#SistersInLaw Podcast — Episode 293: "Can Trump Put His Name On Money?"
Date: April 8, 2026
Hosts: Barb McQuade & Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Podcast Network: Politicon
Episode Overview
This episode of the Sister Sidebar explores unique and timely legal questions posed by listeners. Barb McQuade and Kimberly Atkins Stohr take on topics from federal judicial accountability and courtroom artistry to the use of AI by judges, the legality of putting Trump’s name (or image) on U.S. currency, and the intricacies of classifying crimes and judicial term limits. The episode is insightful and often light-hearted, filled with personal anecdotes and expert breakdowns of complicated legal and constitutional issues.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Judicial Accountability: The Eileen Cannon Controversy
- Listener Question: Eddie from NYC expresses outrage at Judge Eileen Cannon’s handling of the Trump case, specifically questioning what, if anything, can be done to intervene when a federal judge appears to act out of partisan motivation.
- Kim’s Breakdown (02:20):
- No direct oversight: Appellate or Supreme Court judges do not have supervisory authority for disciplining trial judges.
- Impeachment is the main recourse: The only meaningful official option is impeachment by Congress.
- Judicial Conference only sets rules: Not generally involved in discipline.
- Bar complaints possible but limited.
- Advice for citizens: "Let your members of Congress and Senate know ... that's really the only game in town." (03:18)
2. The Tradition and Economics of Courtroom Sketch Artists
- Listener Question: Antonio from Santa Monica asks about the origins, role, and compensation of courtroom sketch artists.
- Barb’s Deep Dive (04:37):
- Origins: Dates back as far as the Salem Witch Trials; became central during the 1935 Lindbergh baby trial.
- Purpose: Cameras are banned in most federal courts; sketches provide public imagery.
- Work style: Artists sketch multiple figures simultaneously as courtroom events unfold.
- Compensation: Primarily freelancers, selling sketches to news outlets or to lawyers for personal collections; "They sell for quite a lot of money. ... $1,000 or more for a sketch." (06:58)
- Personal Anecdotes: Barb and Kim share stories of friends and personal experiences with courtroom sketches (07:19–09:12).
3. AI in the Judiciary: Will It Replace Clerks?
- Listener Question: Kelly from San Antonio asks if the use of AI tools by judges will reduce law clerk positions.
- Kim’s Analysis (09:36):
- AI is unsettling: "It creeps me out that judges are using AI." (09:37)
- Law clerks' jobs are safe: Clerking is a prestigious, competitive position and offers personal intellectual partnership that AI can’t replicate.
- Changing expectations: Barb notes that AI may speed up expected work pace and change workflows (11:23–11:54).
4. Can Trump Put His Name on U.S. Currency?
- Listener Question: Sandy from Elk Grove, CA asks about the legality of putting a living person’s name or image on U.S. currency, referencing news about Trump.
- Barb’s Research & Explanation (18:02):
- Thayer Amendment (1866): Prohibits living persons from appearing on legal U.S. currency.
- 2005 Law – $1 Coins: Living presidents can’t be depicted; deceased presidents must be dead for at least two years before appearing.
- Commemorative coins: Not considered legal tender; restrictions don't apply. Trump can appear on such coins.
- Signatures: No law stops the president from signing currency—Trump could have his "huge black Sharpie scrawl" on legal tender.
- Memorable Moment: Kim’s reaction — "I woke up and looked at it, and I wondered if I was still dreaming." (20:12–20:21)
5. Felonies vs. Misdemeanors: Who Decides?
- Listener Question: Kylie asks how crimes are categorized and who makes these decisions.
- Barb’s Explanation (20:42):
- Felony: Crime punishable by more than a year in prison; misdemeanors are less.
- Legislature decides: Defines crimes in statutes and sets punishments.
- Example: Michigan "high misdemeanors" punished by up to two years but not officially felonies.
6. Why No Judicial Term Limits in the Constitution?
- Listener Question: Leslie asks about Supreme Court term limits and the possibility of instituting them.
- Kim’s Constitutional Analysis (22:26):
- Historical context: Framers thought judicial independence required unlimited tenure, with removal by retirement, resignation, or impeachment only.
- Current debate: Recognizes the practical flaws in this system.
- Possible solution: Adopting a "senior status" system for Supreme Court justices—a form of limited active service without full removal, potentially achievable by statute rather than constitutional amendment.
- Quote: "I don't think those are gonna go the way by the wayside just cause judges are using AI." (10:56)
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
Impeachment Is the Only Game in Town:
“The only way to discipline a judge for what they do on the bench would be the impeachment process. … That’s really the only game in town.”
— Kim Atkins Stohr (03:10) -
On Courtroom Artistry:
“They sell these things for quite a lot of money. … $1,000 or more for a sketch. So I never wanted one … too cheap!”
— Barb McQuade (06:53) -
On AI and Clerkships:
“It creeps me out that judges are using AI. … But I think judges enjoy listening to their clerks who have different views on things and discussing that.”
— Kim Atkins Stohr (09:36) -
On Trump Currency:
“So if he can’t have his image on [legal tender], he’s going to have his huge black Sharpie scrawl appearing.”
— Barb McQuade (19:46)
Timestamps for Key Segments
- Judicial Accountability & Eileen Cannon — 02:20
- Courtroom Sketch Artist History & Economics — 04:37
- AI in Judicial Work & Law Clerk Jobs — 09:36
- Currency and Trump’s Name/Image – Legal Limits — 18:02
- Felony/Misdemeanor Classifications — 20:42
- Supreme Court Term Limits Explored — 22:26
Tone & Closing
Barb and Kim keep the discussion accessible, often infusing their legal expertise with humor and personal stories. The tone is supportive and candid, aiming to demystify the legal system while offering actionable advice and comfort to listeners wrestling with the real-world implications of the current political and legal climate.