new contractor. It wasn't like Anthropic was fighting the corporate divorce. What Anthropic was upset about was having their business killed, as Jill explained, by being designated as the first ever domestic threat to the supply chain. And so I think what you're saying absolutely makes sense. So, Jill, this is clearly not a final decision, right? There will be more in court. This was just a preliminary injunction. What do you think comes after this? What should we be looking for?
- [45:21]
C
Well, there will clearly be an appeal and it's hard to predict, but I think this is a very strong case. But there's also a second case in D.C. that is raising similar issues. So there's two different paths here for Anthropic. And I just want to follow up on something Barb said, because not only should they not be retaliated against by the Pentagon, they should be celebrated by all Americans for taking a position that says, I don't care how many millions I'm going to make, I'm doing the right thing. I need to protect humanity against the use of this product for things that could be extremely dangerous. So let's celebrate Anthropic and try to replicate them with all other corporations.
- [46:13]
B
So I agree with that. And I wonder where you guys think that leaves us. I mean, how do we understand this case? Are there, you know, we've sort of been dismissive, but are there legitimate reasons for the government to enter these orders or maybe some similar orders against Anthropic? Was the government's motivation here entirely unpure? I mean, I think it's always important to not be sort of knee jerk, reactive action critical of the Trump administration. I always try to look at it from 360 degrees because sometimes there can be balance on both sides. Is this one of those cases where there's some reason for the government to take this position, or are they just off the reservation, so to speak?
- [46:55]
C
So I, I think, Joyce, that there is no legitimate reason for designating them a supply chain risk. And that is really the heart of what's at issue here. Is there a reason for them to have said, well, we want to be able to use your product for any lawful purpose and we will determine what is lawful? You can't say there are two exceptions. One is for fully autonomous weapons and the other is for mass surveillance. Those were the two big issues. But they're saying no, that's, that's not okay. So I don't think it's legitimate to have gone as far as they did canceling the contract. That's within their rights and powers. But doing what they did in retaliation for the company coming out publicly and saying, this is not safe and you shouldn't do this. There needs to be guardrails. That is not right.
- [47:52]
A
Yeah. You know, I think that what I think should happen versus what I think will happen are sometimes two different things. I tend to agree with Jill and I do think it's likely that we will see a court affirm what, what is happening so far in court. But there's always this deference when it comes to national security, sometimes the courts are a little bit hands off. I think we've seen this court to be somewhat hands off when it comes to national security matters. Sometimes just by, you know, invoking that phrase, courts can say executive branch stuff, we better stay out of this. So I worry a little bit that whenever you invoke national security, it's not necessarily a slam dunk.
- [48:34]
C
I agree. But if you look at the opinion, there's a lot in there that says this is clearly retaliation for speech. This is not a case where it was done for national security purposes.
- [48:45]
B
Well, let's hope that the Supreme Court, when it gets there, actually reads the lower court opinion.
- [48:59]
C
Spring is a time of renewal where the old gives way to the new. And there's no better place to start your reset than your kitchen. Don't just clean out the cabinets, get rid of your scratched up, difficult to clean pots and pans and make an upgrade that will take your cookware and your meals to the next level. You've been hanging on to the old ones for far too long and you deserve the best. Plus, having shiny new tools that liven up your kitchen makes the effort you put in much more enjoyable and much more delicious too.
- [49:32]
A
That's why we want to tell you about Hexclad. Hexclad's beautiful design combines with the performance of stainless steel with the convenience of non stick. So you get the best of both worlds without the drawbacks. Have you guys seen the TV ads where people have their hex clad pans hanging from the ceiling in the kitchen? I always wanted a kitchen that looks like that, but mine, mine sadly does not. They still look good though on the stove. We all know how fast nonstick pans can get scratched up and worn out, and stainless steel does great until it's time to clean up. Then it's a disaster. That's why you'll love how Hexclad's revolutionary features deliver on both performance and convenience. Not only are they oven safe to 900 degrees with stay cool handles, the heat control is also unmatched. The sears are spectacular and the cleanup is easy every time. Instead of scrubbing stuck on burnt on food, all it takes is a quick wipe down and a move to the dishwasher. Now you can actually relax and enjoy your culinary creations.
- [50:37]
B
Hexclad completely changed the way we cook. Once you make the switch, confidence in the kitchen comes naturally. My family really likes Hexclad. One of my sons went so far as to take them away to his own apartment where he uses them all the time. But you know, now that we've gotten a taste of using Hexclad, the whole family is really sold. And we are very discerning cooks in my household. After experiencing them in the kitchen, I know why Gordon Ramsay cooks with Hexclad at home and in his restaurants, and he really is the toughest critic on the planet. Thanks to hexclad's lifetime warranty, this is truly the last set of pans you'll ever need to buy.
- [51:18]
A
It's no surprise Hexclad has more than 1 million customers and more than 50,000 five star reviews, including ours. Now that our secret is out, don't wait. Spring is the perfect time to upgrade your kitchen with cookware that actually works as hard as you do. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off with our exclusive link. Just head to hexclad.com sisters. Support our show and check them out at h e x C-L-A-.com sisters. Make sure to let them know we sent you let's cook smarter this spring with hexclad's revolutionary cookware. The link, as always, is in our show notes. A few weeks ago, we discussed the upcoming trials in two cases against social media companies, one in New Mexico and one in Los Angeles. And this week we got verdicts in both of those cases. And I have to say I'm a little surprised. Jill, first, can you tell us about the verdict in the New Mexico case? That one came out first earlier this week.
- [52:28]
C
It did, and that was under state law and was about sexual or child predation. And the ruling of the jury was that Meta had not taken care to protect children from predators and held them liable. And they did it not on the basis of anything that was posted in terms of words. So it wasn't a First Amendment. It was based on how they developed the algorithm to use this. And the jury found that Meadow was liable for violating the state law and failing to safeguard children in using the app. So I think it's a really important issue. It would be one that I would say, oh, yeah, well, that's the end of it. But it's clearly Meta will appeal it. And I've already heard. I bet you have too. Lawyers are soliciting clients saying if you used any kind of social media and you have mental issues, call us, we can bring a lawsuit for you. So, I mean, there's an immediate horrible advertising to go after people on the basis of this. And there's when we talk more about The LA case, there's another point of view from that one.
- [53:51]
A
Well, let's talk about that. Joyce, tell us you're, you're our LA girl. Tell us about that case. What did, just a few days later we got a verdict in that one. What did, what, what happened in that case?
- [54:02]
B
So the juror is found for the plaintiff in the Los Angeles case. There was a representative plaintiff. She was awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional 3 million in punitive damages because the jury found that Meta and Google had acted with malice, oppression or fraud in the way that they operated their platforms. I mean this a pretty big deal in my mind. You know, this representative, she's anonymized in the pleading. She's identified as, I don't know if it's Kaylee or Callie, maybe it's a pun on California, but we know that she's a 20 year old woman from Chico, California and she had the courage to come forward and stand as the lead plaintiff in the case and talked about her own social media addiction. She alleged she became addicted to Instagram, which is of course meta, and YouTube, which is Google, starting at the ages of nine and six respectively. And she talked about addiction and how it caused severe anxiety and depression and dysmorphia, but that she would continue to scroll even when she was in school. It obviously had a very powerful impact on her.
- [55:15]
A
Yeah, and I think one of the things that's so important about this is it wasn't just a coincidence. They designed these platforms to be addictive. Right? As soon as you finish one video, it shows you another, it records your preferences. So the algorithm feeds you the things you want to see and you know, one video after another. Might we joke with my father in law who has become very fond of YouTube and we often joke like, does he know how it works? Because he says, have you seen the shows on YouTube? They're amazing. I mean like one after another. It's fantastic. I can't get over how good these shows are. Like, well, you know, because it's basing its algorithm on the things you click and like. And so it shows you the things that you want to see. And so it's designed to be addictive in that way. So Jill, what do you think?
- [56:03]
B
Can I make a secret confession to you guys?
- [56:06]
A
Because you're my sister, it won't go beyond us.
- [56:08]
C
Go ahead.
- [56:10]
B
So I'm obsessed with these videos. I'm pretty sure that they're AI generated, but they're like people who have hidey holes in the forest and they're being chased by zombies. And suddenly there's a magical door in the tre tree and they climb in and then there's this gorgeous elaborate spread with like a kitchen with roast turkeys and vegetables and shelves with jars of put up goods. And they walk you all through their house and then they look out a window because of course there's a window in the tree where they can see the zombies outside. And they say something like, wow, there's
- [56:43]
A
a whole series of these.
- [56:43]
B
And I had never, there was like hundreds of these. And I had never understood the addictive value of, of social media until. Because, you know, like I read stuff for information, I read the news. But one night I was looking at these and because I looked at two or three and I think I found one of the accounts and watched a couple more. And then that was the only thing that was on my Instagram feed, which is usually full of knitters. And I realized that I sat there for like half an hour looking at people running into their little tree houses and I thought, this is madness. But I could also sit here and do.
- [57:18]
A
Well, that's what it's designed for, hours.
- [57:20]
C
And I'm addicted to dog videos. That's what I do before bed when I want to. Yeah, cute puppies, put a smile on my face. I watch all these adorable cute babies.
- [57:29]
A
I like to watch those too. How about this one? And this is probably speaking to my cute babies, although it's not necessarily cute. Have you seen diaper diplomacy? It's AI generated. Check it out. Diaper diplomacy is people. They're clearly, you know, AI rendered babies who look like people like Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and you know, usually Donald Trump, his real voice, you know, on some rant. And then the other babies will usually like raise an eyebrow like, what? Can you believe this? They're pretty funny, so check them out.
- [58:00]
B
All right, well, I'm sorry, that sounds good.
- [58:02]
A
Listeners, back to our serious conversation.
- [58:04]
B
Yeah, see, because we're addicted. But I mean, I think it goes
- [58:07]
A
to prove that this stuff is addiction. What do you think? You know, sometimes we see verdicts by jurors that are based more on emotion and passion and feels than on law. Do you think these verdicts survive the appellate process?
- [58:21]
C
Well, it's really interesting because it is based on a deliberate choice that companies have made. And the testimony in both cases included a lot of whistleblowers from the companies. And so I think that there's enough significant evidence of their attempt to do things. But there was a really Interesting Washington Post opinion piece. And I'll put the link in the show notes that basically it said, it, it was a killing. They said what, what did they call it? It was a blow against free speech. And when I read the article, I was kind of struck by it because they were saying, look, what's the responsibility of parents? The rules for use restrict the age. And this, this woman that we've talked about now, 20, started at 6 years old. That's below the age of legitimate use of these social media platforms. And so what's the responsibility of parents for letting their children use this at such a young age, 6 and 9? That, that's, that's absurd. At first when I saw the headline, I was like, oh, that's, I, I don't go along with that. And then as I read it, I was like, I have to think twice about this. So I, I hope our listeners will read this opinion piece and think about whether this should withstand the appellate process.
- [59:51]
A
Don't take away my diaper diplomacy, babies. Joyce I, I think this is a really interesting case. You know, I think oftentimes social media companies hide behind the shield of the First Amendment because, you know, certainly people have the right to post these various things on these platforms, but, you know, sometimes it's their own conduct, their own manipulation, their own efforts to make this material addictive that is at the heart of what's wrong here, as opposed to just providing this content on their platforms. But regardless of the view on that, you know, Congress has shown very little interest in regulating social media companies. But do you think that one or two of these verdicts, and there are many, many more of these cases in the pipeline, could cause social media companies themselves to self regulate in a way to change the way they do business? That could result in making it safer for users, especially young users.
- [60:53]
B
Yeah, I think that that's about as likely to happen as Donald Trump directing the Justice Department to act independently of his guidance and restore ethical principles. I mean, look, here's the reality. In Los Angeles, Kayleigh, the class plaintiff we talked about, she's the first of nearly 2,500 plaintiffs in a consolidated case that will take that lawsuit to trial. There are, you know, 2,499 after her talking about platforms like Instagram and YouTube and how they were designed to be addictive and harmful to kids. So there's a lot more cases, but the companies won't really feel any pain until they have to start paying judgments. And that is years down the road. Right? I mean, there will be an appellate process, it will be a long time before they lose any money. I mean, maybe there's a little bit of naming and shaming going on, but these are big companies. A lot of people love and are addicted to them and they will continue to operate. Maybe at some point they will decide just because finances and the bottom line to settle these cases and agree to make some changes. But I think that that's the easy way out, right? I mean, prosecution and policy making, those are two very different things in this context. And I really fault Congress for its failure to act here. They should be taking this seriously. It is a known, identified problem. They should be holding hearings, they should be planning legislation. It is, I use the word criminal in the sort of descriptive sense, not the specific sense, but it's criminal for Congress to abdicate its responsibility and not to do anything legislatively to try to constrain by, by very clear law, including criminal law, what these companies can and cannot do. So hopefully that's something that could change after the midterms because we clearly need an entirely new way of regulating these companies.
- [62:55]
C
You know, the amount of money that the fine is sounds huge to you and me, but to these companies, it's really kind of inconsequential. They will ignore this to some extent, but I think legislators have started. I mean, there have been dozens of statutes proposed to protect children, to control the algorithms. And of course, some of the legislators who have been involved in proposing those have said, now's the time, let's get on this. And so maybe Congress will finally act to take care of this problem. Between spring planting and trying to make our lives and habits greener, the most important appliance in our kitchens gets to work right after dinner is finished. It's called mill, and it handles all the food cleanup and puts every scrap to a better use. Since we found out about them, we couldn't wait to get them for our homes and start forming habits that were better for our families, gardens, and the planet.
- [64:10]
B
To fill you in, mill is an odorless, effortless, fully automated food recycler that can handle almost anything while looking great in any kitchen. Forget about loud grinding disposals that strain your plumbing. Just throw everything from potato peels, to avocado pits, chicken bones, or even dairy into your mill. And while you sleep, it quietly transforms those scraps into nutrient rich, shelf stable grounds. It's so powerful that it can process up to 10 pounds overnight and it can work for weeks before you have to empty it. Best of all, once you have a mill, there's no more messes, smells or fruit flies.
- [64:50]
A
Now that we've discovered Mill, everything gets so much easier. It means fewer trips out to the garbage cans and the kitchen is filled with the delicious smell of freshly cooked food instead of whatever was wafting out of the garbage lid. Without a mill, we all create way more food waste than we should. Now Mill can handle things while you get some well deserved rest and the grounds are garden ready. In the morning the plants are going to look better than ever. But even if you don't have a garden, you can add them to your curbside compost. Mill can even pick them up and get them to a small farm for you.
- [65:25]
C
Mill turns a huge climate problem into a simple daily habit and it's fun to use the Mill app to see how much food you're keeping out of landfills. So far, mill customers have put over £15 million of food to good use. Plus they offer a 90 day risk free trial. So if you don't absolutely love it, you can just send it back. Try Mill risk free for 90 days and get $75 off at mill.com sisters and use code sisters at checkout. That's $75 off at mill.com Sisters and use code sisters again mill.com sisters and use code Sisters the link is also in our show Notes.
- [66:19]
A
Well, now comes the part of the show that really is our favorite, the part where we answer our listener questions. If you have a question for us, please email sisters in law politicon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, we'll try to answer it during our new show Sisters sidebar every Wednesday. Well, our first question comes to us from M L, who asks, is it illegal to mint coins with a president's likeness while they are still living? How is it possible we are hearing about a Trump coin being minted in time for the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence? Jill, what are your thoughts on that?
- [67:06]
C
I love the question because it is fascinating and complex and because it's so relevant. A 24 karat gold coin with Trump's likeness on it is approved by the US Mint as a commemorative thing. So it's really a relevant question. And there's also, I'm sure most of you have read, that he's now planning to put his signature on our paper currency.
- [67:37]
B
Oh my God.
- [67:39]
A
How's it gonna fit? It's so big.
- [67:44]
C
I hadn't thought of that one, but that's actually a Good question. I mean, it's just, it's revolting. Federal law generally says only dead presidents can be on a coin, that no living president can be on our currency. So that's the general rule. There are some little things and that's been in place, by the way, since I think it was 1866. So this is not like something new that we're doing. And it, there's U.S. code 512 says that in addition to this 1866 law, but there has been special legislation that says gives treasury the authority to do commemorative coins, not circulating coins, not like the quarters that you use to put in a meter. Although nowadays all meters are probably using credit cards. But so there are some exceptions and it would still be extremely unusual. There was an example of a commemorative stamp using a living president. So there is some background for that. But in general, no, it's totally illegal and shouldn't happen. There was a series of presidential quarters issued and I can go through the list of all the presidents, but the ones who weren't included were the living ones because that's the rule. So that Obama doesn't have a quarter and Clinton doesn't have a quarter and W doesn't have a quarter because they were living. Carter at the time was still alive. And so at the time that series came out, he wasn't included. And I think we should stick to that. The idea is that you have to be dead at least two years before you can have the honor. And that's so that we can really evaluate the contributions and the downsides of a person. Two years may not be enough in some cases, but at least two years is a start on this. So thank you for that question. I'm glad that we're thinking about why we shouldn't allow this. Yeah, any of the other branding he's doing.
- [69:52]
A
I guess before we put President Trump's image on a quarter, we better make sure he doesn't have any scandals in his past.
- [69:58]
C
Oh my gosh. You think there might be some. The other thing is the image that he wants to use is not a profile, which is how most presidents are seen as in profile. It is one of those nasty, glaring head on ones. So really we shouldn't be allowing that.
- [70:14]
B
Is like the back side gonna be the red hat.
- [70:18]
C
Oh, I hope it's his, his tennis.
- [70:22]
A
Okay, moving, moving right along.
- [70:24]
B
Moving right along.
- [70:25]
A
Too much information. We've got another question from Mitch who says there are thousands of threats made against lawmakers and judges every day. Why does it seem like they are never Prosecuted, is any action taken. Joyce, what do you think about that?
- [70:39]
B
Yeah, Mitch, thank you for this question. I mean, there are federal judges all across the country who go home every night with a bullseye on their back because this administration seems to think that they're fair game. So I hear the point of your question. We do not hear a lot about this. Let me peel back the curtain a little bit, if I can, and try to talk with you about what happens. There are four criminal agencies under the Justice Department umbrella. FBI, dea, atf, and the United States Marshals. And part of the US Marshals job is to protect federal judges. They're with them in court every day. They're almost always co located in the federal courthouse. They take this job so seriously, I just can't tell you. Every U.S. marshal in the country, they're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And a big part of their mission. Even though they have other significant law enforcement obligations involving tracking down fugitives and enforcing some of the child pornography laws, they take protection of federal judges incredibly seriously. They work proactively to make sure that they have good security systems. And to the point of your question, when there's a threat, they go in and they investigate and they don't wait. Right? I mean, it's not like it can wait until Monday. This is a Friday at 6pm they jump right in and they look at it. You know, sometimes a judge gets a threat and you can't really identify the source of it for whatever reason. But if they can identify the source, whether or not it's a crime, because there are First Amendment rights and some speech doesn't cross over, even though it's appalling, they go out and they talk to them. And that might not sound like very much, but it's unbelievably effective. When you have two deputy United States Marshals show up at your door, talk with you about the voicemail that you left on the judge's answering machine and, and ask what your intentions are. Most of the time, people are very shaken up. They agree that they will never do it again. They're told that they'll be prosecuted if they do it again after getting the warning, because that's evidence of intent. And so frequently that sort of heads up law enforcement is enough. Of course, there are situations, right, like where a person is not identified or where someone acts, acts violently as their first initial step. And that's when you end up with a prosecution, not a preventative situation. But the marshals do put a lot of manpower on security it's not infrequent for a judge who receives a threat to then have a detail that's at their house every day, 24 hours a day, following the judge around, in some cases, protecting their family. So. So, you know, it could be important if there were a serial or a significant prosecution of one of these people for making a threat, but often it's not possible, because sometimes that speech can be First Amendment protected. And so I think the marshals handle this in the best way possible by taking it seriously, by working vigilantly to protect our judges.
- [74:08]
A
Yeah. You know, I don't know about you, Joyce, or Jill if you ever had one of these 24. 7 details when there was a threat. I had one once because there was a serious threat. And so, like, the marshals came to my house, they secured it. They were walking around the house with these long guns, and I was concerned about, you know, frightening my children, and I could not leave the house without them, which maybe sounds like luxury. You know, you're gonna get a limo driver or something. But it was awful. I had to take one of my children to the doctor, and we had to go with the Marshalls in their secure van. My daughter wanted to go to the van.
- [74:42]
B
They were very good at their job.
- [74:43]
A
Yeah, they won't let you. My daughter wanted to go to Target just to get some supplies for a little project like we had to go to the Marshalls. So it's not something any ordinary person would want to have to endure. Our final question comes to us from Christy in Los Angeles, who writes speed cameras are spreading around the country. At what point do they butt up against privacy laws? What if they're positioned to capture someone's home? I'll bet they're in LA with the freeways. You've got lots of speed cameras, but we've probably all seen these things. They're posted on traffic lights, and they can tell whether you went through the red light or whether you were speeding, and then you would get a ticket in the mail. But these cameras are pervasive and I think certainly infringe upon our privacy. But the legal test, Christy, comes from a case called United States V. Katz from 1968, and it says the Fourth Amendment is violated and a warrant required only where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And so I think the argument in favor of these cameras all over public places is that when we were out in public, we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A police officer could be standing there and watching us drive by and assessing our speed or Even using a speed. What do they call them? The. It's not a radar detector, the radar to determine our speed. If they could be doing that anyway, then we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But there are some new cases coming down where you may have an argument here when it is positioned to capture someone's home over a long period of time. And so there is a case called Carpenter. It's a case I actually supervised in my former office. The United States vs. Carpenter, came out of the Eastern District of Michigan while I was U.S. attorney. And that involved the collection of cell site location information, which is our cell phones tell cell towers where we are 24. 7. And the Supreme Court ultimately ultimately concluded in that case that the relevant test had to look to whether our disclosure of the information was voluntary, and they said it was not, and whether it creates a comprehensive picture of where we are 24. 7. And the court said it did. And so I would think that it could be that if these cameras are positioned for a long period of time, it could violate that test. We've seen a circuit split around the country in circuits, you know, different courts that are saying pole cameras, which are frequently used in surveillance, put on a utility pole and positioned on a person's house to see criminal activity if the duration exceeds a certain amount of time. Some circuits say that is a violation of this idea of voluntariness and comprehensiveness, and others have said it does not because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. But what the Carpenter case and the Jones case before it said is it creates this mosaic theory that if I see a little bit of this and a little bit of that of your life, I'm able to patch together a comprehensive picture of what your life is like such that it does exceed this violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy. So stay tuned. Christy, There could be a challenge that could rise to the level of the Supreme Court that could resolve this circuit split as to whether this violates our privacy. Cameras everywhere starts to feel a little big brothery, doesn't it, when we've got them everywhere. Well, that's it for today's episode, and thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Jill Wine Banks, and me, Barb McQuaid. Kim will be back soon. We hope to see you at our live shows in Denver, Colorado, at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23 and and at the Buckhead Theater in Atlanta, Georgia, on May 3. Tickets are available at politicon.com tour so make sure you get them before they sell out. Don't forget to pick up Sisters in Law Merch and other goodies@politicon.com merch and make sure you check out our new companion podcast, Sisters Sidebar on Wednesdays. Please show some love to this week's sponsors, Delete Me, Wild Alaskan, Hexclad, and Mill. We're grateful for their support, and 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.
- [79:15]
C
Well, that would be so rude if we all talked at the same time. It really would be my favorite.
- [79:20]
A
I'm never going to talk all at the same time. That would be incredibly rude.
- [79:24]
C
I demand my own time to speak,
- [79:26]
A
thank you very much. Because when I speak, I want other people to listen.