Absentee Ballots, Asylum, and Too Many A**holes to Count

Summary

Strict Scrutiny Podcast

Episode: Absentee Ballots, Asylum, and Too Many A**holes to Count

Date: March 23, 2026
Hosts: Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray

---

Episode Overview

This episode, hosted by constitutional law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray, provides a preview of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March sitting, focusing on high-stakes cases involving absentee ballot counting (Watson v. RNC), asylum law at the border (Gnome v. Al Otro Lado), and bankruptcy law (Keith Lee v. Buddy Ayers Construction). The hosts also bring their irreverent, incisive commentary to current legal news—from lower court drama and judicial appointments to alarming developments on abortion criminalization. The show's signature mix of deep analysis, legal culture, biting humor, and fiery takes makes this essential listening for anyone seeking to understand what’s at stake at the Supreme Court and beyond.

---

Major Supreme Court Case Previews

1. Watson v. Republican National Committee – Absentee Ballots

[03:58–13:54]

• Background:
  The RNC is challenging state practices (originating in Mississippi) that allow absentee ballots to be counted if received after Election Day, provided they're postmarked by then. Mississippi law allows five business days for such ballots to arrive.

• Context:

  • Past: Enlisted military (who often vote GOP) have long relied on such absentee ballot deadlines.
  • 2020 "Red Mirage": Early Trump leads faded when absentee ballots, counted later, swung results, fueling GOP attacks on post-Election-Day counting.
  • Recent Federal Statutes: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (1986) and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (2009) recognize flexible state timelines.

• Key Arguments:

  • RNC: Federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day, not just cast or postmarked.
  • Hosts’ Analysis:
    • Kate Shaw: "If you look at the relevant federal statutes...there's nothing about the plain meaning of the word 'day'...that requires an absentee ballot be counted by a local official by Election Day." [07:31]
    • Melissa Murray: Criticizes possible double standards in textualist interpretation: "You can't do a vibe check on Congress. Unless of course the vibe check involves disenfranchising millions of absentee voters..." [10:50]
    • Leah Litman: Points out conservative justices’ willingness to ‘vibe check’ in voting rights cases, referencing Brnovich (2021) and the major questions doctrine.

• Panel Commentary:

  • Lively, darkly comic banter about Mississippi being "too much" even for strict voter suppression.
  • Repeatedly noting the panel in the Fifth Circuit (“the rare Stuart Kyle Duncan, Jim Ho, Andy Oldham special”) signals the outlier nature of the decision. [13:00]
  • "Democracy. You in danger, girl." – Leah Litman [13:32]

---

2. Gnome v. Al Otro Lado – Asylum and Border “Arrivals”

[18:38–23:56]

• Question Presented:
  Can border officers block individuals at ports of entry from seeking asylum by deeming them not to have "arrived in the United States" if they are physically on the Mexican side of the border?

• Background:

  • “Metering” policy designed to turn back asylum seekers before they can enter the U.S.
  • Later, a “transit rule” required asylum seekers to apply in a third country first.
  • District court found metering illegal and granted relief; the appeal questioned whether those turned away had "arrived in the U.S." for asylum eligibility.

• Key Quotes & Insights:

  • Kate Shaw: “The 9th Circuit agreed that non-citizens who were turned away at the border had, quote, 'arrived in the United States.'” [21:23]
  • Melissa Murray: Describes government’s narrow, literalist take: "In ordinary English, a person arrives in a country only when he comes within its borders." [21:48]
  • Leah Litman (sarcastically, on textualism): "But, like, it's not plain English, it's immigration law, which is, like, rife with terms of art and technicalities." [22:26]
  • Kate Shaw: Nervous about the Court’s approach: "They just love to yank words out of context in the kind of version of textualism that they do. And so, yeah, I'm very nervous about this case." [22:44]
  • The challengers argue the issue is moot as the policy’s been rescinded, offering an “off-ramp” to avoid a harmful precedent.

---

3. Keith Lee v. Buddy Ayers Construction – Bankruptcy Law

[24:26–27:50]

• Issue:
  Should debtors who fail to disclose potential civil claims in bankruptcy be barred from bringing them later (“estoppel”)? Should intent matter?

• Case Details:

  • Debtor Keith Lee didn’t disclose a potential claim after an accident. The Fifth Circuit barred him from suing.
  • Most courts use a “totality of the circumstances” test to see if nondisclosure was intentional; Fifth Circuit uses a strict rule regardless of intent.
  • The U.S. government argues the Fifth Circuit rule is too harsh.

• Notable Moment:

  • The panel makes Beyoncé puns and references about “Bay Court,” merging pop culture with explanation. [24:26–26:54]
  • Melissa Murray: “It’s a hard knock life for us.” [27:24]

---

4. Flour Foods v. Brock – Arbitration and Interstate Commerce

[27:50–29:19]

• Issue:
  Whether local workers are “engaged in interstate commerce” under FAA exemption if they deliver goods (e.g., Wonder Bread) that crossed state lines.

• Significance:

  • Decision affects which workers can avoid forced arbitration and sue in court.

---

5. Olivier v. City of Brandon – First Amendment & Civil Rights

[29:19–32:15]

• Summary:
  Supreme Court (unanimously, Kagan writing) ruled that a civil rights suit for prospective relief by a street preacher isn't barred by the “Heck” doctrine, which blocks suits that challenge the basis of a criminal conviction.

• Noteworthy Context:

  • Cites Fred Smith’s scholarship on “timing violence” in civil rights litigation (sue too soon: no standing; during prosecution: abstention; after conviction: barred by Heck). [30:32–32:00]
  • Hosts highlight rare “strange bedfellows” result: conservative justices aligned with liberal justices for different reasons.

---

Lower Court Legal Drama and News Roundup

New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office Fiasco

[32:18–40:23]

• Events:

  • Federal judge Zaid Qurashi admonished assistant U.S. attorneys over leadership chaos following unlawful appointments in the DOJ.
  • Judge ejected a supervisor (Mark Coyne) who tried to speak without having filed appearance, scolding: “If you speak again, I’m going to have you removed. I already told you not to speak. You didn’t file a notice of appearance.” [36:41]
  • Plea deals were being negotiated without all evidence reviewed, including, alarmingly, missing child pornography evidence.
  • Judge’s stinging rebuke: “You have lost the confidence and trust of this court, ...and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public.” [39:12]

• Hosts’ Reactions:

  • Leah: “The first few pages of this transcript had me levitating.” [35:00]
  • All three encourage listeners to read the full transcript.
  • Melissa: “When the judge specifically asked... If Alina Haba was continuing to run the office. The younger lawyer replied, I saw Goody Haba dancing with the president in the pale moonlight. Just kidding. Crucible Stans. That did not happen, although I wish it had.” [36:15]

---

Executive Overreach and Judicial Responses

[43:26–55:28]

• Voice of America (VOA):

  • Judge Lamberth found Kari Lake unlawfully ran the VOA, violating Congress’s funding prerogatives.
  • Ongoing pattern of illegal appointments and executive overreach.

• Fed Board Subpoenas & Attacks on Powell:

  • Judge Boasberg quashed government subpoenas seeking to intimidate Fed Chair Powell over interest rates, citing clear retaliation via social media posts. [46:30–48:12]
  • Boasberg called DOJ’s criminal claims "so thin and unsubstantiated...can only conclude that they are pretextual." [47:44]
  • New court policy to notify public when grand juries refuse to indict at DOJ’s request.
  • U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and President Trump respond with unhinged rants against the judiciary. [48:35–51:46]
  • Melissa Murray: “I don't even know what she's saying. ...Anyway, the President also had a response. He posted on Truth Social...” [49:07]

• Threats Against Judges:

  • Federal judges detail disturbing threats during a public event led by Judge Ana Reyes.
  • Judge Reyes (via Kate): “I hope you lose your life by lunchtime, you worthless...” [54:00]
  • Discussion on politicized attacks, imported culture-war rhetoric, and Roberts’ tepid response calling for civility.

---

Fifth Circuit Outrages — Protest Liability

[55:28–59:34]

• Ford v. McKesson:
  • Activist Deray McKesson faces potential liability for injuries caused by a protest attendee—no evidence McKesson authorized or knew the perpetrator.
  • Fifth Circuit allows trial to proceed, threatening First Amendment protest rights.
  • Kate: “It’s just so insane.” [56:39]
  • Leah: “The idea that participating in or organizing a protest somehow makes you liable for any illegal conduct... makes protesting illegal.” [57:22]
  • Judge Edith Jones’ majority opinion “breathless” and telling in its language: protesters/“rioters”, always “Officer Ford” but denying McKesson basic courtesy of title. [58:16]
  • Hosts parody Trump’s riot response (“Go home in peace”) as what McKesson “should have” done. [58:49–59:18]

---

Abortion Criminalization Developments

[59:39–61:21]

• Georgia case:
  • Alexia Moore charged with murder for taking abortion pills—first use of murder statutes in this context in Georgia.
  • Kate: "The actual charging of murder, you know, breaks entirely new and horrifying ground." [59:39]
• Kentucky case:
  • Student indicted for manslaughter after fetus/“infant” discovered. Law is rapidly criminalizing abortion and pregnancy outcomes.
  • Melissa: “This is another push on this fetal personhood thing, and we need to call it out for what it is.” [60:24]

---

Political Corruption and Congressional Theater

[64:25–73:38]

• Markwayne Mullin (“no spaces”) Homeland Security Nominee:
  • The NYT exposed “one of the biggest stock traders in Congress,” with suspiciously profitable trades preceding U.S. actions in Venezuela. [65:18–66:01]
  • Senate hearing with Rand Paul becomes a spectacle: Paul details his severe injuries from a neighbor’s assault; Mullin (“snake”) previously condoned the violence. [67:10–68:46]
  • Hosts riff on “podcast diplomacy” when Mullin and labor leader Sean O’Brien make nice after previous “name a time and a place” threats.
  • Melissa: "The kids call this podcast diplomacy. And I think it's pretty fucking beautiful. I love it. I love it." [71:27]
• Corey Lewandowski – Corruption Allegations:
  • Accused of demanding quid-pro-quo payment from private prison giant GEO Group for government contracts.
  • Even GEO found his requests "too much". [73:01–73:38]
  • Kate: "Even the private prison company wasn't like, down to go quite as quid pro quo as Lewandowski seemed to be." [73:01]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Democracy. You in danger, girl.” – Leah Litman (re: Fifth Circuit’s anti-democratic absentee ballot decisions) [13:32]
• “What is electoral joy? That’s the butterfly meme again. Is this electoral joy?” – Melissa Murray [07:01]
• “You really cannot rule out the possibility of a vibe check in these election law cases.” – Leah Litman [11:38]
• “Sit down, Mr. Coyne. If you speak again, I’m going to have you removed.” – Judge Qurashi as recounted by Leah [36:41]
• “You have lost the confidence and trust of this court...” – Judge Qurashi via Melissa [39:12]
• “The idea that participating in or organizing a protest somehow makes you liable for any illegal conduct that happens at the protest, makes protesting illegal.” – Leah Litman [57:22]
• “Call me Lady Whistledown, bitches.” – Melissa Murray (on her book’s Bridgerton-title vibes) [77:14]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment/Topic | Notes | |-----------|---------------|-------| | 03:41 | Main Episode Start | Introduction by hosts, episode overview | | 03:58–13:54 | Watson v. RNC | Absentee ballots, textualism, voting rights | | 18:38–23:56 | Gnome v. Al Otro Lado | Asylum seekers, border law, textual interpretation | | 24:26–27:50 | Keith Lee v. Buddy Ayers Const. | Bankruptcy law, civil claim estoppel | | 27:50–29:19 | Flour Foods v. Brock | Arbitration, interstate commerce | | 29:19–32:15 | Olivier v. City of Brandon | First Amendment/prospective relief | | 32:18–40:23 | NJ U.S. Attorney’s Office | Legal news, court drama, rebukes | | 43:26–48:12 | Voice of America case | DOJ overreach, illegal appointments | | 48:12–51:46 | Attacks on Judiciary | Threats, social media rants, Roberts’ weak response | | 55:28–59:34 | 5th Circuit - Protest Liability | McKesson decision, First Amendment threat | | 59:39–61:21 | Abortion Criminalization | Georgia/Kentucky cases, fetal personhood | | 64:25–73:38 | Congress/Corruption Theater | Markwayne Mullin, Rand Paul, Lewandowski | | 75:25–77:50 | Favorite Things | Book and music recs, pod merch giveaway [75:25] | | 77:50–81:38 | Housekeeping/Midterms & Outro | Call to action for midterms, merch, endnotes |

---

Tone and Language Notes

The episode combines sharp legal analysis with caustic wit, pop culture references (e.g., Beyoncé, TikTok memes), and cutting commentary on both conservative and liberal legal actors. The hosts don't shy from calling out hypocrisy, corruption, and regression in voting rights, judicial appointments, and civil liberties, while also finding dark humor and fleeting moments of “electoral joy” in the chaos.

---

For Further Listening/Reading

• [Read the New Jersey plea agreement transcript – Times link in show notes]
• [Zack Beauchamp, "How to Stop a Dictator," Vox]
• [The Daily: The Case of Christy Metcalfe]
• [Aziza Ahmed, Risk and Resistance (new book)]

---

Takeaways

• The March Supreme Court sitting deals with landmark cases that will influence voting rights, asylum, bankruptcy, worker rights, and civil liberties.
• Hosts expose the stakes behind seemingly dry procedural disputes, highlighting the real-world effects on democracy and marginalized individuals.
• Lower courts are increasingly venues for both corruption and accountability—sometimes simultaneously.
• The legal and political scene is becoming more chaotic and dangerous, with accountability for both executive power and judicial independence at issue.
• Strict Scrutiny continues to provide not just legal analysis but commentary on the broader state of American democracy—with humor, exasperation, and, occasionally, a meme about electoral joy.

---

Listen to the full episode for deeper dives and more signature Strict Scrutiny shade.

Transcript

[Leah Litman]

Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. You're not alone. If it feels like Groundhog Day every morning when you read the news or even listen to what we're talking about here on Strict Scrutiny. And while it's overwhelming seeing the trajectory our country is on, we all show up every day trying to find ways to make it better, to educate our neighbors and to fight for democracy. Our friends at Americans United have been doing the same thing day in and day out for almost 80 years. This year alone, they filed three separate lawsuits against Trump's anti Christian bias task force, which, spoiler alert, is anything but unbiased. AU has been tracking every mention of Christian nationalist rhetoric from this administration and partnering with many allied organizations to sue and protect our constitutional right of Church State separation, the right that protects all of our abilities to be who we are and live as we choose, so long as we don't harm others. It's easy to get apathetic as we're all seeing and hearing these attacks on our freedoms every single day and watching a religion be weaponized for a power grab. Now isn't the time to give up, though. Now is the time to fight back against the growing authoritarianism in our country. Consider joining Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Learn more by visiting au.org crooked because Church State Separation Protects Us All

[Melissa Murray]

Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted

[Leah Litman]

if you said yes to both?

[Melissa Murray]

Welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco and we're the

[Leah Litman]

hosts of Hysteria, the podcast for women

[Melissa Murray]

who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms and everywhere. The stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero hand holding. Listen to Hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube. Hi, my name is Lisa and I'm a licensed psychotherapist, which means my work doesn't magically end when the session does. There are notes to write, appointments to manage, billing, insurance, follow ups, and somehow all that admin used to creep into my nights and weekends. That's why I switched to Simple Practice. Simple Practice is an all in one electronic health record built specifically for therapists with HIPAA compliant tools and high trust certification so I don't have to worry about juggling systems or cutting corners just to keep things running. Scheduling, documentation, billing, insurance, client communications, even automated appointment reminders. It all lives in one place. And if you're starting or growing a practice, SimplePractice also offers a credentialing service that helps simplify insurance enrollment, which can be a huge lift when you're starting to scale. Start with a seven day free trial, then get 50% off your first three months. Just go to simplepractice.com Again, that's simplepractice.com.

[Leah Litman]

Mr. Chief justice, please support. It's an old joke, but when I

[Erin Ryan]

argue men argues against two beautiful ladies

[Melissa Murray]

like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.

[Kate Shaw]

Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw.

[Leah Litman]

Hi, I'm Leah Litman.

[Melissa Murray]

And I'm Melissa Murray. And today we are going to preview the cases that the Court will hear during the March sitting and then we'll briefly chat about some legal news.

[Leah Litman]

So the March sitting is a two week sitting jam packed with big cases. The most discussed case of the term, Trump versus Barbara, which is a challenge to the Birthright Citizenship executive Order, will be heard on Wednesday, April 1. No, that's not an April Fool's joke. That day also happens to be Sam Alito's birthday. That too is not an April Fool's joke, although he might be. But the first week of the sitting has some significant cases that we want to pay close attention to, like Watson versus Republican National Committee.

[Melissa Murray]

It's a pretty harrowing electoral landscape out there. And it is that electoral landscape that is the backdrop for Watson v. Rnc. The President, as you know, has tried to strong arm states to tilt the electoral map in his favor. We know that at the court, LA vs Calais may hamstring the remnants of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And depending on the Court's timing in that case, it may actually have an impact on the 2026 midterms. We've also seen the President continue to push for the passage of the SAVE act, which is now at the Senate. That act would likely overhaul and dramatically limit who can vote. So that's the landscape. It's all pretty grim.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, so Melissa set the stage. And now enter Watson vs RNC. The case challenges the long standing practices regarding the counting of ballots that are cast by election Day, but received Election Day. Now, for years, Republicans seemed pretty agnostic about absentee ballots, maybe because Absentee ballots actually favored the gop, at least in some cases. So, for example, enlisted military personnel, a group that historically tends to lean Republican, have long been entitled under federal law to use absentee ballots when they're deployed during an election cycle.

[Melissa Murray]

But Covid and the 2020 election cycle really upended things. So you will Remember election night 2020, when very early on it seemed like incumbent President Donald Trump was posting some big wins and would likely prevail. But as many voting rights experts predicted, the red wave was really a red mirage. Once absentee ballots were actually counted, the picture really began to shift. However, because it took a while to count all of those absentee ballots, the election wasn't called for Joe Biden until the weekend. And that lag between election night, the counting of the ballots and the calling of the election fueled the GOP's fantasies of a stolen election and led to attacks on absentee ballots.

[Leah Litman]

I have to say, the moment the election was called for Biden, I still remember we were out for a bike ride and we just heard the local community banging pots and pans, and we knew that the election had been called for Biden. Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

It is one of those where you obviously knew where you were when, oh, you were upstate and, like, on this long, like, autumnal walk in the woods with some friends and then started getting text messages when we came back into range and. But we missed the, like, pot banging and kind of, like, euphoria in New York City.

[Melissa Murray]

We were in the Bay Area and, like, let's just say Oakland was hella excited. Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

Remember what it felt like to sort of experience joy? Political joy.

[Leah Litman]

Yes.

[Melissa Murray]

Electoral joy.

[Leah Litman]

Vague recollection.

[Melissa Murray]

What is electoral joy? That's the butterfly meme again. Is this electoral joy?

[Leah Litman]

Speaking of not electoral joy. This case, Watson. So, currently, 16 states permit absentee ballots to be counted if election officials receive them within a certain period of time after election day, so long as the absentee ballot are postmarked and thus cast on or before election day. Mississippi, where this case originated, allows five business days for absentee ballots postmarked by election day to arrive at the local election offices, where they will then be counted.

[Kate Shaw]

So in this lawsuit, the Republican National Committee argues that the Mississippi law that Leah was just describing violates a federal statute that the RNC says requires all absentee ballots to be received by election Day, not just postmarked on or before election day, as, again, has been the long standing practice in many states.

[Leah Litman]

States.

[Kate Shaw]

But here is the thing. If you look at the relevant federal statutes, the one the RNC is grounding their argument in. There's nothing about the plain meaning of the word day or election or in the concept of election day that requires that an absentee ballot be counted by a local official by election Day. In fact, the much better reading of the statute seems to be that if the ballot is cast by Election Day, the federal law requiring that voting be complete on Election Day is satisfied.

[Melissa Murray]

And other federal statutes, including recently enacted statutes, reflect that view. So in the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting act, which was enacted in 1986, Congress required that absentee ballots be made available to overseas and military voters in a way that would allow them to return their ballots by the deadline prescribed in their states. And when Congress enacted that law, it knew that some states allowed absentee ballots to be returned after election Day as long as they were cast and postmarked by that date. Likewise, When Congress in 2009 enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment act move, it added supplementary rules to facilitate absentee voting, again among military and overseas voters. And it did so with the state's long standing ballot counting practices in mind. So again, nothing in the statute required or even suggested that absentee ballots had to be counted by Election Day. That wasn't the practice, and the statutes reflected the flexibility.

[Leah Litman]

And finally, there is the Electoral Count Reform act of 2022, a bipartisan compromise negotiated in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. So in that law, Congress added a new definition of Election Day. And that new definition recognized that in person, voting at polling places could continue past midnight on Election Day if, but only if, certain strict conditions were met. Now, when Congress adopted this compromise provision on the extremely limited ext. Of Election Day voting, it was thoroughly aware of the various state practices regarding the deadlines for the arrival of absentee ballots cast on or before that date. After all, this happened in the 2020 presidential election that the 2022 act was responding to. And so it kind of beggars belief to suggest that Congress, as part of this painstakingly negotiated bipartisan compromise in response to the 2020 presidential election, intended silently to disturb all of these existing state practices concerning absentee voting.

[Kate Shaw]

It seems rather much more likely that Congress intended the ECRA to leave intact the long standing understanding that the meaning of Election Day in federal law permits states to count absentee ballots cast on or before Election Day. And, you know, postmarked by then, even if those ballots arrive after election Day. And a group of senators filed an amicus brief that basically says, hey, we know the RNC wants you to think that accra the ECRA people refer to as ECRA changed everything. But we were there, we voted for the law and we understood that we were not changing anything to require absentee ballots to be counted on or before election day, you know, without saying a word about disrupting long standing practice.

[Melissa Murray]

So obviously this case is going to pit the Republican appointees zeal for textualism against their zeal for ensuring the electoral fortunes of the Republican Party. And all of this hand wringing would be amusing if it weren't actually grim and really consequential. We all know that in the context of the made up major questions doctrine as it applies to Democratic presidents and their this Court loves to insist that Congress has to say what it means plainly and clearly in the text of the statute. You can't intuit what Congress means. You can't do a vibe check on Congress. Unless of course the vibe check involves disenfranchising millions of absentee voters whose ballots haven't arrived on or before election day. So it's gotta be a toss up. Hmm.

[Leah Litman]

You really cannot rule out the possibility of a vibe check in these election law cases. Think back to for example, Brnovich versus DNC, where the court purported to interpret section 2 of the Voting Rights act in vote denial claims. That is where state laws prevent people from voting, not redistricting cases. And there the Court basically did a vibe check and engaged in what Justice Kagan called a law free zone that just left the text behind and basically said these amendments to the Voting Rights act that had been intended to overrule a Supreme Court case and thereby prevent more state laws actually created a safe harbor for discriminatory practices that existed at the time. Now, of course, if Brnovich was correct that Congress doesn't like lightly displace state laws, you would think that logic would also mean that this federal law wouldn't displace all of these state practices. And yet unclear if one Sam Alito, the author of Bernovitch, would hold true to that principle here. Now, absentee voting, not perfect. But in person voting isn't always easy. Lines can be long, and that is a species of voter suppression because it often discourages electoral participation. And there are also voters who aren't physically present in their communities to vote on election day. So there are many aspects of voting that already make it hard to make your voice count. And this effort in Watson to limit the counting of absentee ballots would only exacerbate those pressures, which might be the point.

[Kate Shaw]

So that's essentially what's at issue in Watson. Maybe let's just note since I don't think we have that the fifth circuit panel opinion that bought this I think pretty insane theory that the RNC is pushing was the rare Stuart Kyle Duncan, Jim Ho, Andy Oldham special.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, the three amigos.

[Kate Shaw]

Luckily that alignment happens only so often, but this was one of the cases in which we saw it.

[Leah Litman]

And I remember seeing the panel draw

[Kate Shaw]

when this was being like, read and

[Melissa Murray]

you were just kind of like, democracy. It was nice knowing you.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly. Democracy. You in danger, girl.

[Kate Shaw]

Because I'm obviously like, despite the many years of having it kind of beaten out of me, I'm still sort of naively optimistic. I was like, even this trio of psychos cannot possibly accept this theory.

[Leah Litman]

They sounded a little sane during argument.

[Kate Shaw]

At the argument.

[Melissa Murray]

Right.

[Leah Litman]

Oh, that's maybe why I remember thinking that for the opinion itself.

[Kate Shaw]

Indeed. Anyway, the other thing to note just about the kind of configuration and players in this case is that this is the state of Mississippi saying serious nuts and would do maybe

[Melissa Murray]

the one who wants women to die in parking lots.

[Leah Litman]

That Mississippi, that one.

[Kate Shaw]

This is too much even for them. I mean, obviously I wouldn't put it put, you know, rule out the possibility that this is the problem is that like the disenfranchising that adapting this kind of theory might do might, you know, sweep in the kinds of voters that the Mississippi, you know, attorney general like, wants to vote and they'd be okay,

[Melissa Murray]

are those the white voters? Other voters just. I just want to know. The white ones.

[Kate Shaw]

Right?

[Melissa Murray]

Okay. Yeah, can't do that.

[Leah Litman]

The right voters.

[Kate Shaw]

Melissa.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm sorry, Wink. The right wings. Did I say white or did I say right? It's hard to tell sometimes.

[Kate Shaw]

Right.

[Leah Litman]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by quits these days. I'm all about quality over quantity, especially in my closet. If it's not well made and versatile, it's just not worth it to me. And that is part of why I love Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful, and the pricing actually makes sense. Like dollars and cents. Quince makes high quality wardrobe staples using premium fabrics like 100% European linen, 100% silk, and organic cotton poplin. Lightweight cotton cashmere sweaters are perfect for the changing seasons, and you can't miss their seasonal colors and prints for spring. They're versatile, well made pieces that make getting dressed simple. Quince works directly with safe, ethical factories and they cut out the middlemen. You're not paying for brand markup or fancy retail stores, just the quality clothing. Quince also uses 100% European linen their cotton poplin is crisp and holds its shape. The gauze is soft without being flimsy. Everything Quince makes is built to hold up season after season. The stitching, the fit and the fabrics. There are pieces you'll reach for over and over. The quince shells have become my go to work shirts. Whether it's a silk T shirt or the silk V neck sleeveless top, they are always under the blazers I wear. They also travel really well and the light and breathable fabric works great under blazers for all seasons. Seriously, I can't remember the last time I had an under blazer shirt that wasn't one of my T shirts with strict scrutiny saying on it. Under my blazers, which are my only workwear that wasn't a quints piece, this is really my everyday option. So stop waiting to build the wardrobe you actually want. You don't need a closet full of options. You just need pieces that work right now. Go to quince.comstrict for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it. And you will now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q-U-I-N-C e.com strict for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com strict strict scrutiny is brought to you by Cozy Earth what does comfort that carries you from morning to night feel like? To me, it feels like my Cozy Earth joggers and wide leg pants. Seriously. Kate got me hooked with her recommendation, I think from our Favorite Things episode. So I ordered a pair of the wide leg pants and a pair of joggers and those have now multiplied to three joggers and two wide leg pants. I am obsessed with them. They are my go to travel outfit now and also my I'm on research leave and want to be comfortable clothes. I'm obsessed with the fabric made from viscose from bamboo. It seriously feels amazing on my skin and it's been perfect in any weather. And the weather is fluctuating a lot here in Michigan. One day it's 70, the next is 30, etc. This March, cozy Earth crafts every piece with care. From soft supportive socks for your steps through the day to breathable comforters that help you rest deeply at night. Every detail is intentional so your everyday feels quietly elevated. Cozy Earth makes the everyday things you rely on with intention. From sleep to slow moments at home, Cozy Earth essentials are thoughtfully crafted to elevate daily life. Their designs focus on comfort in the details because small choices make a lasting difference. Cozy Earth offers risk free purchases so they have a 100 night sleep trial for sleepwear. You can try them yourself. Every detail is designed to feel effortlessly comfortable and returns are easy, but after feeling that level of comfort, you won't let them go. They also offer a 10 year warranty built with care and precision. Because true comfort is meant to endure. Discover how care in every detail transforms simple routines into moments of true comfort and ease. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code STRICT for up to 20% off. That's code STRICT for up to 20 percent off. And if you get a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. Experience the craft behind the comfort and make every day feel intentional.

[Kate Shaw]

Let's turn to the next big case we're gonna be watch this week and that is still captioned gnome, although I guess the caption will change if Mullen is confirmed. We will get to our Secretary Designate later in the hour. But anyway, for now the case is called Gnome versus Al Otro Lado, and that's a case that's going to have major implications for asylum seekers. And it's being argued at a time when avenues for asylum have already been severely curtailed. So the question in this case is the meaning of the phrase quotes arrives in the United States in the Immigration and Nationality act, which provides that an alien, quote, who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States whether or not at a designated port of arrival, may apply for asylum. So under the law, non citizens who arrive at a port of entry and indicate they want to seek asylum are inspected and screened by border officials. They are then channeled into the asylum system. But the specific question in this case is can officers essentially block individuals at ports of entry and refuse to entertain their asylum applications by deeming them not to have arrived in or saying they are not someone who arrives in a port of entry because they are physically located on the Mexico side of the U S. Mexico border.

[Melissa Murray]

So here's the backdrop of this case in 2016 in response to a surge in the number of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum in San Isidro, which is outside of San Diego, the Department of Homeland Security initiated a policy known as metering, so Customs and Border Patrol officials would turn back asylum seekers before they entered the United States. So again, sort of timing and limiting the number of people who could come over and then turning back others who were outside of that system. Al Ocho Lado, an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum seekers filed suit in a California district court challenging that metering policy. And while the litigation was ongoing, the federal government adopted a regulation, which is known as the asylum transit rule, that generally required people traveling through a third country to apply for asylum in that third country before then seeking asylum in the United States. For many asylum seekers who had already been turned away under the metering policy, the impact of the asylum transit rule was to effectively bar them from qualifying for asylum if they were ever able to apply.

[Leah Litman]

So the district court declared that the metering policy was illegal. And then, as part of the remedy, the district court blocked the government from applying the asylum transit rule to non citizens who had been turned away under the metering policy. So the court also ordered the government to unwind past denials of asylum to those individuals. Now, at some point, the government rescinded the metering policy. But because the government was appealing the district court's remedy, and because the remedy turned on the legality of the metering policy, the legality of the metering policy was a question on appeal.

[Kate Shaw]

And by a vote of 2 to 1, the 9th Circuit agreed that non citizens who were turned away at the border had, quote, arrived in the United States and were therefore eligible to apply for asylum. Writing for the panel, majority Judge Michelle Friedland explained that, quote, the phrase arrives in the United States encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on. Moreover, she continued, an asylum seeker who arrives at the border must then be inspected and processed.

[Melissa Murray]

The government predictably sought and was granted en banc review there. A deeply divided en banc 9th Circuit declined to reconsider the case. And in a dissent joined by 11 other judges, Trump appointee Judge Daniel Brett wrote a dissent that basically served as the blueprint for the Trump administration's petition for SCOTUS review. In that cert petition, Solicitor General John Sauer argued the 9th Circuit's ruling, quote, defies the plain text of the governing statutes. In ordinary English, a person arrives in a country only when he comes within its borders. An alien thus does not arrive in the United States while he is still in Mexico.

[Leah Litman]

But, like, it's not plain English, it's immigration law, which is, like, rife with terms of art and technicalities. I'm sorry, just those sentences were mildly triggering to me.

[Melissa Murray]

Again, like, in the context of foreign relations, the idea that, like, when you go to an embassy, it's in France, but it's really the United States.

[Leah Litman]

Cole.

[Melissa Murray]

Cole agrees.

[Kate Shaw]

And also, Cole's right, as always. But also, as the Otolado brief makes clear what the government is trying to do here is literally pluck the word in out of its context. Like, yeah, I guess if literally the one word we're looking at is in, that does probably mean, like, not just outside of, but actually physically present in, but in the full context, even just of the language, let alone history, purpose, understanding, all the other things that should inform our reading of a statutory phrase. Of course, you are arriving in when you are at a port of entry, but they just love to yank words out of context in the kind of version of textualism that they do. And so, yeah, I'm very nervous about this case.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, the challengers here counter that, quote, because the government rescinded the metering policy years ago. The question that the Trump administration has actually put before the court has, as they put it, almost no present implications and likely no future implications. So they're trying to provide the court with an off ramp here, and maybe that's an avenue for avoiding doing some really dastardly shit. Doesn't matter.

[Kate Shaw]

I think this court is going to avoid the opportunity to deal with the.

[Melissa Murray]

Could have avoided it by not grieving, granting review.

[Leah Litman]

But here we are.

[Melissa Murray]

Exactly.

[Leah Litman]

I mean, I just think, I worry that the birthright citizenship case they are going to view as giving them a ton of COVID including for this case, which is flying under the radar, you know, thus far. So the next case is for you, Beehive. That's the bankruptcy high. So at issue in. Exactly at issue is Keith Lee vs Buddy Ayers Construction is a question about judicial establishment of civil claims.

[Melissa Murray]

And that sounds sexy.

[Kate Shaw]

Just tell some more. Beyonce and everything you own, like in a box in the bankruptcy court.

[Melissa Murray]

Let's just like, please keep them coming. We're going to start calling it Bay Court. Okay,

[Leah Litman]

so generally in Bay Court, when you file for bankruptcy, you are supposed to disclose all assets and potential assets that might be used to satisfy your creditors claims. But what happens if you don't disclose potential civil claims from which you might recover should you be barred or what's called estopped from bringing the claim at a later time? All I'm thinking is get in here.

[Melissa Murray]

Can you pay my bills? Can you pay my credit card bills?

[Leah Litman]

Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

Creditor's bills. Yeah, you need to.

[Leah Litman]

Beyonce saw all of this coming decades ago. Now, on this issue of estoppel, most bankruptcy courts have said yes, if you don't disclose potential civil claims from which he might recover, you are barred from bringing the claim at a later time. But the courts apply different approaches to determining when to stop A future claim. Some courts do a totality of the circumstances test that is intended to get at whether the debtor intended to mislead the court, whereas other courts treat the failed disclosure as something like an immediate bar to filing the future claim, regardless of the debtor's intent.

[Kate Shaw]

So in this case, Keith Lee, the debtor who is Thomas Keith Lee, filed for bankruptcy in 2019, and more than a year after the bankruptcy plan was approved, he was involved in a serious accident that required surgery and physical therapy and reduced his ability to earn a living. He told his bankruptcy lawyer about the accident, but the lawyer didn't disclose it to the bankruptcy court. The construction company whose truck was responsible for the accident relied on that failure to argue that Keithley should be barred from suing them for the accident. And the lower courts, applying the fifth circuit's relatively strict disclosure standard agreed in the Supreme Court, the debtor is asking the court to adopt a totality of the circumstances approach that's used in the majority of circuits to determine which claims and when claims are stopped. Interestingly, the united. Think of a Beyonce hook here, but I can't. But Melissa, feel free to jump in

[Melissa Murray]

if something interestingly, Jay Z decided to get on this trip.

[Kate Shaw]

AKA the United States federal government or the trustees. Gove.

[Melissa Murray]

Gove, if you will.

[Kate Shaw]

G to the is O. V.

[Melissa Murray]

AKA the United States, they call me gov.

[Kate Shaw]

Is the part of the federal government

[Leah Litman]

that he's not a businessman, he's a businessman.

[Kate Shaw]

That's actually maybe true.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

Yes. So that's the case. Like the trustees actually administer the bankruptcy regime. The federal government is also the nation's largest creditor, so they have real interest in the outcome of this case. The government is arguing that the fifth circuit's rule is unduly narrow. It doesn't account for innocent mistakes that a debtor might make in disclosure requirements, and it wants the court to remand the case to the bankruptcy court to apply the totality of the circumstances standard. Melissa, land this landis.

[Melissa Murray]

What else is there to say? It's a hard knock life for us. Yes. I mean, this might be the one time, you know, maybe I'm rooting for the federal government. Like, I think it's like intervened here on behalf of this hapless debtor and

[Kate Shaw]

against a rule generated by the fifth circuit. Yeah, sounds great. These are tough choices, but I think in this case we're probably going with the federal government.

[Melissa Murray]

All right, listeners, we've got a little throwback for you. You'll recall that two years ago the court decided Bissonnet versus LePage Bakery's Park Street. In that case, the court concluded that an exemption to the Federal Arbitration act for any class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce did not apply only to workers in the transportation industry. It applied more broadly. Well, that case was brought to you by LePage Bakeries, which is the distributor for Flour Foods, the company that makes Wonder Bread, among other things. Well, it seems that Flour Foods has additional questions about the scope of the faa, and this time it has presented a new case, Flour Foods vs Brock, which asks whether workers who deliver locally without ever crossing state lines are, quote, unquote, engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of that FAA exemption below. The 10th Circuit agreed that those workers are engaged in interstate commerce. And basically the court there focused on the fact that the products that are being delivered move between states, even if the delivery personnel work within the state. The distributor is now challenging that ruling. As with the Bissonnet case heard two years earlier, this new challenge is significant in that it will determine whether workers can bring claims in federal court or whether they'll be forced to have their grievances resolved through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

[Leah Litman]

We also got one opinion from the court in Olivier vs City of Brandon. The case was brought by a Christian evangelical street preacher who challenged a Mississippi ordinance restricting where protests may occur. Olivier had previously been convicted of violating the law, and according to the city, that meant his lawsuit was barred by a previous supreme court decision, Heck vs. Humphrey, decided in 1994, which held that these civil rights suits couldn't be used to collaterally attack convictions or sentences. The city argued that Olivier's suit, seeking to enjoin the ordinance in the future was effectively a lawsuit that would call into question the validity of his earlier conviction under the ordinance. The Supreme Court disagreed unanimously, ruling in favor of the street preacher. Writing for the court, Justice Kagan said that Heck did not bar suits seeking purely prospective relief, except maybe in a narrow set of cases that weren't presented here.

[Kate Shaw]

Now, Olivier did not overrule the great man's opinion in Heck. That great man, of course, Justice Scalia. But instead, Justice Kagan said that language in Heck, and specifically the language on which the city and the lower courts relied, might have swept too broadly and was not meant to reach suits like the petitioners that sought future oriented relief.

[Melissa Murray]

Only Olivier connects to Fred. Fred Smith's work on abstention doctrine. I just want to highlight this for listeners and those who are interested in federal courts. Fred, of course, is a professor at Stanford Law School, has written two really interesting pieces. The first is Abstention in the Time of Ferguson, which is published by the Harvard Law Review. He also has a new piece out called Younger and Older Abstention, which is out in the Michigan Law Review. Both of these pieces point out how civil rights plaintiffs often face a timing violence. So the timing vice works like this. If you sue before criminal proceedings commence, then you have a standing problem because the harm is too speculative. But if you sue while state criminal proceedings are ongoing, courts can invoke younger abstention and say, hands off. You have to let the state courts complete their adjudication. However, if you sue after a criminal conviction, then Heck vs Humphrey kicks in and creates yet another barrier to bringing your case here. The court's unanimous opinion in Olivier ostensibly refuses to extend Heck that far and thus serves as an important pushback. We'll also note, however, that this is one of those cases where, like, the interests really did converge. Here we had strange bedfellows and the Republican appointees who care a lot, I think, about Christian evangelical street preachers and the Democratic appointees who care a lot about getting civil rights plaintiffs into court. So. So I love when that happens, but not sure if the plaintiff were different, if we get a different kind of result. So we shall see.

[Leah Litman]

I'm gonna hopefully write a piece in the Supreme Court review about this case and I actually think.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, nice.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah. That the fifth Circuit's rule was just pretty indefensible. And anyways, you will see how it gets read.

[Melissa Murray]

Always makes sense to bench slap the fifth Circuit.

[Leah Litman]

Yes.

[Kate Shaw]

So.

[Leah Litman]

And now to the legal news. We are going to kick off this roundup of the legal news with a look at the lower courts.

[Melissa Murray]

And Leah is so excited about this. I just want to tell you.

[Leah Litman]

She is, you have no idea.

[Melissa Murray]

Literally vibrating right now.

[Leah Litman]

No idea.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay.

[Leah Litman]

I made many notes about how we were not adequately hyping up your first

[Melissa Murray]

piece of legal news. Yes, you did.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, there's many caps, full sentences in all caps that has dropped into the show notes. But you'll hear her in all caps shortly.

[Leah Litman]

Oh, yeah, it's also going to appear my favorite things, like it will go on.

[Melissa Murray]

All right, well, as with everything good, let's begin in New Jersey. As Lin Manuel Miranda told us once, everything is legal in New Jersey. Or is it? As we know, a federal judge determined that Alina Haba's appointment as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey was unlawful. And two weeks ago, a federal judge determined that the three person leadership team that the DOJ installed to replace Haba was also unlawful. So the question remains, who exactly is running things in The New Jersey U.S. attorney's office? That's what Judge Zaid Qurashi in the District of New Jersey wanted to know. Last week, the question surfaced in a hearing involving a defendant who is pleading guilty in a child pornography case. Indeed, for months, federal courts around the country have warned that the administration's failure to properly appoint U.S. attorneys has posed public safety risks because the prosecutors, if they are illegally appointed, then cannot bring these charges, and the cases have to be thrown out. Even in cases where the charges are pretty bad, like child pornography, will come.

[Leah Litman]

The law and order administration.

[Melissa Murray]

Yes, we're going to make it safe for everyone. Let's remember.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, I mean, it's literally the case that the combination, the heady brew of malevolence and incompetence, specifically in their designations of kind of the heads of U.S. attorney's offices, like, literally threatened to allow all kinds of people charged with very serious crimes to walk free. So anyway, let's, let's, let's move on. Leah's been patient. So the particular plea agreement at issue here, you know, the one that drew the judge's attention, offered the defendant a sentence that was significantly more lenient than the sentencing guidelines advised. We will come back to the specifics on that in a second. So Judge Karashi proceeded to question the line prosecutor, who was in court, accompanied by a Mr. Mark coin, a veteran of the office and a supervisor, but someone who had not filed formal appearance in the case. When Coyne attempted to answer on behalf of the more junior line prosecutor, the judge was not having it. He told Coyne that while Coyne could offer the line prosecutor moral support and could even pass notes, he could not directly address the court.

[Leah Litman]

That summary is not doing it justice. So the first few pages of this transcript had me levitating because at the very beginning of the hear it, the judge says, Mr. Coyne, did you file a notice of appearance? To which Coyne says, I did not. And then the judge says, are you here for moral support? Because you're not gonna speak, like, right off the bat. I loved it.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay.

[Melissa Murray]

Dua lipa. The judge then proceeded to question the very junior line prosecutor about the details of the plea agreement, which apparently had been negotiated without having all of the relevant evidence on hand. And then he also proceeded to interrogate the very junior line prosecutor about the leadership and structure in the office. And the tldr of that line of questioning basically was, who is running this shit show? When the judge specifically asked the line prosecutor If Alina Haba was continuing to run the office. The younger lawyer replied, I saw Goody Haba dancing with the president in the pale moonlight. Just kidding. Crucible Stans. That did not happen, although I wish it had. Instead, the young lawyer said nothing because Mr. Coyne interjected to disclaim Haba's involvement in the office. And at that point, the judge was absolutely over it and threatened to throw Coyne out of the courtroom. Security was called, but Coyne left of his own volition, taking the shards of his dignity with him.

[Leah Litman]

Again, summary. Not beginning to say.

[Melissa Murray]

Good, summary.

[Leah Litman]

It was fine, but you need to read it for yourself. So I'm going to offer a dramatic reading of summaries.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay? I reject that.

[Leah Litman]

Sit down, Mr. Coyne. If you speak again, I'm going to have you removed. I already told you not to speak. You didn't file a notice of appearance. You don't get to blindside the court and do whatever it is you guys want to do. So if you continue to speak, you can leave. And then he continues to speak, which you don't do when the judge tells you to stfu. And then the judge says, I'm directing the court security officers to remove Mr. Coyne, and only then does the guy leave.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, I really got the impression that for the judge, maybe this wasn't just about coin talking.

[Leah Litman]

You know, it definitely wasn't. And I think we are going to get into some other stuff going on in this case.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, so let. Let's do that. So Judge Karashi, then, after Mr. Coyne departed, continued questioning the line prosecutor about both the insane details of the plea, which it appears the federal government offered before actually looking at the horrifying evidence in the case and also pressing the line prosecutor about, you know, whether Haba was influencing the office's operations. At this point, the judge said that before he would proceed with sentencing the defendant, which he was giving the government the opportunity to ask to delay, and for reasons I actually just still don't at all understand, the government kept saying, nope, let's go forward. Nope, let's go.

[Melissa Murray]

I think it's because this is a really junior line prosecutor. Like, I don't think he's super experienced.

[Kate Shaw]

I don't know. In any event, the court said, I know you're not asking, but I am going to pause. And before proceeding with sentencing this defendant, I'm going to call the office's three ostensible leaders, Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari Fontechio, to testify under oath about the office's Operations.

[Leah Litman]

Again, wanting to make sure there is a legal leadership structure in place before imposing sentence, but again, cannot recommend reading the full transcript. Enough. We've alluded to how the judge was concerned that the prosecution had negotiated the plea agreement here in the absence of all of the evidence. So we didn't actually say what the missing evidence was. So the U.S. attorney's office for the District of New Jersey agreed to a plea deal with a specified sentencing range for the defendant before actually completing a search of the defendant's phone. And when they actually searched the defendant, who was charged under a child pornography statute, what did they find? More pornography, Child pornography, child sexual abuse material. I am sure Josh Hawley is outraged by the administration. I mean, it's just astonishing conduct.

[Kate Shaw]

And the judge makes clear this is just like. Like young children, like, absolutely horrifying. He doesn't get into details, but just is so appalled that the US Attorney's office seems to be taking as lenient a posture as it is to this kind of context.

[Melissa Murray]

Some more context is in order here. It's my understanding that Judge Karashi, prior to taking the bench, had been a prosecutor in this office. So he knows this office really well. He knows the procedures. And I think he's asking about the leadership structure because something has gone. Gone terribly wrong. If this kind of plea agreement is being negotiated in the absence of a consideration of the really horrifying evidence here, and this triumvirate is signing off on it, and it's just like a shit show. And he basically says that. And at the conclusion of this incredibly fraught hearing, Judge Karashi advised the embattled young prosecutor to go back to the office and warn his colleagues that, quote, quote, you have lost the confidence and trust of this court. You have lost the confidence and the trust of the New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public.

[Kate Shaw]

Boom. I just want to underscore the Leah's earlier urging, like, just maybe sit down and read this transcript in its entirety. We have. We have given you, I think, a pretty good account, but it's also worth just reading for yourself. The Times has it on its website. We'll put in the show notes.

[Leah Litman]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by ZBiotics. This year, I'm committed to reclaiming my mornings. Seriously, I'm old, and mornings are also my most productive time, whether for exercise or for work. So I don't want to give up any mornings. And a night of fun shouldn't cost me an entire day of productivity. I don't want to give up my nights of fun either. So my shift is planning a balanced night out to ensure a high quality morning after. I rely on ZBiotics pre alcohol to support that goal and keep my social life and Wellness goals aligned. ZBiotics Pre alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have pre alcohol before drinks, I notice a difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on getting up to work out and get some work done while my mind is fresh. I was on the fence, but then I drank my Zebiotic Pre Alcohol before the Pod Save show here in Ann Arbor and at the Crooked Con Celebrations. And that sold me. And I've only been further convinced when I forgot to drink my zebiotics before a night out. Let's be real. Usually a Friday night out means a Saturday morning spent canceling my workout class, but since I started incorporating pre alcohol, my glass of wine doesn't disrupt my morning flow. Remember to head to zbiotics.com strict and use the code STRICT at checkout for 15% off. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by bookshop.org where you shop for Books Matters. When you purchase from bookshop.org, you're supporting more than 2,500 local independent bookstores across the country. Independent bookstores do more than sell books they take care of and pour back into their communities, creating safe spaces that foster culture, curiosity and a love of reading. Whether you're searching for an incisive history that helps you make sense of this moment, a novel that sweeps you away, or the perfect gift for a loved one, bookshop.org has you covered. As you all know, often on Our favorite things are recent books we read. I recently did the Housemaid series and the Caribbean Heiress in Paris series and loved both. I've also downloaded a bunch of spy books that I'm super excited to read. I loved the book Family of Spies and I want more of the that Melody has also told me I need to read Cat Sebastian's latest. I also love independent bookstores.

[Melissa Murray]

Seriously.

[Leah Litman]

I have my go to's in just about every city. If I'm in Minneapolis, I go to Wild Rumpus here in Ann arbor. There's literati, D.C. politics and prose, L.A. ripped bodice. I could go on. Wherever you go, there's an independent bookstore that has all of the fun you are waiting for. So use code STRICT26.6 to get 10% off your next order at bookshop.org.

[Kate Shaw]

Let's shift gears to lower court rulings, actual rulings, right? Not just, you know, this kind of dressing down at a status hearing, but rulings against the administration. So listeners, cast your memory back to that time when the Trump administration tried to dismantle the Voice of America, the venerable, long standing public radio outlet that the government established during World War II to counter propaganda in Nazi occupied regions around the world. So that's the origin. During the Cold War, the agency expands to provide news to countries that lacked a free press. In many ways, the Voice of America served as a model of what journalism could look like in a pluralistic democracy, incorporating dissenting views and critiques of the government, and also, right to be fair, trying to sew pro American goodwill around the world. But this was at a time when America was actually, actually pretty decent, at least in comparative terms. Obviously, things look pretty different today. Anyway. It does feel as though these days we, America, these United States could use a voa, reminding us of what, you know, the media in a pluralistic democracy could look like.

[Leah Litman]

We're getting ahead of ourselves. So the administration sought to dismantle the Voice of America because it thought that dissenting views were too woke. Or maybe, you know, anti Nazis are too woke, but jokes on them. About a month ago, Judge Lambert birth in the U.S. district Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Kari Lake, the Trump appointee who was running Voice of America, had unlawfully assumed authority over the agency and that her actions since joining as senior advisor to the agency were invalid. What is it with these guys and illegal appointments? Unclear. But last Tuesday, Lamberth weighed in again, ruling that Lake had violated the law on additional grounds. The court concluded that Lake had failed to take into account Congress's intent in setting aside money for the agency and the network or to consider the implications of effectively shutting it down.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm here for it. Sounds great. Again, I'm sure Kari Lake was like, what is Congress again? Because they basically rolled over for this one. I'm glad Judge Lamberth was here to assert Congress's prerogatives. Also in the District of Columbia, Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court is back on his hustle, basically telling Judge Karashi to hold my beer, playboy. This time, Judge Boasberg issued a rule ruling quashing the government's efforts to subpoena members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. As Boasberg explained in his ruling, there was, quote, a mountain of evidence suggesting that, quote, the government served these subpoenas on the board to pressure its chair, that is Jerome Powell, into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. And that's kind of basically what everyone's been thinking. I'm glad he just said it. Among the mountain of evidence that Judge Boasberg cited were the President's true truth social posts, including this banger. Quote, Jerome, too late. Powell has done it again. He is too late and actually too angry, too stupid, and too political to have the job of Fed Chair. Put another way, too late is a total loser, and our country is paying the price. Thank you for your attention to that.

[Kate Shaw]

I feel like his nickname game has really declined. Gosh, there's no.

[Melissa Murray]

A little shifty. Nothing Will. No. Yeah, Shifty Shift was pretty good, I think. A little on the nose.

[Leah Litman]

Little Marco Rubio.

[Kate Shaw]

Little Marcos. Yeah, too late, pal. Anyway, okay, but back to Boberg. His ruling notes that the President and his deputies have made at least 100 statements attacking Powell and trying to pressure him into lowering interest rates. So while there is, on the one hand, ample evidence to support the view that this investigation is a personal attack aimed at getting Powell to dance to the President's tune, on the other hand, federal prosecutors produced, according to Boseberg, essentially zero evidence to suspect that Chair Powell had committed a crime. So, indeed, the administration's claims were, quote, according to Boseberg, so thin and unsubstantiated that the court can only conclude that they are protectual. Correct the point? Yes. Boasberg wrote that the investigation into Powell was consistent with what he termed a pattern of conduct by the DOJ against the President's perceived adversaries. Refreshing to just see it all laid out. In other news, which we're sure is totally unrelated, Chief Judge Boasberg announced a new policy in the District concerning indictments, specifically, a grand jury's decision not to indict. So Chief Judge Boasberg ordered the administration to notify the courts when a grand jury rejects the administration's attempts to secure a grand jury indictment. This, of course, follows a grand jury issuing a no bill in response to the administration's efforts to charge six members of Congress for making social media videos advising Military officers that they are not obliged to carry out illegal orders. This policy that Boseberg announced also requires the government to disclose when a prosecutor decides to drop a case.

[Leah Litman]

The administration had some thoughts and feelings about Judge Boasberg's ruling. So in one response, a box of Franzia, I mean, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro called Boseberg's ruling on Powell, quote, wrong and without legal authority and claimed it was, quote, untethered to the law. Law. She also had this to say from a presser.

[Melissa Murray]

Oh, cut it out. Do you know how many convictions we've got? Cut it out. You're in one lane. We have cleaned up this city. Yeah. Historic, really. I'll tell you what's historic. What's historic is that I prosecute everything other than 10% of the cases where the United States Attorney before me didn't prosecute 67% of the cases. That's what's historical. Historic. I'm willing to take a not guilty. I'm willing to take a no true bill, because I'll take all the crimes and put them in. Thank you.

[Leah Litman]

I don't even know what she's saying.

[Kate Shaw]

It's just nuts.

[Melissa Murray]

Anyway, the President also had a response. He posted on Truth Social a lengthy statement which we are going to exert for you. You may thank us in the comments. One truth begins as follows. Quote, the courts treat Republicans and me so unfairly, always seeming to protect those who should not be protected. At this point, the ladies of strict scrutiny stare in the immunity opinion. What, sir? Anyway, the Post then continues complaining about the terrible Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Too Late Powell and the horrible job he does. And the, quote, wacky, nasty, crooked, and totally out of control Judge Boasberg, who, according to the President, quote, suffers from the highest level of Trump derangement syndrome.

[Leah Litman]

I didn't realize it had levels. It's like stage one, stage two, or what?

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, of course it has red.

[Kate Shaw]

Yellow.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay. The truths end somehow with a rant about, quote, prosecutor deranged Jack Smith and the unfortunate and unwarrant warranted tariff decision. Like, how did Jack Smith get. He's like, why am I catching strays? I know.

[Leah Litman]

And in a post about how the courts treat Republicans unfairly. Right. It's just too, too much. But that's not all. The President obviously had more to say about tariffs. And so in an extra long truth.

[Melissa Murray]

That was not an extra long truth. That was a huge.

[Leah Litman]

This one was even longer. Yeah. This one began.

[Kate Shaw]

I did not even read the whole thing. That's how long it was, I lost steam.

[Leah Litman]

Okay. I did you all a solid. And I did. And this one began, quote, the decision that mattered most to me was tariffs. Once again, we are staring. In the immunity opinion, the president insisted that, quote, the court pointed out that I had the absolute right to charge tariffs in another form. Fact check. Not true. The president did say he wanted to, quote, thank Justices Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh for their wisdom and courage because other Republicans, quote, openly disrespect the presidents who nominate them to the highest position of the land, end quote. Then maintain that the tariffs decision ransacked the country. And then, in a brief, shining moment of clarity, the president added, quote, the Supreme Court has become little more than a weaponized and unjust political organization. And, quote, the sad thing is they will only get worse. They are hurting our country and will continue to do so. So thank you for your attention to this matter. Indeed, sir. We are on it.

[Melissa Murray]

We. We've said this for a while.

[Leah Litman]

I know, exactly. Welcome.

[Melissa Murray]

Welcome to the pod.

[Leah Litman]

Revelation on the gospel.

[Melissa Murray]

Welcome to the pod, Mr. President.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Oh, my God. And so when the President of the United States basically gets up and shit talks your whole institution in a truth post, what do you do if you're one? John G. Roberts. Well, kind of shrug.

[Leah Litman]

Right, exactly. Shrug, emoji.

[Melissa Murray]

Anyway, the chief justice could barely muster up a response at a forum last week. He had this to say, quote, judges around the country work very hard to get it right, and if they don't, their opinions are subject to criticism. But personally directed hostility is dangerous and it's gotta stop.

[Leah Litman]

What a true hero of our times. The brave institutionalist who couldn't even mention Donald Trump's name or Chief Judge Bogsberg's to defend him.

[Melissa Murray]

Hear me out. Is he talking about the president, or is he talking about talking about us?

[Leah Litman]

Well, this is the thing is, like, the generalized language basically preserves his ability to both sides. This and suggests that critics of the court are doing the exact same thing as Donald Trump instigated violence against these judges who are ruling against him. You know, it did make me. No.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I'll just like, I agree with everything. I'm just like, sort of thinking about the terms. I don't know that we are personally directing our hostility. We're mad at the decisions. I think we're pretty. We talk about it. There are some personal barbs. They're really more adjacent and more about intellect.

[Leah Litman]

Right, right. Like Brett Kavanaugh's intellect.

[Melissa Murray]

I knew you were gonna say his name, but you know.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly. I'M willing to say names. The chief justice is not. But, you know, sir, it's not even June, and I promise you it's only gonna go up from here. So keep listening. Keep listening.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay.

[Kate Shaw]

So Robert's response was pretty milquetoast disappointing, but there actually were last week some kind of real responses from federal judges. And we wanted to kind of lift those up at as, you know, sort of a counterpoint to Robert's response. So last Thursday, a group of federal judges publicly denounced the rise in threats against them and their colleagues, including hateful messages aimed at a judge who ruled against part of President Trump's immigration agenda. So this event actually featured five judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. This was a virtual event. I think this is sort of part of the new organization that Judge Esther Salas has been really kind of instrumental in getting off the ground. So these judges recounted receiving disturbing emails wishing them dead. Mysterious pizza deliveries, we've talked about that before. Those arrive at private homes. And the judges essentially said that these are the reasons we cannot remain silent. And so there was a lot of additional detail. I just wanted to highlight some comments made by Judge ana Reyes in D.C. so she said that she had received messages that said, quote, quote, I hope you lose your life by lunchtime, you worthless. This is in an email directed to Judge Reyes. She was, you know, a Biden appointee. She's openly gay. She has been targeted in some of the vitriolic kind of messages for being gay. She's also Uruguayan born. And that too has come up in some of the vitriol directed at her. She said that some of the, quote, most painful threats came from individuals who said, quote, you're being un American, you're being undemocratic, you're an immigrant, you should go back to your country. So I just appreciated the sort of candor and detail that these judges brought and also the degree of alarm that they broadcast. The sort of threats to judges are real and terrifying and it's really important to talk about them.

[Melissa Murray]

In other news of things that are terrible and need to stop, we have another installment of our recurring segment, Water is wet and the 5th Circuit is terrible. On Thursday, the 5th Circuit issued another ruling in the ongoing saga that is known as 4 Ford vs. McKesson listeners. We actually began covering this case way back in the day when we were but a baby podcast. And here's the gist of it. In 2016, Deray Mckesson, who is a well known activist and a host of Pod Save the People, joined hundreds of others in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to protest the police killing of Alton Sterling. During the protest, John Ford, then an officer with the Baton Rouge Police Department, was hit with an object that was thrown by a third party, not McKesson. Ford, however, sued McKesson, not the third party who threw the object, and he sued him on the theory that McKesson, quote, unquote, should have known that the protest would become violent as other similar riots had become violent. That's his language. Now, to be clear, Ford did not claim that McKesson authorized the throwing of the object. And indeed, to this day, no one knows who threw the object that hit Ford. But he nonetheless continued to press this suit against Derae McKesson.

[Kate Shaw]

It's just so insane. So the case has had a long and torture history, as Melissa mentioned, going through the District Court where McKesson initially prevailed to the Fifth Circuit, where he did not to the supreme court and the Louisiana Supreme Court. Anyway, Last Thursday, the 5th Circuit decided to write yet another chapter in this story, ruling that the lower court erred in finding that McKesson cannot be held liable for the unlawful conduct of other protesters. So if this seems bananas, it feels that way to us. But this decision does open the door for a trial to proceed to determine McKesson's potential liability for actions, again, committed by individuals that he had nothing to do with. All he did was organize a protest.

[Leah Litman]

And as summarized that way, it should be immediately clear why this decision is a huge threat to the first amendment. The idea that participating in or organizing a protest somehow makes you liable for any illegal conduct that happens at the protest, makes protesting illegal. And it's inconsistent with the supreme court's earlier decision at NAACP versus Claiborne harbor, which we won't get into. But, you know, one judge of the 5th Circuit seemed just absolutely breathless at the prospect of a jury trial and this case moving Forward against Derae McKesson. Writing for the to judge majority, Judge Edith Jones seemed to have moved on from one Professor Steve Vladek, as public enemy number one to DeRay Mckesson. As she wrote, quote, eight years of pre trial litigation are enough. It is time for Officer Ford to have a jury assess his claim that Deray McKesson's negligence in leading a violent protest caused him to suffer injuries at the hands of rioters.

[Melissa Murray]

Can we just like, just a point here, like note, she can't even call him Mr. McKesson, even though she's calling Ford, Officer Ford. The fact that she's calling protesters rioters, I mean, it's just like, it's all right there.

[Leah Litman]

Yes. You know, she continued, quote, given McKesson's television interview, refusing to condemn the use of violence, it is unsurprising that he did nothing to discourage protesters from assaulting police officers, looting a store, and engaging in other lawless acts. End quote. Again, not your duty to train absolutely everyone who appears at a protest with you.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, you know, maybe McKesson could have done something. Maybe he could have issued a statement along these lines.

[Erin Ryan]

We can't play into the hands of these people.

[Melissa Murray]

We have to have peace.

[Erin Ryan]

So go home.

[Melissa Murray]

We love you.

[Erin Ryan]

You're very special.

[Melissa Murray]

You've seen what happens.

[Erin Ryan]

You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace.

[Melissa Murray]

That kind of thing always seems to appease these violent protesters. And if it doesn't work, if you're the president, you can always pardon them. So there's that.

[Leah Litman]

But who's gonna tell Judge Jones that she's out of the running for the lady spot on the Supreme Court?

[Melissa Murray]

This audition was all in vain, girl. All in vain.

[Kate Shaw]

Correct. Okay. Don't worry, though. There is other bad news to report. First, we wanted to mention that a Georgia woman named Alexia Moore has been charged with murder for taking abortion pills. We have seen, of course, the criminalization of the acquisition and provision of abortion pills, but the actual charging of murder, you know, breaks entirely new and horrifying ground. If the state prosecutors do decide to move forward with this charge, this, again, would be one of the first instances of actual charges against an individual for terminating a pregnancy in Georgia. In the seven years it's been since Georgia passed a law banning most abortions. And obviously, in the wake of the Court's Dobbs decision, removing constitutional protections.

[Melissa Murray]

Just to note, any of these homicide statutes, whether it's murder or manslaughter, all are predicated on the idea that a person has been killed. So this is another push on this fetal personhood thing, and we need to call it out for what it is.

[Kate Shaw]

Absolutely. And another development in very similar vein, a Kentucky student was also indicted last week in this case for first degree manslaughter, allegedly because police said they found an, quote, infant, I think, in her closet. The reporting is sort of still developing here, but it, at least according to Jessica Valenti's Abortion Every Day newsletter, it seems like there is every possibility that that kind of reference to an infant in the charging material could refer to a fetus. And so this, too, like the new Georgia charge, kind of breaks really disturbing and dystopic new ground

[Leah Litman]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by fatty 15. My partner and I were chatting about how one of my main expenditures these days is health and wellness products. It just takes a little bit more for me to feel healthy these days and feeling healthy is so important. Seriously, everything goes wrong when I'm not feeling well and I'm trying to invest not just in short term health and wellness options, but also long term ones like a science backed healthy aging product. So I'm excited to share with you all C15 from fatty 15, the first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered in more than 90 years. It's an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long term health and wellness. And you guessed it, healthy aging. Based on over 100 studies, we now know that C15 strengthens our cells and is a foundational healthy aging nutrient Nutrient which helps to slow aging at the cellular level. In fact, when our cells don't have enough C15, they can become fragile and age faster. And when our cells age, our bodies age too. Fatty 15 is a science backed, award winning, patented 100% pure C15 supplement. It's vegan friendly, free of flavors, allergens or preservatives. Fatty 15 has three times more cellular benefits than EPA and omega 3. By replenishing ourselves with a crucial C15 nutrient, fatty 15 effectively repairs cells, reverses aging at the cellular level and restores our long term health and wellness. I've incorporated fatty 15 into my morning routine so I feel great about my plans short and long term as I start the day. And I love taking my fatty 15 out of the very fun reusable glass bamboo jar and refills are shipped right to your door. Fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long term health and wellness Wellness especially as you age. You can get an additional 15% off their 90 day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.comstrict and using code strict at checkout.

[Melissa Murray]

Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted

[Leah Litman]

if you said yes to both?

[Melissa Murray]

Welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco and we're the

[Leah Litman]

hosts of Hysteria, the podcast for women.

[Melissa Murray]

Women who care about democracy, culture and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms and everywhere. The stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero handholding. Listen to Hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and Watch full episodes on YouTube.

[Kate Shaw]

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters.

[Melissa Murray]

But when it's for a hospital system,

[Kate Shaw]

they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no

[Melissa Murray]

room for shipping delays.

[Kate Shaw]

That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery.

[Melissa Murray]

So you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop

[Kate Shaw]

by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Melissa Murray]

Let's shift gears a little bit. Bit more familiar bad news, things we've talked about before. So we're going to follow up, listeners, on matters that we have covered in earlier episodes. As you know, we recently covered the new MAGA Make America grift again, a deep dive into the Trump administration's stunning corruption business. Well, you know what they say, folks, as strict scrutiny goes, so goes the nation. Or at least the New York Times.

[Leah Litman]

If only, right?

[Melissa Murray]

It's just the New York Times, but the New York Times ran a profile of Secretary of Homeland Security nominee Mark Wayne. No spaces. Mullins stock dealings. And I'll just say, what Mullen lacks in spaces, he makes up for in stock trades. This guy, according to the Times, is one of the biggest stock traders in Congress.

[Leah Litman]

Congress. So the piece opens with an anecdote describing how Mullen, a few days after Christmas 2025, decided to buy a shit ton of shares in Chevron, the only major American company producing oil in Venezuela.

[Melissa Murray]

Weird.

[Leah Litman]

And then weirdly so, so strange. Five days later, the President of the United States invaded Venezuela and demanded that the country give us oil companies better terms. And then Chevron's stock price has jumped. What a grift. Or gift. I mean, for Mr. Mullen, this is a perfect example of the deal do as we described last episode.

[Kate Shaw]

I'm glad that's sticking around.

[Leah Litman]

Oh, yeah, sticking.

[Melissa Murray]

Personal hostility has no place on this podcast. General hostility, on the other hand.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

Absolutely. So, listeners, another sort of important development in the Mark Wayne Mullen story. So you may remember that in our west coast live shows, we noted that Mullen would be headed to a hearing before.

[Melissa Murray]

Call him by his name.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, Mark Wayne. No spaces. Mullen no more.

[Melissa Murray]

No spaces.

[Kate Shaw]

And time and a place is. Yes, that's him. That's the guy.

[Leah Litman]

So anyway, no spaces, but a time and a place.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, work, keep working, keep working. You're almost.

[Kate Shaw]

There's something. There's something to it. Anyway, stay tuned. Anyway, so we mentioned that he would be heading to a hearing in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, chaired by one Senator Rand Paul, who is the guy Mullen called a, quote, snake and said deserved the ass kicking that he had received from a neighbor. Well, listeners said hearing took place last week and it did not disappoint. Let's first remind you of Mullen's general vibe, sir.

[Melissa Murray]

This is a time, this is a

[Kate Shaw]

place you want to run your mouth. We can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.

[Melissa Murray]

And in this corner we have neighborly Rand Paul. And in that corner we have Mark Wayne. No spaces, Mullen. People, let's get ready to rumble. Yeah, I've been waiting all day to do that.

[Kate Shaw]

All day.

[Melissa Murray]

Roll the tape, Melody.

[Erin Ryan]

Pain was such that I could only sit up in bed by tying a rope to the foot of the bed and pulling myself up. But even then, the pain was that of a thousand knives. Over the year of recovery, I began to cough up blood. I underwent removal of part of my lung. Complications led to an infection in the space between my lung and chest wall. I spent a week in the hospital having the infection lavaged every six hours through a chest tube. You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted. I was shocked that you would justify and celebrate this violent assault that caused me so much pain and my family so much pain. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force. You went on to brag that you'd already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault. Well, that's a lie. You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record. You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified. So today you'll have your chance.

[Leah Litman]

So the hearing also gave us this week's Manosphere clip, which is the response from Mr. Mark Wayne. No space, A Time and a place.

[Erin Ryan]

In the days after the fight, you did many interviews in which you justified the violence as historically justified by precedents such as caning and dueling. Is it today your opinion that the caning of Charles Sumner was not only justified, but argues still for resolving our political differences with violence?

[Kate Shaw]

What I was simply pointing out is

[Melissa Murray]

some of the rules that still apply to this body.

[Kate Shaw]

For instance, dueling with two consenting adults is still there.

[Erin Ryan]

I was pointing out what is illegal for 170 years. There's no precedent for legal dueling I

[Leah Litman]

have to say, I had no idea Senator Paul had been injured so badly in the assault.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, you know. You know what else is also surprising to me? At one point during the hearing, Rand Paul took Markway no Spaces Mullen to task because Mullen apparently did not vote to rescind funding for certain social welfare programs. And I almost kind of felt like maybe I should be on Mark Wayne Mullen's side.

[Leah Litman]

Right, I know, I know. That was a tough moment.

[Melissa Murray]

It was a tough moment.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. Because I was with Paul, obviously, for that, for the portion of taking Mullen to task. And I, too, Leah, I had not realized, like, this was. It was a very serious assault. Long recovery, like, huge, huge deal.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, he had part of his lump removed.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Multiple broken ribs. Etc, anyway, so he was understandably incensed at Mullins sort of making light of slash, actually seeming to support the attack on him. But then.

[Melissa Murray]

But he was also really mad at him.

[Kate Shaw]

Burned a lot of the goodwill. Right when he was like, oh, yeah,

[Melissa Murray]

I'm really a libertarian. No social programs for you. Yeah, yeah. Listeners, if you like us, worry that our politics have become too divisive. Divisive. Don't worry. Mark Wayne no Spaces Mullen is here to help. We can all take a lesson from this man, because if you were watching the hearing, you might have noticed a familiar face sitting behind the nominee. No, I'm not referring to Mrs. No Spaces Mullen, although she was there. I'm referring to none other than Mr. Sean O', Brien, the head of the Teamsters and the individual who once challenged Challenge Senator no Spaces, to name a time and a place. Cowboy. It seems, listeners, the boys are no longer fighting. Let's take a listen.

[Kate Shaw]

Sean is someone that has become a close friend. We talk all the time.

[Melissa Murray]

I've been on his podcast. We've talked through this. That's how you handle your differences.

[Kate Shaw]

Not like this, Chairman.

[Melissa Murray]

The kids call this podcast diplomacy. And I think it's pretty fucking beautiful. I love it. I love it.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah, it brings people together.

[Melissa Murray]

They're bid on each other's podcasts.

[Leah Litman]

This seems like a dildo. And speaking of dildos, or at least attempted dildos, we have some news about community. Peen slash Sex Jet. Sex pest. Corey Lewandowski.

[Melissa Murray]

Blanket Bandit.

[Erin Ryan]

Right.

[Leah Litman]

Many, many nicknames. NBC News reported about alleged negotiations between the Geo Group, a private prison conglomerate, and one Corey Lewandowski, who was alleged, allegedly in charge of DHS for some uncertain period of time, or at least effectively running it, in charge of some parts of it. Technically, he was a, quote, special government employee. Wink, wink. I, for one, very special. I would really like to get a federal judge to do some questioning about who the F is running or was running that shebang.

[Melissa Murray]

Shebang being.

[Leah Litman]

I use that word. Advisable. What's that word? Yeah, you did.

[Melissa Murray]

You did so.

[Kate Shaw]

But some, some, Some federal judge picks this up. That would be great. NBC maintains that Lewandowski told the GeoGroup founder that he wanted to be paid in exchange for protecting and expanding GeoGroup's contracts with DHS, which has obviously been very private prison forward. According to NBC, when Gio offered to put Lewandowski on retainer, Lewandowski said no, he wanted compensation based on contracts secured with Dharma.

[Leah Litman]

Only quid pro quo. Only quid pro quo.

[Kate Shaw]

Yep. And then reportedly, Geo Group's federal contracts shrank and GEO thinks it is because they did not agree to submit to Lewandowski's proposed dildo. I mean, this is a deeply reported story. It is deeply disturbing. It describes rank, quid pro quo, pay to play, corruption, where even the private prison company wasn't like, down to go quite as quid pro quo as Lewandowski seemed to be.

[Melissa Murray]

The private prisons.

[Leah Litman]

I know.

[Kate Shaw]

No, this is a bit too much, even for us.

[Leah Litman]

I mean, too much for Mississippi, too much for private prisons. Right. The story of the Trump administration. Absolutely.

[Kate Shaw]

That is perfect distillation. Anyway. It requires not just a dressing down by a federal judge, but congressional hearings. You know, maybe all of the above. But, like, this is a really important story that it's, you know, we cannot just let go, despite the kind of whirlwind that is this news cycle.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

All right. That was very much not one of our favorite things, but let's end by mentioning some. I can go first.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

I'm going to mention a couple things I read in the last week. Oh, I did finish the Hail Mary project, which is. I think the movie's coming out this weekend. It's really fun.

[Leah Litman]

I've downloaded it on my Kindle. I'm going to read it.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, it's really a fun. It's a fun. It's. I mean, you know, it's that there are genres kind of moves that I don't love, but I think it's like pretty great storytelling and that's like kind of fun science. Anyway, people will feel differently about it. I really enjoyed it. Okay. And more seriously, I finally read Zach Beachamp's how to Stop a Dictator, a long piece that he wrote for Vox maybe a couple of weeks ago, and it just, It's a very, very good deep dive on some of the literature on not just how to diagnose, but how to stop Democratic backsliding. And it's like there's much less on the how to stop than how to see or kind of diagnose sort of side of the ledger. But a very, very good piece I highly recommend and I also want to recommend an episode from a week or so ago of the Daily the Case of Christy Metcalfe. Metcalf is like an amazing character and just the complete destruction of the enforcement of civil rights in our federal government is devastatingly told by both Christy and Sarah Koenig, who is of course the host of Serial now, part of the New York Times. And it is just an enraging, enraging 30 minutes of podcasting. Highly recommend it.

[Leah Litman]

So my favorite things, I already previewed one of them, which is the transcript in the New Jersey case. So we will provide a link in the show notes. This is very easy and accessible for you to read and you should read it. Second is Hilary Duff Luck or Something album, so you all probably remember or not, whatever. I recommended Mature, which is the lead single off of that album. When the rest of it was released, I, you know, I wasn't sure. And now it all hits like I love Weather for Tennis, I love Adult Size Medium. I like the Roommates.

[Kate Shaw]

One I like single and it didn't

[Leah Litman]

initially click for me. I like it, but now it really does. I like the Trippin Song. There's just one on there that I'm like not totally into, but anyways totally got into that album. And third, and finally, my favorite things are the T shirts that I designed for one Melissa Murray's forthcoming book the United States A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader. So we are running a giveaway now through Sunday the 29th. That's March 29th. If you pre order a copy of Melissa's book the U.S. a Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader, you can enter to win the merch that I made. So we will provide a link to that giveaway in the show notes. It will also be posted on our socials on bluesky and Instagram. So again, pre order the book Enter to win some Sick Merch. It's designed by me and approved by Melissa, which means it is high order stuff.

[Kate Shaw]

Dope like fire, like many fire emojis. It just occurred to me, Melissa, that the for the Modern Reader has almost like a Bridgerton kind of feel to it.

[Leah Litman]

I totally hadn't.

[Kate Shaw]

I hadn't quite apprec Appreciated like it has Gentle reader.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, it's sort of which is like very on brand. I love that.

[Melissa Murray]

Call me Lady Whistledown bitches.

[Kate Shaw]

If you want us to.

[Leah Litman]

We will.

[Melissa Murray]

Leah doing this merch giveaway for me, which again is entirely of her creation. I would never have been able to do this independently is one of my favorite things this week. So thank you, Leah. Kate,

[Kate Shaw]

I'm gonna have to come up with some other way. My comparative advantage is not and T shirt design, as I think we all know. I'll figure out other ways to show my love.

[Melissa Murray]

Girl, I'll be here. It's okay.

[Kate Shaw]

I have already pre ordered multiple copies.

[Melissa Murray]

Thank you.

[Kate Shaw]

That's, you know, my small part.

[Melissa Murray]

But also a favorite thing like order for your friends, for everyone. So my favorite things this week. 1. I'm so grateful to the strictee who listened to last week's show and sent to me a link to the Spotify Love Story playlist with all of the songs from Love Story. Thank you so much. That is one of my favorite things this week. This week I also started watching paradise featuring Sterling K. Brown. I will just say this is kind. This is taking me back because nobody knows this, but back in the day when I was a law student, Sterling K. Brown used to hang out with us because he was friends with a guy I went to law school with. They knew each other other from college. Sometimes we'd have parties and he'd be there and I just remember he was trying to make it as an actor in New York and a bunch of us were kind of like, dude, like, maybe you should just go to law school. Like get a job. Exactly. In addition to paradise, which again is dystopic and kind of amazing, I'm also enjoying Aziza Ahmed's Risk and Resistance, How Feminists Transformed Law, Law and the Science of aids, which just came out from Cambridge University Press. And she has been working on this book for a long time. It's so fantastic and deeply, deeply researched. Just absolutely a plus. That's great. All right, we have some housekeeping to get to before we leave. We.

[Kate Shaw]

We do. And first item involves merch. So we are, as you know, gearing up for the midterms, literally with merchandise from the crooked store that does the yelling for you. You can yell, but you can have your yelling amplified. Or if you don't want to yell, just have it done entirely by the merch. So you can grab a due process freak T shirt and get ready to fight for the basic rights that Trump is bent on destroying and you know, might be due process, might be something else that gets you out of bed, in and into a phone bank shift. But whatever it is, the Crooked Store has merchandise to help you spread the message. So peruse the entire [e-mail] store. You can shop there.

[Leah Litman]

Second piece of housekeeping is also about gearing up for the midterms because we are less than nine months away from the midterms and we have a lot of work that you can do right now. November will decide control of Congress and if Trump maintains his Republican trifecta. And our friends at Vote Save America are here to help. They'll give you tips on how, when and where to donate to make sure your money goes the furthest, how to confidently talk to the people in your life about midterms and key issues and opportunities to take action with your community in real life. Go to votesave america.com and sign up to be part of the work this year. Then send the sign up link to five friends. This was paid for by Vote Save America. Learn more@votesave America.com this ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.

[Melissa Murray]

Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Littman, me me, Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our producer, Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our music is by Eddie Cooper and we get production support from Katie Long and Adrienne Hill. Matt de Groat is our head of production and we're really grateful for our video team, Ben Hethcote and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. And if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Straight Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube at strict scrutiny Podcast so you never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps. Quick question Are you politically engaged and

[Leah Litman]

spiritually exhausted if you said yes to both?

[Melissa Murray]

Welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco and we're the

[Leah Litman]

hosts of Hysteria, the podcast for women

[Melissa Murray]

who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill. In classrooms and everywhere. The stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero hate handholding. Listen to Hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube.

[Kate Shaw]

If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place. From H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Melissa Murray]

This plant shop a perfectly balanced ecosystem thanks to genius from Global Payments. Tracked inventory, seamless payments and reviews in one place.

[Leah Litman]

Big league reliability for your business.

[Melissa Murray]

That's genius.