Podcast Summary: Strict Scrutiny – "Can Elon Musk Buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race? (With Jon Lovett)"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Strict Scrutiny
• Host/Author: Crooked Media
• Description: Strict Scrutiny delves into the United States Supreme Court and the surrounding legal culture, offering in-depth, accessible, and irreverent analysis. Hosted by constitutional law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray, the podcast breaks down the latest Supreme Court headlines and significant legal questions, emphasizing their impact on daily life.
• Episode: Can Elon Musk Buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race? (With Jon Lovett)
• Release Date: March 31, 2025

Introduction

The episode begins with Melissa Murray delivering a brief advertisement for Smalls cat food, quickly transitioning into the main content after a humorous exchange with guest Jon Lovett.

[02:45] Melissa Murray:
"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 Melissa Murray."

[02:53] Leah Lipman:
"And I'm Leah Lipman. As that intro suggests, Kate is out this week, but don't worry, she'll be back. And we thought, in the absence of our little optimist, we should try to make sure we had some positivity in this episode."

Interview with Jon Lovett: Dispatches from Wisconsin

Jon Lovett, known for his JD Vance and Sam Alito impersonations, joins the hosts to discuss his experience campaigning in Wisconsin for the crucial Supreme Court race.

[03:27] Jon Lovett:
"You know what's funny about that? I was playing characters."

The conversation touches on the challenges of political campaigning, the effectiveness of traditional canvassing versus modern methods like phone banking and text messaging, and the significant influence of Elon Musk's financial contributions to the race.

[05:19] Jon Lovett:
"I knocked on a bunch of doors myself. And first of all, it was so great to just see people and be among people."

Elon Musk's Influence on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

The discussion delves into Elon Musk's involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, highlighting his substantial financial contributions and strategic maneuvers to influence voter behavior.

[06:40] Melissa Murray:
"Elon Musk has been weirdly, weirdly focused on this Wisconsin Supreme Court race. He has used a similar tactic in Wisconsin as that which he used when he was campaigning for Donald Trump in 2024."

Musk's super PAC offers cash to voters opposing activist judges, a move that potentially violates campaign finance laws and allows for precise voter targeting. Additionally, Musk's deleted tweet offering checks for event attendees underscores his aggressive campaign strategies.

[07:55] Jon Lovett:
"Elon Musk has definitely made himself the main character of this Supreme Court race. It is what's on people's minds."

The hosts and Lovett emphasize the race's importance for redistricting maps in Wisconsin and its broader implications for democratic processes and the influence of billionaires in judicial elections.

[10:58] Melissa Murray:
"If they win in Wisconsin, Elon Musk will be emboldened to continue funneling money to these Republicans who don't want to stand up to the administration."

Legal Analysis: Louisiana vs Kelly and Voting Rights Act

The episode transitions to a detailed analysis of recent Supreme Court cases, focusing on Louisiana vs Kelly and its relation to the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

[21:40] Leah Lipman:
"The TLDR of this case is that Louisiana was found to have violated the Voting Rights Act. It drew only one of six states districts in which black voters could elect the candidates of their choice."

Leah connects this case to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, highlighting the ongoing concerns about racial discrimination in districting.

[22:46] Melissa Murray:
"In Robinson, several judges concluded that Louisiana violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing congressional districting maps with only a single black majority district when there could have been two."

The hosts critique the Supreme Court's current stance, suggesting a reluctance to uphold precedent and a willingness to relitigate established decisions, potentially undermining the VRA.

[27:06] Leah Lipman:
"Two of the justices in the Allen majority who had found Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act, the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh seemed open to relitigating Allen as well."

Trump Administration's Actions and Legal Challenges

The conversation shifts to critiquing the Trump administration's handling of sensitive information and executive orders targeting law firms.

[34:16] Leah Lipman:
"The Executive Order would direct the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to change the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship in order to vote."

Melissa highlights the administration's efforts to impose restrictive measures on voting, connecting them to broader attempts to undermine democratic processes.

[42:25] Leah Lipman:
"Speaking of meritocracy and making America great again, what were the Trump administration's very meritocratic national security goblins up to last week?"

The hosts discuss significant security breaches within the administration, including the misuse of the Signal app to transmit classified information, leading to potential espionage and policy failures.

Notable Quote:
[43:07] Melissa Murray:
"Only the best people just going to say, I think I've seen better cabinets at Ikea."

Supreme Court Opinions Recap

The hosts provide summaries of several recent Supreme Court decisions, analyzing their implications for the administrative state and civil rights.

Bondi v. Vanderstock:
The Court upheld Biden administration regulations on ghost guns in a 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Gorsuch. The ruling subjects untraceable firearms to federal restrictions, countering efforts to deregulate firearm assembly.

Delegati v. United States:
A 7-2 decision affirmed that crimes committed by omission can constitute violent felonies, reinforcing mandatory minimums under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Thompson v. United States:
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the prohibition on knowingly making false statements does not criminalize misleading statements, though Justice Alito and Justice Jackson offered separate concurrences.

United States v. Miller:
The Court determined that the Bankruptcy Code's waiver of sovereign immunity applies only to specific sections, limiting state law claims under bankruptcy proceedings.

[84:16] Melissa Murray:
"In Bondi versus Vanderstock, the Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration's regulation of ghost guns... written by Justice Gorsuch."

Court Culture Notes

The hosts comment on broader judicial culture, including critiques of the Trump administration's interactions with law firms and the judiciary.

[87:05] Leah Lipman:
"Weighing in on the administration targeting law firms like Wilmer Hale and Jenner & Block, the hosts express concern over retaliatory executive orders aimed at legal professionals supporting immigration and civil rights."

They highlight ongoing legal battles, including lawsuits filed by major law firms challenging unconstitutional executive orders and the administration's attempts to sanction attorneys involved in pro bono work.

[88:26] Melissa Murray:
"The Wall Street Journal's editorial board opines that the White House's strategy of attacking judges could backfire, noting that Justices Thomas and Alito may consider retirement if they lack confidence in Trump's judicial nominations."

Closing Remarks and Optimistic Notes

Despite the heavy focus on legal battles and political maneuvers, the hosts conclude on a somewhat positive note, recommending books, music, and media that provide a respite from the turbulent legal discussions.

[90:45] Leah Lipman:
"I recommend 'After Dobbs' by David Cohen and Carol Jaffe, which explores the ongoing conservative efforts to overturn New York Times vs. Sullivan."

[93:03] Melissa Murray:
"I loved listening to last week's episode of Strict Scrutiny from an audience perspective and highly recommend checking out Yacht Rock, the documentary, and the Rexford and Sloan mystery series."

The episode wraps up with housekeeping announcements and reminders about upcoming content, encouraging listeners to engage with the podcast and support the Wisconsin Supreme Court race through volunteering or voting.

[94:31] Melissa Murray:
"Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw... Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube and your favorite podcast app."

Notable Quotes:

• Melissa Murray [06:40]:
  "Elon Musk has been weirdly, weirdly focused on this Wisconsin Supreme Court race up. He has used a similar tactic in Wisconsin... He's not just donating a ton of money to the campaign."

• Jon Lovett [07:55]:
  "...this race is really ultimately about three issues. One, whether or not you want an 1849 abortion law back in effect. Two, whether you want fair elections and just allow... three, do you think it's appropriate for a billionaire to buy a Supreme Court seat when that billionaire has business before the Wisconsin Supreme Court."

• Leah Lipman [27:22]:
  "Samuel Alito also wanted to know, what if Robinson was plainly wrong? It is not. Unless Allen is plainly wrong. Spoiler alert. It's not."

• Melissa Murray [29:37]:
  "...this really insightful discussion of the Court's temporal obsession with racism and its durability."

Conclusion:

This episode of Strict Scrutiny offers a comprehensive examination of the intersection between billionaire influence, particularly Elon Musk's involvement in judicial races, and broader implications for the Supreme Court and democratic processes. Through an engaging interview with Jon Lovett and in-depth discussions on critical legal issues, the hosts provide listeners with valuable insights into the current state of the judiciary and its future trajectory. Despite the heavy legal discourse, the episode maintains an engaging and accessible tone, ensuring that both legal professionals and general audiences can appreciate the complexities of the topics discussed.