Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance and me, Kimberly Atkins store. Unfortunately, Barb McQuaid and Joanne Banks have been deported because their TPS status was removed. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. They can't make it this week. They're not in custody. They nine custody. They just couldn't be here this week. But we miss them and they'll be back soon. Well, we have quite a show for you this week. First of all, the Epstein files are back and there was an important court ruling involving a friend of ours. Also, the Supreme Court was Supreme Courting this week. Child and Alito has had a trio of opinions that we need to break down. And. And finally, a little more good news because a judge in Minnesota put the quash on an effort by the DOJ to politicize its criminal divisions. But first, Joyce, I just want to chat with you a little bit. I'm going to the theater tonight for the first time. In a minute. You know, I. I've always been a theater girl. I love seeing plays. I love going to the opera and all the things. But I have to say, since the reopening after, you know, the dark times, I just have not been the way that I used to. One reason is that I'm no longer a member of the Kennedy center for reasons that I don't think I need to explain. And also, things get busy, things catch up. So I'm glad to be going back. I'm going to the Arena Stage tonight to see the show which I've learned is called a jukebox musical. Jukebox musical for TLC called Crazy Sexy Cool. I'm very excited about it. And are you a theater person, Joyce? Do you like the theater?
- [02:02]
B
So we've never talked about this. I grew up dancing. I danced ballet, really, until I was pregnant with my third child. In the middle of that pregnancy, I jumped up in the middle of a class, came down. Tori Attenden. Haven't really danced since then, but sort of bygones there. But I love the ballet and I love the theater as a result of that. And it's funny that you're doing that. I was in New York. I've lost track of the days this week, but a couple of days ago to do Ms. Now with the supreme coming down and, you know, I hate that we've moved and we're not in 30 Rock anymore. But it's fun having offices in Times Square in New York and getting to walk through the theater district and see what all of the shows are. So it really did get me thinking, oh, I'd love to at some point be in New York. Not to work, but just to come and be a tourist and see a couple of shows.
- [02:56]
A
You know what's funny is when I lived in New York City for a brief time, I was in an apartment in Midtown, right on 50th, across the street from the Gershwin Theater, and I'm dating myself. But Wicked had just opened there with the original cast, Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth. It was incredible. I went like, really? I always loved the theater, but that really put the Broadway bug in me, because before then, the only Broadway show I had seen was Les Mis, and it was with Debbie Gibson. And I love Les Mis. But I think. I mean, I love the theater and I love musicals, and I love Debbie Gibson. Oh, my God, I hate Les Mis. I just. I do. I know. Maybe I'm the only. It was depressing. It was dark. It was. I don't know. The theater is supposed to bring you joy, and I just. I couldn't get into it. And so I thought I didn't like musicals. And then I went to see Wicked, and I'm like, oh, I like musicals.
- [03:56]
B
Well, since you're dating yourself, I'll date myself. And mine is so much worse than yours, because the first thing that I saw on Broadway was Fiddler on the Roof. Now, admittedly six years old, and my mom had seen it twice. My family is mostly in New York, so we would go back to see family. And my mom took me. I think she had a cousin who couldn't go or something like that. And I was enchanted. I mean, I just sat. You know, she was nervous about taking somebody so long. I was spellbound. And then much later, I saw Chorus Line on Broadway, and that was what I wanted to be. You know, I had classical ballet training, but I so taken with Broadway.
- [04:38]
A
Oh, I love it. And Fiddler on the Roof is one of my favorites. If I were a rich man.
- [04:55]
B
I love my pets. They add so much to my life into my home. In fact, there have been times when they've brought in unknown chewables, left paw print trails throughout the house, and all sorts of other mischief. If you have kids or pets, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Rugs basically become ground zero for every spill, stain, and disaster. That used to mean ruined pieces or costly cleaning, but, you know, now that I've discovered tumble, spill proof, stylish machine washable rugs designed for real life, my home seems much more put together.
- [05:32]
A
Joyce, please don't tell me that any of those unknown chewables were still moving.
- [05:37]
B
No. You know, we haven't had an unknown chewable that was alive for over a decade. And I for one, am grateful.
- [05:43]
A
Good. I'm grateful for you. Cause I don't. I'm not sure I can handle that. But one thing that can handle my life and Snickers and everything that she does are the tumble rugs. You know, we used to have rugs that were too delicate and just a nightmare to clean. You had to either like get a service or once I bought one of those really hard to use rug shampoo machines and it never really worked right. That's why tumble makes everything spill proof and machine washable. So hunched over scrubbing is a thing of the past. Instead of relying on elbow grease and a flexible back or buying all kinds of contraptions to try to keep your carpets clean and fresh, you can let the washing machine take care of it. Even the largest ones are machine ready. Plus their proprietary spill proof surface causes liquids to bead up on top of the rug, so you can wipe them up in seconds and even more. Snickers loves these car. Like the minute that I put one down, she's just like, oh my goodness, this is so luxurious. And she just sort of spreads across it. So it's amazing in all the ways
- [06:51]
B
you know, it's absolutely true. I actually just came upstairs after leaving my daughter's cat, Marty, who was stretched out on our Lisa rug in our sunroom. And it's perfect. Perfect because it's one of those rugs where people are walking inside and outside through that room all the time and people track stuff in even when they're trying to be careful. But that rug looks great and Marty really, really loves it.
- [07:17]
A
We have the same one, we have it as a runner. So you're absolutely right.
- [07:20]
B
We're great looking. I mean, I was honestly surprised I was bought in on the concept of washable rugs. What I didn't count on was how good they would look. The hand illustrated pattern is really beautiful and it's a classic modern fit that makes the space. I mean, it's not an afterthought. It really is a design feature. You'll love exploring the styles. I had a lot of fun picking this one out and I think it's funny that Kim and I landed in the same place. Look, you can put these rooms, they're nice enough. I mean, they will hold up to your nice rugs. You can put them in your kids room, your entries, hallways and even in your living room, just basically anywhere that your life tends to get messy. And thanks to Tumble's cushion non slip rug pad that tucks into these hidden corner pockets underneath it, everything stays in place and it doesn't slide around. Tumble rugs are OEKO Tech certified with non toxic materials so they are most importantly of all safe for your animals and your little ones.
- [08:23]
A
Don't just take our word for it. Hundreds of thousands of homes have already switched to Tumble rugs and they have over 30,000 five star reviews including ours. Machine washable rugs made better For a limited time only our listeners get 10% off plus free shipping@tumbleliving.com sisters that's T U M B L E living.com sisters after you purchase they will ask you where you heard of them. Please support our show and tell them that our show sent you. And as always, the link is in our show. Notes.
- [09:13]
B
In April, friend of Sisters in Law, lawyer and journalist Katie Fang sued the then acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche. She argued that DOJ had violated the Epstein Files Transparency act by withholding documents Congress had required it to release. Many people dismissed that lawsuit as a long shot. But Thursday afternoon, Senior District Judge Emmett Sullivan disagreed and he issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Justice Department to turn over additional documents and and also to undo some of those redactions that we all hate so much, those big black boxes that always seem to screen out the good bits of a document. So this just happened. Kim and I have had a chance to look at the judge's order. There hasn't been a lot of discussion about it just yet. So we thought we'd start by talking about what the judge ordered, why he ruled in Katie's favor really as a novel lawsuit, and what this means going forward. Judge Sullivan ordered DOJ to take some highly specific steps by July 2nd. And there's a good legal strategy going on here. Instead of asking the judge to enter an injunction that would have required DOJ to turn everything over and that could have become fraught with details. You know, the devil is always in them. Katie and her lawyer Brendan Ballou, a former DOJ guy, they selected some highly specific documents by number and ask the judge to force turnover of those documents. So they involve a couple different buckets of items. Unredacting the names of senders and recipients in at least eight email exchanges that include Epstein and that talk about a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors. Also unredacting the names of proposed co defendants in a draft indictment, the names of individuals identified in that document as co conspirators and also individuals who were the sender and the recipients. In an internal DOJ email briefing on the prosecution. And there's more. The judges ordered them to turn over notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, she says that she was about 13 years old. Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump, who. Who she said assaulted her. The judge also called for the production of foreign language materials. Doj, in its original production under the Transparency act, said it didn't look at them. And also they've now been ordered to publish logs that detail the redactions that have been made and the reasons for those redactions. So it's all interesting stuff. It's stuff the public needs to know so that we can have closure on what actually happened here. But before we get to the substance, we always have to deal with the technical legal details. And Kim, one of the most important parts of Judge Sullivan's opinion, this is really the part where many people thought this lawsuit would falter. It involves the legal doctrine of standing. The government argued Katie couldn't bring this lawsuit, that she was the wrong person to bring it. Can you remind us what standing is and why it's so important?
- [12:43]
A
Yeah, this is a really good point, Joyce, because I remember when she filed the lawsuit, a lot of lawyers that I know, legal analysts, people whose opinion that I trusted, didn't really want to pay that much attention to it because they kind of thought it might be dead in the water on this issue. And it turns out it wasn't so standard. Standing is the preliminary procedural hurdle that anyone who is filing a lawsuit has to pass before the court even begins to consider the merits of the case. And what a litigant has to show is that they have a judiciable injury. What that means is that it has to be an injury. In fact, something bad that they can show happens to them. It doesn't have to be a physical injury, but it just shows that there is something that was done to them that should not have been done to them. And second, it means that the court has to be able to grant relief to relieve that injury. Right. If someone was injured in a way that the court couldn't do anything about it, you still wouldn't have standing. So that's what Katie needed to prove in this case. And I will just say, just for transparency, both Katie and Brendan are friends of mine. But even if I didn't know these people at all, I very much support what they were doing with this Lawsuit?
- [13:57]
B
Yeah. I mean, I think our listeners know Katie is. Is a sister in law in good standing? Yes, she is, as our own. And grateful, quite frankly, for the bold lawyering here. So, okay, that's standing as a doctrine. The courts and the Supreme Court have been in the business of really narrowing standing, especially organizational or associational standing, in these last few years. But Katie and Brendan came up with something different. Do you want to explain how they argued for standing?
- [14:29]
A
Yes. So it's a little complicated, but it's really interesting, so stick with me here. The. The case was brought under to. To try to enforce the Epstein act, which, as you know, required the release of the documents in the Epstein case by a certain date. But they allege that all these documents were not released. So they actually sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. And the court found that under the Administrative Procedure act, there is a right of action, and that informational injury is a judiciable injury for the purpose of standing. What that means is if the government is required or a party is required to do something, and that something is release information to the public for the public good, and it does not do that. At least it doesn't do it in a complete way that gives the public all the information they're entitled to, then you can sue under the APA in order to force enforcement of the law in this case, the Epstein Act. So the judge held that Katie proved enough to show standing and be able to be the party who is suing under these laws to try to get a more complete release of the documents.
- [15:56]
B
You know, this theory builds on some earlier litigation by crew, one of the pro ethics groups, and I think it's important doctrine. I'll play appellate lawyer here just for a second, since it's just you and me today. Doctrinally, it's important for this case. This case would not have moved forward if the judge hadn't found standing. It could also be a path for people to sue in other cases. So I think this could have importance beyond the case itself. So Katie gets to stay in court because of standing. And then something interesting happens. The judge repeatedly in his opinion criticized DOJ for failing to respond to the very specific challenges she had made to particular redactions and withheld documents. The judge even wrote that the Attorney General had effectively conceded parts of her argument by not responding to them, and that instead of responding to the specific items the lawsuit alleges DOJ wrongfully concealed, the government simply tried to argue that she couldn't bring the lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure act that Kim mentioned. And that she needed to proceed under another statute, foia, that's the Freedom of Information Act. And usually you don't bring a lawsuit. You just write a letter to the government asking for documents and a year later they respond and tell you that they're not going to give them to you. So not a very safe.
- [17:21]
A
Or they give you all redacted documents and charge you $10,000.
- [17:25]
B
I mean, and for good reasons. In some cases, for inst. As a FOIA authority, I would routinely decline to turn over information that was evidence in pending investigations or cases. But here you can imagine that this was simply a delay tactic. And when have we ever, Kim, seen a delay tactic from this administration? Gracias. Never. The good news was that the judge and they said that, you know, I mean, I think it's worth noting DOJ did not respond to the allegations that they wrongfully withheld information under the act. You know, the logical thing to do if they really believed in this FOIA argument, right. Would have been to make it. I thought it was pretty weak on its face, but go ahead and make that argument and then also argue in the alternative. But even if she did it right, going under the apa, we don't have to turn over these documents and then give your reasons that you don't have to turn them over. That's how the government usually argues a case in the alternative, giving the judge more than one reason to rule in their favor. And look, they did not do that here. And maybe it was just bad litigation strategy, but I think it really suggests that the government didn't make those arguments that they didn't have to turn this stuff over because they just didn't have an argument to make. The Epstein Transparency Files act is really clear on its face, don't you think?
- [18:55]
A
Yeah, I think that that is exactly right. I think it's a combination of that and maybe, perhaps even the fact that the DOJ has really suffered some major brain drain in the past year and they don't have the kind of legal brain power that it had before going in. I also think that perhaps even the DOJ didn't take this case as seriously as they should have. And they too, like some of the people that I mentioned speaking to, thought that this would be just get kicked away on standing and they were maybe caught flat footed a little bit, but either way it turned out badly for them.
- [19:30]
B
No, I think that's a good point. I think you're absolutely right about that. You know, the Epstein Transparency Files act, it specifically prohibits the government and this is some of the statutory language from withholding or delaying anything in the files, quote, on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. So it was permissible to withhold or redact information that would identify a victim, a child, or even an adult who had been sexually harmed or assaulted. But it's really sort of crazy that the government couldn't come up with a basis for saying why they couldn't disclose stuff that they withheld. And at the same time, they violated the act by releasing identifying information for victims, by releasing some of these photographs. Lots of questions about the government's conduct. I bet we'll hear a lot about those next month when Todd Blanche has his confirmation hearing to be attorney general. But in the meantime, Kim, this injunction only addresses the specific documents that Katie identified. And maybe I shouldn't say it like that, because it's not only. It's a big universe of important documents, but it leaves us with two questions. What happens next? And will the government appeal? And will the government ever have to fully comply with the act?
- [21:01]
A
Well, to that last question, and they're not on a good trajectory. I mean, so far, if this judge has already ruled against them, will they appeal? I think that's almost certain. Now the real question will be what will be in that appeal? And will they actually robustly litigate it in a way that they certainly didn't when it came. Came to this motion that they ended up losing? So I think that's the thing to watch out for. But in terms of why it was limited, not small, but limited requests, I think that was really smart on Katie and Brendan's part, because you don't want to, you know, the government to come back with this. With this response of that. It's so much. And they can't get through all these files, or it's all confidential, or none of it can be released. They are looking for specific things, and so they know what they're looking for. The judge will know what they're looking for, and the DOJ really will not have any excuse for saying they couldn't identify it or the. The request was, you know, too broad or anything like that. They were being really careful. They came at this with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. And I think that was just a really smart approach to the litigation.
- [22:16]
B
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. You know, I think the case is about more than just one journalist winning a lawsuit because of how smart they were with their strategy. It's about whether Congress can require transparency from the executive branch and whether the courts can find a vehicle for enforcing that. And it's not like this is the only time that the administration has run afoul of the law. So Judge Sullivan is a highly respected jurist. He's been around for a while. He's a senior judge. I think he knew what he was about here. And I have read the whole order carefully. There's actually an opinion and an order to be technical and legal about it. It's very carefully crafted. It will go on appeal. The appeal will matter. But I think one of the most important things that happened here is that the judge declined to stay his order while the government appeals. July 2, that's the government's deadline for turning over unless and until they can get the circuit court to say that they don't have to do it. So that's the next thing I'm looking for. Will there be a stay pending appeal? And we will keep y' all updated on what happens next.
- [23:28]
A
TikTok.
- [23:39]
B
Summer means vacation, and there's really nothing better than relaxing on a beach. You know, when we're there, it's time to enjoy the moment instead of worrying about routine and the last thing you want. And Kim, you know, it's a good thing Barb is not with us today. The last thing you want is a rash or ingrown hairs from a rusted old razor or one of the cheap flimsy ones at the store. You know, add in pink tax prices. Women, we understand that we get charged the pink tax and it can be hard to find a perfect shape. That's why we're so glad we found Flamingo. They understand that your self care routine should be a soothing ritual, not a chore. And their razors reflect that. As soon as we tried them, we were amazed at how smooth the shave was from that very first pass. It's a dance, not a battle. And the feeling lasts for days. Best of all, your skin stays flawless thanks to stable and precise blades made from high quality materials.
- [24:41]
A
Flamingo's founders realized that most women's razors were just shrunken and dyed versions of the men's. And they also tend to cost more. Have you noticed that, like in the store, the pink ones cost more easy. So the founders of Flamingo took their expertise to deliver the ultimate shaving solution for women. The result is high performance self care tools that actually look and feel good in your hands and a starter set that has everything you could need. I went with the Lilac, but they come in so many really beautiful colors. Just one to match every bathroom. And whether it's for a serious shave or you just need to shape up your brow line, Flamingo can handle it all.
- [25:27]
B
You know, there's going to be a theme to the ads for this show. It's going to be Kim and Joyce pick out exactly the same color. We have lilac. I really like it. I'm very influenced by colors and it just makes me happy. So that starter set, it came with Flamingo's original razor, complete with five sharp blades and a 360 degree comfort system that helps protect skin from irritation. There's a flexible hinge to hug any curve, a weighted ergonomic handle made with up to 35% recycled plastic. You also get a facial dermaplane razor and that sweeps away peach fuzz and exfoliates skin for easy skin care and makeup application. It's pretty fun to use. And there's a foaming shave gel that adds a pillowy cushion between your skin and the razor for a never felt this smooth shave. There's also a shower holder. Incredibly, all of that is only $7 with free shipping and and a risk free 100% money back guarantee.
- [26:30]
A
Get premium performance, thoughtful design and a fair price. For a limited time, our listeners can get the Flamingo starter set for only $7 at shopflamingo.com sisters. This set includes the Flamingo original razor, one five blade cartridge, a 1 ounce foaming shave gel and a shower holder. Just head to shopflamingo.com sisters to claim this offer. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in our show notes. You know, Joyce, I learned a term recently and it's called couch rot. Do you know what that is?
- [27:22]
B
I've never heard of that. Couch rot. Is that like when your dog bring something live in?
- [27:28]
A
No, no. Thank goodness, no. It's something that I have been doing for years. It means when the work day is over, you have a little time to yourself. You plop on the couch and you just sit there and rot. And I'm an expert at that. And often you can't just sit on the couch. You gotta have something to snuggle up to. And so I snuggle with my Lola blanket. They're so comfortable and they really provide, you know, more than warmth. They provide a sense of comfort of, you know, it's like a security blanket just because of how soft they are. And you know, you can throw on your favorite movie. You can do like I do, which is like scroll through TikTok or Instagram, you know, get a little snack, a little glass of wine, if you will. And it's like being on vacation after discovering Lola blankets on Instagram. Our Lola has been part of so many memories, or at least memories for me. My, my husband's a zoom or I'm the couch rotter. So Lola means a lot to me. Whether it's for graduation, a birthday, or just a treat. It also makes for a great gift. It's easy to recreate those treasured moments with something that you enjoy every day.
- [28:43]
B
Well, I'm glad to have learned the term couch rock, because that's exactly what I did. Thursday night. I got under my Lola blanket for the Japan Sweden soccer game. Been any happier? You know, I'm sort of boring. We have actually. I don't even want to confess to how many Lolas we have now. We have one on our bed and one in the living room and one of our kids has one. I'm sort of boring though. I tend towards the sort of neutral tones. But Lola blankets come in tons of colors and they come in really beautiful designs so you can find the perfect fit for any home or personality. They not only make your space warmer and more put together, but their softness really is next level. We are not fooling around when we say that they are fantastic. They're luxurious. There's no pilling or shedding, just pure comfort and look. Speaking as a true blanket aficionado, Lola's are the best. They're crafted with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch that somehow makes them both plush and light at the same time. They're machine washable. That matters when you have two great big German shepherds who like to snuggle up on the couch with you. And they are double hemmed for durability, you know, even after countless washes. We've had ours for over a year now. They look brand new and they have a wow factor that makes them a truly special gift that will last for years.
- [30:11]
A
Yeah, I have to say after I got mine, there were some people who literally either asked me where I got it or asked me to or put it on their Christmas list that they wanted a blanket.
- [30:22]
B
I have been out to dinners. People who I do not know have approached me and said, I love my Lola blanket. You don't know what to say, but it's a great icebreaker. So Lola, not just a great blanket, but also a great social device.
- [30:39]
A
And you know, they're also a great Gift for the people who are impossible to buy a gift for. You know those folks in your life, they're always so thankful and surprised. It's probably because everyone loves a cozy blanket, which is why lola has over 20,000 five star reviews, including ours. Once you feel it, you'll know why. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket, but the story behind it is what makes it even more special. Lola was founded by two brothers inspired by their mom, who found comfort in her favorite blanket while living with breast cancer. Later, she gave blankets like hers to her children so they'd always feel that warmth and love to us that makes each gifted blanket so much more special.
- [31:24]
B
Once you touch a Lola blanket, you'll know you've got a blanket for life. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola Blankets products with Code Sisters at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets. The link. You know where to find it. It's in our show notes.
- [32:04]
A
Well, the Supreme Court issued some opinions this week, and the three we will talk about today were all written by Sam Alito. So buckle up because you already know how that went.
- [32:17]
B
Did your heart just drop a little bit when you realize that there were three decisions left and they were all Justice Alito's?
- [32:24]
A
Well, that, I mean, it was actually the chief Justice. So the chief of Justice. The chief justice unusual is the one who announces. Okay, then we now have an opinion from Justice Barrett or Justice Jackson, whoever. When the chief justice announced the next three opinions is from Justice Alito, it's like, oh, my God. Like, oh, my God, kill me now.
- [32:45]
B
So have I just been paying attention before? Because I don't think I've ever heard. Maybe I just haven't noticed. Yeah. Saying all three are Alito instead of doing them one at a time as they come.
- [32:54]
A
He said the next three. We have three opinions from Justice Alito. That's how he announced it. So it's like literally, you could hear the groan from people like us. So anyway, two of them were on immigration and two were, unsurprisingly, wins issued to the Trump administration. And they were both bad. But there was also some drama. So first, let's talk about this first ruling. It's about temporary protective status. We've talked about this before. That's the designation given from. Given to some foreign Foreign nationals who meet certain legal requirements, and it's because they cannot be deported to their country of origin without putting them in some pretty big danger. That's why this exists, is to give them protection here in the United States until or unless their home countries become safe enough to return to. And this was about the Trump administration's decision, one of Kristi Noem's joints, to suddenly and inexplicably just end that protection for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Now, I don't know if you've checked the State Department website lately, but when you go on there, there's a big warning that you cannot travel to any country for any reason because it's just not safe. Yet. The Supreme Court gave the go ahead to the Supreme Court to do this. So, Joyce, what was Alito's justification for siding with the Trump administration on this one?
- [34:35]
B
Yeah, you know, like Justice Kagan, I find it to be duplicitous, and I hate talking about it, but I will, because it's important for people to know. I think, though, before we talk about the way he dismissed these people as a group, the ACLU estimates that there may be as many as 1.3 million people impacted by this decision. We should remember that they are individuals. And for instance, one of the name plaintiffs is an Alzheimer's researcher. He holds his job because people with tps, Temporary Protected Status, these are not people who are here without legal immigration status. They have legal status. They have work permits. They've done nothing wrong. And now they're going to be subjected to being rounded up and incarcerated in these, these horrible facilities that we all read about. Under Alito's decision, you know what? It does, and this is nuanced, but it's important to understand, he says, that under the statute, the courts lack the authority to review termination decisions that are made by the administration. That's the central holding here. Whatever the administration does is effectively unreviewable. And he relies on the provision stating that there is, quote, no judicial review of any determination regarding the designation or termination of tps. So according to Alito, determination encompasses not only the Secretary's final decision, but the process leading up to it. So courts can't entertain claims, for instance, that DHS failed to follow statutory procedures. And without belaboring the point, I'll just tell you that this is contrary to longstanding practice, contrary to how the district court viewed the law, contrary to how the Ninth Circuit, which has been remade in Donald Trump's image low these past 10 years. The 9th Circuit didn't even go along with this. But Sam Alito found six votes to side with him. And let me just say one more thing. You know, Kim, I know you want to talk about the dissent, which is brilliantly written. Well, the challengers argued that these terminations, and particularly for Haiti, were motivated by racial animus. And here's what Sam Alito had to say about that. He rejected that claim out of hand, concluding that they had not shown a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim. This, friends, is why I frequently like to read the dissent first. Yes, the dissent in this case makes so much more sense. Alito's reasoning here. It's conclusory. It's a whitewash of the administration's political policy. And really, when it comes down to the bottom, this is about whether or not Stephen Miller can find more people to deport. This gives him the statistics he needs to claim that mass deportation is a success. But please never forget that these are people who are here legally, with permission, making valuable contributions to our society.
- [37:41]
A
Yeah, that's so, so important in this case. And yes, the dissent by. In this case, the dissent was written by Elena Kagan, and it really cuts to the heart. One thing that I like about Kagan dissents is that they're not always emotional. Although she made a very important claim that these are people who are in countries that have been war torn or affected by natural disasters where the other countries. So the u. Take Haiti, for example, and this is me speaking right now, not Elena Kagan. After that massive earthquake that devastated Port au Prince, the United States sort of stepped in and then basically dipped out. And all the reliance that you. That Haiti had on receiving aid was basically just sort of, you know, the United States said, too bad, so sad. Then when the political instability came in, the United States came in again to try to intervene in that and did nothing to make the situation better. Arguably left it worse. So for the United States to turn around and say now, oh, no, no, we don't want these people here. You have to go back. So what if the State Department says no American should ever travel there for any reason because it's so dangerous because of a situation, by the way, that we helped create, we're going to send these people back. And also, one thing that Elena Kagan pointed out that I thought was really important was that the decision. So the plaintiffs in this case were making two claims. One, that the DHS did not follow its own rules. And we saw the reporting that they didn't even wait for the State Department to weigh in on whether these Countries were too dangerous for them to go to or not. They just went ahead and went through with it. That information was actually brought to the Supreme Court in a motion before they decided, and the Supreme Court basically just brushed that off. But the other claim was that the decision was based in part on racial animus. Now we know what President Trump has said about Haiti. You know, we know that. And Elena Kagan could not let go that the court didn't even mention that saying, hmm, I don't know what you call racism, but when you call Haiti an s hole country, but you extol the virtues of, you know, Norway, I don't know. The biggest difference I can see between these two countries is one thing. I love Elena Kagan. She is the goat. But that wasn't all. Alito wasn't done. He issued another ruling dealing with asylum seekers. Who again and to. I'm just going to underscore your point. Choice. Neither of these cases deal with illegal immigration. Neither of them nothing illegal. These are about people doing what the law prescribes. And a asylum seekers have the right when they arrive in the United States or whether they're already here to make a claim of asylum. And it is the immigration officials are they are required to at least hear and process these applications for asylum. Both of those things are things that asylum seekers have a right to. But the Trump administration got tricksy here, Joyce. What do they do and what did the court rule?
- [41:18]
B
You know, this case bothers me so much. There is an international human right to be able to seek asylum, and that's what this case is about. Are we going to gatekeep asylum so people cannot seek it? Well, the Supreme Court just said yes, if you are deflected before you reach the border, you can't seek asylum. And you know something that the people arguing again in favor of a long standing rule pointed out was people who are turned away at the border, they may never get a chance to seek asylum. Some of these people will try to cross the Rio Grande, others of them and they will perish. Many of them in the Rio Grande, some of them in the deserts will not be able to make the crossing. Some will be preyed upon by gangs when they're stuck in Northern Mexico. I mean, these people's lives are at risk because the Trump administration wants to adhere to this rigid policy. And the Supreme Court signed off on it and said, sure, go ahead. No sign.
- [42:28]
A
And so in this case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which in my opinion, was, to use Joyce's phrase, right on the money. She wrote in part, that the court today holds that the executive branch may circumvent all the mandatory procedures. She's talking about the law by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block non citizens from setting foot on to US Soil. Basically, the administration gets to throw rocks and hide its hands. It gets to break the rules again of how this is supposed to work and then still get rewarded. And Sotomayor also pointed out something else which is. Is so important that this violated not only US Law, in her view, which I think is right, but also international treaties that were put in place after Jews fleeing Nazi Germany came to North America on boats. But they were turned away at ports in Canada, the United States and Cuba before having to return to Europe, where not all of the people on those boats survived. That's why, as a, as a world, an international treaty was passed saying, you cannot block people at ports when they're making asylum claims. That's exactly what Sam Alito did. But still, even though he was on the winning side, Joyce, I just can't. Nothing like this has happened, at least in the 20 years I've been covering the court. So Justice Sotomayor read from her dissent from the bench, which is becoming increasingly common these days. We talk about that a lot. Sam Alito then extemporaneously gave an off the cuff retort to Sotomayor, saying, well, if I, I'm paraphrasing, but not by much. Well, if I had known the dissent would be read from the bench, I would have said a lot more when I announced the opinion. How did he not know that Sotomayor was going to read this dissent from the bench?
- [44:37]
B
The outrage was incredible, right? It was performative. It's crazy.
- [44:43]
A
And he said, well, this law has been used by multiple administrations to bring order to the border. I'm sorry, excuse me, what's the role of a justice? I thought I heard Chief Justice John Roberts say that it is not their job to decide whether a policy is good or bad or right or wrong. It's to decide the legality. So, huh. I wonder why people think that this court is political. I. I can't believe why. And also, I will say this one thing, Joyce, and I will let it go. It's really interesting who Justice Alito tends to voice his ire at. We talked before about. He tried to. The way he tried to clap back at Ketanji Brown Jackson, right?
- [45:26]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [45:27]
A
Then this time he's clapping back, literally. And Sonia Sotomayor's face.
- [45:33]
B
I mean, disrespect don't do this. And I think it's so important for us to say that as a bright line matter, that disrespect is the only word that applies here. This is a privileged white man trying to cut off a woman of color who has every right and every reason to read her dissent from the bench. And instead of letting her have her say because he has had his. He interjects, it's almost like he's become Donald Trump. He's watching the notes version of, you know, Donald Trump. Yolo. And here's Sam Alito and Kim, it just makes me want to ask you, I don't know if you want to weigh in on this or not. I mean, it is that time of year. Do you think that we're about to hear a resignation notice from Sam Alita?
- [46:23]
A
I don't think so. I think he's having too much fun. The reporting is that he's not ready to step down. I mean, why would he give. That's the point. Why. So I get it. Why would he want to give up one of the most powerful positions in federal government right now, which he absolutely occupies? But he won. He won this case. He won and wrote all three of these cases. So why is he still so mad? Why can't he. Why does he bristle so when an intelligent woman of color says something that clearly hits a nerve about the way that he's ruling? Like. Like, what is the deal? And also, doesn't he know that Sonia Sotomayor is from the Bronx? Like, he. She is not the one to be messed with. I would not. I would not have done that if I were him. I wonder if she had something to say to him once they retreated from the bench. Because she's also a classy lady. She wouldn't. She wouldn't cut him up in public.
- [47:16]
B
But I wonder what she would tell you. Who they are. Believe them, Sam.
- [47:21]
A
That's absolutely right.
- [47:22]
B
Who he was. Yeah.
- [47:24]
A
So just very quickly, because we're running long. There was also a gun case that was not, you know, a surprise. Sam Alito wrote the opinion striking down a Hawaii gun restriction law. Hawaii is a place where guns just are not a part of the culture. People don't carry them. There's. It has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country for a reason. They've always had gun regulations. But, you know, the Bruin test is whatever the majority wants it to be. And the court held that a, a law that prohibits people from carrying concealed weapons on private property, including shops and restaurants. Without the owner's permission violates the second amendment rights. And Alito gave this hypothetical of a lady who will be burdened if while packing on her way home from work, wants to go to the grocery store and, oh, gosh, she couldn't go to even just driving into the parking lot, she'd violate this law by having her gun. And, oh, even if she locked it in the car and she risked risks still being criminally. I mean, this poor lady can't go home, put her gun away before she buys her eggs.
- [48:32]
B
Yeah.
- [48:33]
A
What do you think about this ruling choice?
- [48:36]
B
I mean, look, I'm not a fan. The people of Hawaii have spoken about a very legitimate restriction that does not burden your second amendment right. You know, this is Hawaii saying if. If you want to take your gun onto private property, you need the owner's permission first. And that's it. So out of bounds. Right. I remember when Alabama passed its open carry law and there were some exceptions for properly posted, you can't bring your gun on my private property. And I had, you know, not just small business owners, but I'm not going to get anyone in trouble by mentioning them. Some very conservative entities that had large property calling me up and saying, can we keep guns out of our facility? And so I think that this is a common sense sort of a restriction on gun ownership. And the supreme court, and you've pointed out, right, they're not supposed to intervene in the culture wars. They really are here. The problem is that bruin, this is this gun case that was decided out of New York a couple terms ago. The history and tradition test. Right. You can only restrict guns if at the founding, that was the history and tradition of what was going on back then. It's a meaningless piece of pablum. And Justice Jackson sort of rips it up and suggests a return to a test that would actually make sense that the lower courts could apply. But that's not good enough for Sam Alito.
- [50:13]
A
Peace and quiet are more valuable than ever. So making the upgrades to your home to make it your sanctuary is a must. There's a lot you can do. But with a mill, you notice a lot of things quietly change in your house. Suddenly there's no food waste. The smell is gone. Constant trash runs are a thing of the past. Mill just handles it. After a few months, you'll be amazed at how peaceful and clean it makes your space.
- [50:40]
B
Mill is the odorless, effortless, fully automated food recycler that can handle almost anything. They look great. And one thing that continually amazes people is how quiet they are while they work. You can 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, Mill quietly transforms your food scraps into nutrient rich, shelf stable grounds.
- [51:12]
A
And you know what's wild? It can process up to 10 pounds overnight and it takes weeks before you have to empty it. Best of all, once you have a meal, kitchen chores are much easier. There are no more messes, smells or fruit flies 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 create more food waste than we should. Now Mill can handle things while you get some well deserved rest. Then you can use the grounds in your garden, add them to your curbside compost or mill can even pick them up to get them to a small farm in your area. Afterwards, your plants will look great and you can feel good knowing you did something good for the planet.
- [51:58]
B
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 pounds of food to good use. Try Mill risk free for 90 days and get $75 off at mil.com sisters that's $75 off at mill.com sisters the link is in the show Notes Foreign. Okay, Kim Quashal Quashal is the topic that we take up in our final topic today. Federal judges almost never quash grand jury subpoenas because prosecutors have really broad authority to issue them. You know, I didn't have to when I was cutting a grand jury subpoena. Didn't have to get a judge's permission. Didn't have to go to the grand jury and get their permission. Just as a prosecutor, if there's information that you need, you issue the subpoena and we all get that. There are rules. Prosecutors are schooled in the rules. Those subpoenas have to be narrowly tailored to get evidence that you need. In your case. You can't go on a fishing expedition. But this week a federal judge judge found that prosecutors had improperly issued subpoenas and he quashed them. He engaged in quashal. The judge is Patrick Schultz. He's a George W. Bush appointee who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. So not exactly a bleeding heart liberal. And he quashed subpoenas that prosecutors issued as part of an investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. And remind me, Kim, Tim Waltz, didn't he run to be vice president on the Democratic ticket? And maybe Donald Trump doesn't love him.
- [53:59]
A
That is absolutely correct. Tim Walls committed the mortal sin of being Kamala Harris's running mate.
- [54:08]
B
So Judge Schultz called the subpoenas part of a retaliatory effort because the two refused to assist in executing the administration's mass deportation policy. This order is so unusual. There are only a handful of orders like this over time, I think most of them involving this Justice Department. Kim, what are the specifics of what the judge concluded DOJ had done wrong here?
- [54:34]
A
Yeah, so it really boils down to federalism, right? The federal government is not supposed to have any business meddling in the way states conduct their own business absent some really compelling reason. And the judge essentially said that absent any compelling suspicion, some. Some compelling evidence that these state officials were doing something criminal or in some other way substantially suspicious, even, what business do federal prosecutors have swooping in and issuing these state officials subpoenas based on how they carried out their official duties? That's just out of line. That is not how federalism works. That is not how our criminal justice system works. And the judge, Judge Schlitz wrote, quote, the fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to non existent existent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate. Retaliate.
- [55:52]
B
To your point, Joyce, in a normal Justice Department, by the way, a prosecutor who is the subject of an order like that from a judge would be promptly referred for discipline. I think I was going to say.
- [56:05]
A
I thought you. I thought you were going to say would be sent to the corner with a dunce captain, like.
- [56:11]
B
Right. I mean, like, it's humiliating. As a prosecutor, in order like this, I think now it's celebrated. I mean, so the opinion says that the subpoenas are not issued as part of a legitimate criminal investigation. Is this significant? Beyond this case itself, does it tell us anything about how the court views DOJ's conduct writ large?
- [56:32]
A
Oh, it absolutely does. I mean, the judge spells it right out. I mean, he said that the record is, quote, replete with direct evidence of the Trump administration, including the highest ranking officials of the department, threatening and attempting to punish states and localities who have adopted, quote, sanctuary policies, as well as attempting to court these states and localities to devote resources to assist federal immigration enforcement. Point blank, period. And it's worth noting that Judge Schilt is a Bush appointee. Like, he is not. You know, he is a Republican appointee. And he is seeing through this administration saying, look, you cannot use the DOJ's criminal power to do the bidding of a president. Just because the president doesn't like these people, that doesn't give you the right to target them with criminal investigation. I mean, that's like a base. A person who's gone to law school for one day should know that. Right. And so this judge is standing up for this principle. It shouldn't be a brave thing to do, but in this environment, turns out it is.
- [57:40]
B
Is. It is. You know, I remember this incredible press conference that the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, gave at that horrible point in time when ICE agents were executing American citizens on the streets in Minneapolis. And he was angry. And I think my recollection is that he used language that Barb McQuaid would not approve of if she were here, but said very vehemently, you know, we want ICE out of our city. Get out of our city. And part of the underlying dispute here allegedly circulates around the Trump administration's disgust that the mayor won't help them with mass deportations, that the governor won't help them with mass deportations. But there's a strong constitutional anti commandeering policy which says that state and local officials aren't obligated to help the federal government execute its policies. They can if they want. But sanctuary cities are a good example. Sometimes local entities have different concerns. And so, you know, here we have DOJ using criminal process to investigate elected officials, and apparently there just ain't nothing to it. Does that raise constitutional or federalism concerns in your mind?
- [58:57]
A
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, everything about this raises a rhetorical question, girlfriend. Everything about this is just. And I really. I mean, I'm glad that we are breaking this down in a way that really focuses on the legality and what the rules are. And technically, because I think for most people, they feel in their gut that this is just wrong. Right. And you don't just have to feel that way based on how you feel about the president or how you feel about the people being targeted or your political persuasion. It's important to understand that this is unlawful, unconstitutional, and profoundly, profoundly un American. I mean, I've been thinking a lot about the fact that next week we will be celebrating this country's 250th anniversary, and the way that these officials in the federal government and even in the court, turning away the most Vulnerable people who come to the United States seeking some sort of reprieve from horrific conditions in order to have a shot at a better life. Just a shot. Not a guarantee, just a possibility of a better life. What happened to Bring me. You're tired, you're poor. You know, what happened to raising the torch at our golden door for these people? 250th anniversary. This is the Independence Day gift that so many parts of this federal government is giving us.
- [60:25]
B
It is hard to live through this history. It's discouraging. It's disappointing. You know, what gives me a little bit of hope here, though, is I think many of us, and it would be easy to give up, and we have not given up on America. Instead, I have conversations with people who are doubling down, down and who, for instance, saw ICE go into a polling place earlier this week and try to accost a poll worker for First Amendment protected conduct. And I talked with so many people who said, you know, the time has come. I'm going to go volunteer to be a poll worker. I mean, this is a moment where we show people what we're made of.
- [61:12]
A
You know, Joyce, one of the best little pieces of advice that my veterinarian, or Snickers veterinarian, to be precise, gave me is because she's afraid of fireworks. She's the first dog I've ever had who not is just afraid of fireworks, but who, like, you can see her whole nervous system shutting down, poor thing, when they happen. And my vet is who told me about the thunderstorm. And now whenever there's a thunderstorm or fireworks, Snickers. Actually, when I get the thundershirt, Snickers actually runs to me because she's so excited to get it on. And that is, you know, just one reason why taking good care of your pets is not only important, it can be really rewarding, too.
- [61:53]
B
You know, pets are like the new children, right? We treat ours like our kids, maybe even a little bit better than we treated our kids now that we're experienced parents.
- [62:01]
A
Parents.
- [62:02]
B
I mean, I make breakfast for the dogs when I make my own breakfast this morning. And my favorite thing, you'll love this. Our son's cat. He has a big black Maine coon cat and tofu now comes in and will eat breakfast with the dogs. We'll just stick his head down in their bowl. I love it.
- [62:21]
A
I do, too. Today's episode is sponsored by the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. If you've ever found yourself awake at 2am phone in hand, Googling things like, is this normal for dogs, or do I need to call the vet right now? You're not alone. Those unexpected moments are part of having a pet. Which is exactly why ASPCA Pet Health Insurance exists. It helps take some of the financial stress out of vet care so you can focus more on your pet and less on the cost.
- [62:52]
B
The ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program offers customizable accident and illness plans that can fit your budget, your lifestyle, and even your pet's particular quirks. Because, let's be honest, vet bills can add up fast. You need someone you can trust, and ASPCA Pet Health Insurance has been around for almost 30 years and has covered over 1 million pets. And when it's time to submit a claim, it's easy. Just use their app and receive reimbursement for eligible vet bills directly into your bank account so you can get back to focusing on what really matters your pet.
- [63:32]
A
To Explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com sisters that's aspcapetinsurance.Com sisters Again, that's aspcapetinsura.com sisters the link is in the show notes this is a paid advertisement. Insurance is underwritten by either independent American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance. Well, we now reach the point that we love the most and that is answering listener questions. If you have a question, you can send it toSisters in lawoliticon.com you can tag Sisters in Law in your socials and write your question there. Or better yet, you can send us a voice note to sistersinlawoliticon.com and just tell us your question and you might hear yourself asking us a question on our other podcast, Sisters sidebar, which drops every Wednesday. So lots of ways for you to ask. And let's get to a couple that were asked of us today. Joyce Evelyn sent a question that says Blanche is now Acting Attorney General. Is he still the Deputy Attorney General? If he doesn't secure congressional approval, can he still be a dag? That's a slang that Evelyn is familiar with. Standing for Deputy Attorney General.
- [65:20]
B
Yeah, so this is a really interesting question and we've talked before about the Vacancy Reform act, which governs a lot of things to do with appointees. But in many ways this is a straightforward question. Todd Blanch has been confirmed by the Senate for the role of Deputy Attorney General. He can continue to serve in that role regardless of what happens when he goes up to become the attorney general. And you know, that's an interesting question, right? We've got this YOLO caucus of Republican senators, the two who lost their primary bids, John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy. There's Thom Tillis from North Carolina, who didn't even try to run again after tangling with Trump. There's some speculation that one or more of them may be approachable on not voting to confirm Blanche and that his nomination may end up in trouble. But the reality is that even if he's not confirmed to be the attorney general, he can continue to serve in the acting capacity. And it's unclear, right. There actually is a restriction on how many days he can serve for. There are some people who believe that that applies here. There are other people who believe that it doesn't. But nonetheless, he goes on as the dag. And if there's not an attorney general, the DAG is in essence, the person who's doing the job.
- [66:43]
A
All right, and our next question comes from Helen in Billings, Montana. Helen asks, is putting your hand in the reflecting pool or touching the lining really a federal offense? So let me break things down a little bit. I'm going to come sort of backwards at your question. So there is a federal law, and it's federal because the reflecting pool is part of federal property. It is administrated by the U.S. park Service. It is federal property here in Washington, D.C. actually, there is a quite a bit of park space that looks just like local parks in other places, but that are governed by federal law because they are administrated by the U.S. park Service. So it falls under federal law. There is a vandalism statute that makes it a crime, a felony, to willfully injure or commit depredation against any property of the United States. It is punishable by damages over $1,000 and actually up to 10 years in prison. And the fine could go up to $250,000, depending on what this vandalism is. Now, let's get back to touching the water in the reflecting pool. The government would have to prove that by putting a hand in the reflecting pool or by touching paint that has already peeled off and floated to the top that that amounts to vandalism. I think that would be a very difficult, if not impossible case to make. But in this case, it is enough, I think, to out of being charged with a federal crime to keep them from getting anywhere near the reflecting pool and also to make this false claim that touching paint that has already arisen from the reflecting pool is in itself vandalism There is no video that I've seen of anybody like, dive going down to the bottom of the reflecting pool and actually pulling this paint up. In fact, what most people who've gone down there have seen is that this paint is coming loose, just kind of floating up in between the plumes of algae that have already collected in this pool, creating these weird configurations of blue and green in the pool's reflection. I actually just flew back into Washington, D.C. this week, and you could actually see this kind of green and blue swirl from the plane as it was landing at Reagan Airport. So I think it is a scare tactic. It's meant to perpetuate a false narrative that this is vandalism as opposed to just the ineptitude of the administration in doing something nobody asked for, which is trying to make the reflection pool look like a swimming pool and just a lack of understanding of what the law actually requires. So it's all the bad things. These people should not be charged with a federal crime, but that doesn't mean the government won't try.
- [69:49]
B
Kim, can I add one thought to that?
- [69:52]
A
Yes.
- [69:52]
B
It's just this. Good luck. Luck getting a District of Columbia jury to convict Pirro. Good luck.
- [70:02]
A
Good point. Godspeed, Jeanine Pirro. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with me and Joyce Vance. Don't forget to tune in in the future, next week and beyond, where Barb and Jill will be back with us. I can't. We can't wait because we miss them. If you enjoyed this podcast, please rate the show and send it to a friend. And be sure to follow Sisters in Law on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you are watching this right now so you never miss an episode. And join us every Saturday as we break down the biggest legal developments of the week. And on Wednesday, too, when we answer, answer even more questions on Sister sidebar. Don't miss either show. And don't forget to support our sponsors, because they support us. Tumble, Flamingo, Lola, Blankets Mill, and the aspca. Buy merch at Politicon Merch. And get your good Sisters in Law gear and see you next Wednesday and Saturday at Sisters in Law. Oh, my goodness. I knew I loved musicals when I went to see wicked back in 2001. Adele Dazeem was so good. She was so good in that. I love Adele Dazeem. Hey, I just Venmo'd you for Rent.
- [71:29]
B
Nice.
- [71:30]
A
Now I can instantly spend it, whether I'm checking out online with Venmo or using a Venmo debit card. Say more. More. Exactly.
- [71:37]
B
Exactly.
- [71:37]
A
Because the more you do with Venmo, the more you get, like earning up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash on a bundle of brands. So order more pizza. The math demands it. Get the Venmo debit card. Venmo Stash bundle Terms and exclusions apply. See terms at Venmo Me Stash termsterm Venmo checkout not available at all merchants Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank. Naomi.