Kate Shaw (2:47)

And I'm Kate Shaw. And here is our plan for today. We're going to start with a newsy item that will almost certainly have changed shape significantly by the time this episode reaches you. But it's really important, and we wanted to have a discussion about it regardless. And that is the administration's escalation in their efforts to evade judicial review of the president's illegal actions. So we're going to start with that. We are then going to preview the cases the court is hearing in the upcoming sitting. And as we do that, we're going to highlight how a lot of things the Trump administration is doing right now, such as dismantling dei, by which we mean, of course, desegregation at integration, as well as dismantling the federal government writ large, are also things the Supreme Court either seems poised to do, has already laid the groundwork for, or has signaled it is pretty interested in doing.

Leah Littman (3:40)

So. We're going to do this for a few reasons. One is that we still want people to know what is happening and the wild illegality of what is happening in Article 2. And second, we want to help people see how this is part of what I think is a coordinated ideological and political effort that the Supreme Court is very much a part of. Even though the court is likely to invalidate some parts of what Trump is doing, and even though they've gotten a PR boost this last week that we will talk about, they are, I think, at bottom, very much on board with a lot of the administration's politics. And then finally at the end, we're going to touch on a moment from the State of the Union address that we haven't yet had a chance to discuss and a few other small things.

Kate Shaw (4:23)

Okay, so first up, as previewed, some news and just a note, we are recording on Wednesday. It's not optimal, but sometimes our schedules require it. And as I already said, this is a very rapidly developing story. But again, even if it's going to be a little bit dated by the time it gets to you, we need to have a conversation about it. And specifically, the story is of the litigation surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to invoke the Alien Enemies act as a basis to deport people, slash, remove people.

Leah Littman (4:52)

Deportation, engage in human trafficking.

Kate Shaw (4:55)

Right. I'm not. I think the reason I'm hesitating is because deportation typically describes return to one's country of origin. And that is actually not what this Is this is expulsion of individuals to another country with which they may have no connections, certainly without anything recognizable as due process of law.

Leah Littman (5:14)

Yes. So last Friday, that is not this most recent Friday, but the Friday before that, after we recorded, the Trump administration appeared to begin the process of relying on the Alien Enemies act to launch their mass deportations, slash, you know, whatever we should be properly calling them. The Alien Enemies act is a 1798 statute that allows the summary removal of foreign nationals who are in the country without or with legal status, including legal permanent residence, and regardless of whether they have committed any crime or violated any, any law. So it's sweeping power, and here's the. But by its terms, it applies only when there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or an invasion perpetrated against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government. The law has only ever been used three times. The War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

Kate Shaw (6:15)

And on Saturday, the administration issued an executive order formally invoking this 1798 statute, the Alien Enemies Act. But it was far from clear exactly who they were saying was subject to the AEA's procedures. So the administration declared that a gang called Tren de Aragua, or tda, was part of a, quote, hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States and which poses a substantial danger to the United States. The Executive Order discusses the Maduro regime's efforts in connection to trend to destabilize democratic nations like the United States, which God was rich coming from these guys, right? What they're doing is trying to destabilize American democracy. That's the problem anyway. So the EO asserted that under the Alien Enemies act, the administration could arrest, detain and remove all, quote, Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TDA, are within the United States and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Leah Littman (7:24)

And it is not clear how the Administration will determine who is a member of tda. And in any case, you know, whether they are in fact a member of TDA would be subject to review, including in federal court. And it's not even clear to me this is a lawful use of the Alien Enemies act since TDA is not a country or foreign nation. But just on this issue of who the administration is going to say as part of tda, the early stories that have dug in even a little to how the Administration is using the Alien Enemies act are pretty horrific. The Washington Post Described how four men who grew up together in Venezuela have no criminal convictions in the United States and whose families say they have no criminal records in Venezuela or summarily expelled. The story horrifyingly describes how the men were asked to sign deportation papers and did because they thought they were going to be removed to Venezuela, you know, their country of origin, when in fact they were sent to El Salvador prisons where they are being held and forced to do labor. Their families believe they are there because they saw images of them released by El Salvador. And, you know, one of the partners of one of the men told the Washington Post, quote, my heart broke in a million pieces. My husband is not part of Tren de Aragua, and I couldn't believe they sent him there. And she described the look that she saw on his face as, quote, a face of pain and a fear.

Kate Shaw (8:56)

In addition to that Washington Post reporting, the Miami Herald describes the experience of another family member who saw her brother and told the paper, from this image, quote, he was asking for help. Help didn't come from the lips. It came from the soul. And also, quote, you know, when someone has their soul broken, I mean, this is truly horrif and grotesque. And honestly, those descriptions, I think, you know, are borne out if you actually did look at the images that resulted from these military planes removing individuals and landing in El Salvador, both like the still images of individuals deplaning in chains who had been picked up and flown to El Salvador with no legal process. I actually couldn't bring myself to watch a video that El Salvador's president Bukele circulated on social media, although I read about it, but it sounds like it. It was a totally sadistic celebration of this brutality.

Leah Littman (9:49)

Yeah. So I watched it and read these stories and looked at the images just as I was prepping for the show. And anytime I looked at the image or read some of what the families were saying, like, I just got choked up. And I was concerned that was going to happen again. Recording. I mean, just imagining a family member being shipped off to some country where they have never been been sent to a prison, essentially engaging in slave labor.

Kate Shaw (10:20)

It'S just in our names, like, at the hands of United States authorities. Like, it is so shocking.

Leah Littman (10:27)

Yes.

Kate Shaw (10:29)

So what do we know about what, if anything, the government is doing to decide who is a member of TDA and thus is going to be put on one of these planes?

Leah Littman (10:40)

One of the briefs the government filed included these outlandish statements, so it acknowledged that many of the individuals removed have no criminal records in the United States. And it says, quote, the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose. It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile. Like the lack of information indicating someone is a member of TDA or engaged in any unlawful behavior is evidence that they are a member of TDA and engaged in unlawful behavior. I, I read this, and again, I couldn't believe they were saying this. And I happened to be teaching Korematsu last week in constitutional law and so immediately wanted to pause and reflect how this kind of reason calls to mind the cruel and horrific internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II, an internment that was, by the way, carried out by an order that followed President Roosevelt invoking the Alien Enemies act to designate Japanese nationals alien enemies. And an American general justified Japanese internment during World War II with reasoning that is eerily similar to what the administration is now saying. Quote, the very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken. End quote.

Kate Shaw (12:19)

Yeah, I mean, I know we're going to talk more about John Roberts later in the episode, but like, if we think back to Trump versus Hawaii and just how incensed Roberts was that Sotomayor in dissent drew a parallel between the Muslim ban and Korematsu and then said Roberts did. Well, it's obvious anyway, but let's just make it explicit. Korematsu has no place under our law, but was, as Jamal Green has actually written about very well, like, was actually quite narrow in the way Roberts described Koremontu and what was wrong with it in ways that very clearly left open, whether intentionally or not, the possibility of circumvention. And, you know, this is not the same move in that people are being put on planes as opposed to detained in the United States. But I think you're right that there are some eerie parallels in the reasoning. And obviously the statute as to the, you know, Japanese nationals in Korematsu, not the US Citizens, but that statutory authority being asserted is exactly the same.

Leah Littman (13:11)

Yeah.

Kate Shaw (13:12)

So here we are. So early Saturday morning, and again, that's last Saturday. A week ago, a judge in the D.C. district Court, Judge Boasberg, began acting on emergency filings in this case brought by the ACLU and some other groups challenging the executive order. By the end of the day, the judge had issued a temporary restraining order blocking the federal government from relying on the executive order we just read from to deport anyone and actually ordering the United States government to turn around the planes that had begun to deport people. So, you know, huge kudos to the organizations, which include both the ACLU and also Democracy Forward, that really scrambled to get these filings in front of the judge and also to the judge for recognizing the urgency of challenging this move essentially before the administration had invoked or relied on it.

Leah Littman (14:02)

Yeah. And just a side note, you know, Fox News has been displaying a picture of Judge Boasberg while everyone on the show criticizes him. And I had thought Republicans were so damn concerned about criticizing judges because that led to risks of violence. And apparently that is only concerning when you are criticizing judges for doing things that Republicans want them to do, you know, once again, reaffirming their view that the First Amendment gives you only the right to say things that they like.

Kate Shaw (14:33)

Yeah. Okay, so back to the order. So Judge Boasberg issues this order, and immediately there were several questions about whether the administration had complied with it. So several planes had taken off right around the time of this hearing and the issuance of this order, including, I think it's pretty clear, one plane that took off after Boasberg issued his order. And the administration's response to being called on this has come reasonably close to, essentially, you've made your decision, now you try to enforce it. So that is only a slight overstatement the administration has, and I think it's important that it has continued to try to justify in the language of law what it has done, albeit really very unconvincingly so. It has basically said, as to the planes that took off before the order, the planes were already in international waters by the time of the order. And also they asserted that there were, quote, questions about whether a judge's oral order, which in this case, the judge had made from the bench before following it up with a written order. But they suggest that the oral order, which was all they had at the time in question, was maybe not as binding as the written order that followed.

Leah Littman (15:44)

Yeah, it's like an order. Ish. You know, not like an order order. Classic. It's like how appropriations aren't law. You know, like some orders aren't orders. It's shades of law, shades of orders. Just important to note, like, this is all bullshit. Right?

Kate Shaw (16:01)

Right. That's not true. What he was saying is not a joke.

Leah Littman (16:03)

This is a joke.

Kate Shaw (16:03)

Just like appropriations as law light. Also not a thing.

Leah Littman (16:06)

No appropriations. And, you know, as to whether verbal orders are, in fact, orders, Judge Boasberg said in a later hearing, quote, so when I said directly turn the plane around, you read it. Because my written order was pithier this could be disregarded. That's a heck of a stretch. And also, it doesn't and shouldn't matter whether the planes are in international waters or not, since the court's authority in these habeas cases is over the detainer, the individual detaining them, and that person is in the United States. So as to the plane that took off after the order, the administration has said the individuals on that plane were not deported under the Alien Enemies act, but under some other legal authority.

Kate Shaw (16:45)

After all this transpired, Judge Boasberg attempted to hold a hearing to look into the details here, like whether actually the government had complied with the order in any recognizable sense. And honestly, the administration basically stonewalled at that hearing. So Boasberg were pressed on this question. Right. Like, how many planes departed that were carrying people on the basis of the proclamation? DOJ basically refused to answer. Right. It said the only thing it was authorized to say was that the flights weren't relevant to the written order and that somehow for national security or diplomacy reasons, they just couldn't provide any additional information.

Leah Littman (17:22)

Yeah, so Boasberg was kind of like, yo, I get classified information all the time. Like, he is one of the judges who has been appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And you know, he.

Kate Shaw (17:36)

Yeah, and that's when they were like, no. Oh, no. You think? We were saying we can't. We just are saying we don't want that difference.

Leah Littman (17:42)

He just, I think, was incredulous, like asking, why are you showing up and not having answers? And look, if you are invoking things like the state secrets privilege or saying the answers are classified, you know, you have to say that. And then he issued an order demanding them to respond to his questions and in a kind of a passive aggressive way, said, you know what? I will hear from you and I will memorialize in written form, since apparently my oral orders don't carry much weight. And so we are kind of waiting on the government's responses at this point.

Kate Shaw (18:19)

But while we're waiting for those responses, we are hearing from administration officials in other quarters, including people talking off the record, on background to the press and sometimes with their own names and faces attached to the press. So a couple of choice quotes, like one, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed White House official saying, quote, I say this with no disrespect to any of the previous administrations, and I'm trying to phrase this as delicately as possible. The White House has the balls to do it. So delicate, so respectful of previous administrations. Thank you.

Leah Littman (18:51)

This is what it means to bring masculine energy right to the White House.

Kate Shaw (18:56)

Long overdue.

Leah Littman (18:57)

Real men don't follow the law. Real men don't follow court orders. It is quite something. And you know, they show up and.

Kate Shaw (19:06)

They squirm and they deflect and that, that is masculine energy.

Leah Littman (19:10)

It is, it is. And here's Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, on one of the many press appearances that the Trump administration Trumpers were doing.

Kate Shaw (19:20)

We're not stopping.

Leah Littman (19:21)

I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming. And El Salvadorian President Bukele retweeted a story about the judge's order with a statement too late. And a laugh slash cry emoji, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio retweeted. This is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who Democrats unanimously confirmed, by the way. And I guess, you know, I'm curious, Kate, like, do you think we have arrived at the moment of non compliance?

Kate Shaw (19:51)

I mean, I think we've said this before that thinking of this as like a binary or an on off switch, like, is maybe wrong. We are sort of, we are further along the path to democratic collapse and sort of, you know, institutional complete meltdown. I think they're still showing up to court filing challenges, they're filing briefs and declarations and appeals. And so they have not decided we owe you no answers to the courts. And now I'm sure you will say Melissa would if she were here. That's a ridiculous bar. And yet I certainly would not put it past them to basically say more explicitly to the courts, we have, we owe you nothing. We have no obligation even to respond. And they are not doing that. So they have not completely decided to abandon this sort of inter branch effort at justification. But obviously we're close.

Leah Littman (20:43)

Yeah, that is kind of where I am at as well. And I think what the administration is doing here is in some ways quite similar what has been doing in other cases where I think there are also serious questions about compliance, where they've insisted, like, oh no, we didn't freeze those contracts or those grants under the order that you enjoined. We did it under some third thing. I think that we are already kind of at the precipice of this non compliance. And that's not to say I think non compliance is the defining moment of a constitutional crisis. I think we are already there. But it does seem like we might be entering at least that phase of a constitutional crisis.

Kate Shaw (21:25)

Yeah.

Leah Littman (21:30)

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Mint Mobile. I don't know about you, but I like keeping my money where I can see it. Unfortunately, traditional big wireless carriers also seem to like keeping my money too. So after years of overpaying for wireless crooked staffer Nina ditched her old wireless plan and switched to Mint Mobile. She says I'm saving $40 a month. Love, love, love this service and recommend it to everyone I know. So say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages. Mint Mobile is here to rescue you with premium wireless plans starting at 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Ditch overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans@mintmobile.com strict that's mintmobile.com strict. Upfront payment of $45 for 3 month 5 gigabyte plan required, equivalent to $15 a month new customer offer for first 3 months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Wasn't that delicious?

Melissa Murray (22:51)

So good.

Kate Shaw (22:52)

Your bill, ladies. I got it.

Melissa Murray (22:54)

No, I got it.

Kate Shaw (22:56)

Seriously, I insist. I insisted first.

Leah Littman (22:59)

Don't be silly.

Kate Shaw (23:00)

You don't be silly. People with The Wells Fargo ActiveCash credit.

Leah Littman (23:03)

Card prefer to pay because they earn unlimited 2% cash back on purchases.

Melissa Murray (23:08)

Okay.

Kate Shaw (23:08)

Rock, paper, scissors for it.

Melissa Murray (23:10)

Rock, paper, scissors.

Kate Shaw (23:11)

Shoot, shoot. No, the Wells Fargo active cash credit card. Visit wells fargo.com ActiveCash Terms apply. Why? Obviously, of note, since we entered this particular phase of the constitutional crisis, we have to talk now about Chief Justice Roberts. So in addition to unnamed White House officials talking to the Post and border czar Tom Homan talking to Fox News, Trump took to Truth Social to basically call for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, who he described as a radical left, lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker, an agitator, who was, I'm quoting here, obviously sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama so that he goes on. But that really gives you the flavor of it.

Leah Littman (24:06)

Yeah.

Kate Shaw (24:07)

So a couple of hours later, Chief Justice Roberts was actually moved to respond and he issued a pretty rare statement from him that said, quote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. And this, you know, in addition to the 2018 intervention, that was also a response to Trump judge bashing, where Robert said, there's no Trump judges or Obama judges. This was a significant moment. What did you think of it?

Leah Littman (24:38)

You know, I'll give him like half a crumb of something. I think it is important for high ranking political officials to counteract through statements the outlandish things that the President is saying and the assertions of authority he is making. On the other hand, this to me is the guy in the hot dog suit meme. Like, we are all looking for the guy who did this. This is John Roberts expressing concern that Donald Trump views himself as above the law, unaccountable to the law. And it's like, where was this fucking energy last summer when you were writing the immunity opinion that basically said presidents are entitled to act like kings and they are above the law and unaccountable to the law and courts in important respects? And now he's acting all surprise that the president, who he said can act like a king, is gonna be acting like a king and saying, I don't have to take shit from courts and the law. I mean, calm the fuck on.

Kate Shaw (25:37)

Yeah. Why do you think Trump is so indignant and surprised that anyone would try to check him? Right. Because on July 1st of last year essentially handed him the powers of a king. So, absolutely. I think that the predicament in which we find ourselves is one for which John Roberts bears an enormous amount of responsibility. I think there is no question. So to my mind, the question is just like a. Does Roberts understand to some degree, Like, I don't. I, obviously this is like the optimist in me thinking, like, he sees that actually we are in a moment of grave constitutional danger. And this is sort of one indicator of that. And there will be more. And if that's right, then I have both questions about the substance of the rulings that will issue from the court, but also, like, if he's worried about the district courts and the, I think, actual danger that the behavior of Trump and his inner circle are creating for these judges. What is John Roberts doing about it behind the scenes? I would like there to be more than just this statement, because this standing alone is certainly not enough. And so. And the fear I have. So. So I hope that he is doing more. Like, you know, he is the administrative head of that, that branch of government, and I'm not exactly sure what he could be doing, but I know there could be more than just like a couple of sentences in a press release. But then I also worry to kind of the substance of rulings that Roberts will think like he has done his part now and can retreat to essentially rubber stamping most or all of what the administration has done. And I think that that is, you know, trying to buy capital here that then will allow you to. To rule for the administration. I think there's a real possibility. I don't know. I don't know which sort of what the future holds. I do think that they're likely to probably do a hand, Trump some losses and then some victories, and it'll matter a tremendous amount what those look like. And I don't know. I don't. I think this could be a signal that points in either direction that this is the beginning of John Roberts, like, actually trying to impose some meaningful checks, or like this could be John Roberts saying, this is all I got, and I don't know which is right.

Leah Littman (27:34)

Yeah. I mean, to my mind, I think the more likely scenario is this is the kind of superficial institutionalism that he is known for. Right. He is not a substantive institutionalist in the sense of acting, actually shoring up the court as an institution and its integrity or preserving our other institutions and their integrity, either. His entire game is like making the court look legitimate and then basically knifing the country in the process. And I have just been endlessly bothered and annoyed ever since the Chief justice issued this statement at the amount of praise he has been getting and at the clamoring of so many people, including in the Democratic Party, to say, and underscoring the importance of the institution of the courts and saying courts need to be respected and that they are the true arbiters of the law and this independent institution that is the bulwark of our liberties. And it's like, do you not remember, like, literally six months ago, another woman who may have died because of an abortion ban like that, too, is on the court. And so it is just really troubling to me that how bad the Trump administration is, is buying the court some credibility and capital when they don't deserve it at all.

Kate Shaw (28:55)

Yeah, I mean, I think it's just going to be within a matter of weeks. They're going to have several of these matters before them, the court. And I think we'll know a lot more about whether, you know, what. What the sort of next phase for John Roberts and the courts looks like. And I truly don't know yet.

Leah Littman (29:11)

I did want to highlight one other thing on the Alien Enemies act litigation, one of the many concerning claims the administration has made in the briefing in the case to date is that the Department of Justice is arguing that the president can unilaterally deport anyone he wants without any statutory authority because the Constitution and his inherent authority gives him that power. So the actual language in the brief is, quote, beyond the statute. The President's inherent Article 2 authority is plainly violated by the district court's order. Order. As a function of his inherent Article 2 authority to protect the nation, the president may determine, you know, that TDA represents a significant risk and that its members should be summarily removed. And that is not a system of laws.

Kate Shaw (29:57)

Article 2 gives the President the power to deport anybody, to close any university, to shutter the doors of a law.

Leah Littman (30:02)

Firm, to decline funds a Congress has appropriated to declare some laws, not laws at all.

Kate Shaw (30:08)

Fire anybody, empower anybody unilaterally doesn't give.

Leah Littman (30:12)

The president the power to do cancel student debt. That's tyranny. That's tyranny. Keep that in mind.

Kate Shaw (30:21)

Indeed. All right. Well, on that note, onto the previews. As we've mentioned before, the court had a relatively quiet first set of sittings, but it has really packed the big cases into the final sittings of the term. It often does that. It really, really did that this year. So in the upcoming sitting, the court is going to hear a major Voting Rights act case, several cases that will affect federal administrative agencies, including one that will affect whether agencies can really issue regulations at all, a case about the future of Planned Parenthood, and a case about whether states have to financially support religious organizations. We're just going to focus on the cases that are going to be argued in the first week of the sitting and then just note the cases that will be argued during the second week and return to cover them in more depth once they're actually argued.

Leah Littman (31:06)

So first up is Louisiana versus Calais. This is a pretty big Voting Rights act case that we have talked about some already in the last season of the show. It arises out of the litigation over whether Louisiana violated the Voting Rights act by drawing congressional districts in ways that diluted the political power of black voters. So after a court concluded that Louisiana had indeed violated the Voting Rights act, and after the Supreme Court affirmed just two years ago in Allen v. Milligan that the Voting Rights act act is indeed still a thing, or at least parts of it that remained are still a thing, the court had to figure out how to remedy, you know, how to fix Louisiana's Voting Rights act violation. One option for the court was to draw a new set of districting maps, and the other was to give the legislature a crack at doing so.

Kate Shaw (31:51)

And the court opted for the latter approach. And so the legislature began tackling how it could draw maps that complied with the Voting Rights act while also accomplishing some other objectives. So several groups proposed different maps to the legislature, and the legislature weighed different considerations, including how much much they cared about compactness of districts, whether the districts are split or divided by naturally occurring boundaries, whether the district secured the right partisan advantage and partisan balance that the legislature wanted, and also whether the maps complied with the Voting Rights act by creating a second district where black voters had the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. So the legislature ended up among these maps, selecting one that sacrificed some traditional districting criteria like compactness, in favor of other goals, and in particular, preserving the safety of some Republican seats, including the seat of Republican speaker Mike Johnson, who is from Louisiana, and also disadvantaging members of Louisiana's Republican delegation to the House that had broken more with MAGA elements of the Republican party. So politics was really front and center in the decisions about the map that the legislature did adopt.

Leah Littman (32:54)

But a lower court drawn from the fifth circuit concluded that the map, which complied with the Voting Rights act and sought to remedy a violation of the Voting Rights act was unconstitutional racial discrimination because the legislature had tried to comply with the Voting Rights act and had tried to ensure black voters would be represented. Since allowing black people to have political power is the real racial discrimination, the court said that those motivations, which the court described as racial motivations predominated in the legislature's districting decision and therefore the map was constitutionally suspect. As should be clear, this case is about whether legislatures can try to draw Voting Rights act compliant maps and select from among Voting Rights act compliant maps as they take into account other considerations as well. You know, at bottom, is complying with the Voting Rights act the real racial discrimination today, you know, getting back for some of our OG listeners is invalidating the Voting Rights act necessary to enforce the Voting Rights act or the constitutional prohibitions on racial discrimination in voting.

Kate Shaw (33:54)

And unfortunately, this ludicrous argument is likely to fare better than the ludicrous argument that, that adding a question about citizenship was necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act. But that's the difference between Trump 1 and Trump 2, I think, in a nutshell. Yeah. Anyway, so we said after Allen vs. Milligan and Melissa has really said, don't breathe too easily. Right. The court there in a 5, 4 vote, did not nullify what remained of the Voting Rights Act. But. But there was a distinct possibility that the Voting Rights act and what's left of it was on very shaky footing after the court narrowly upheld it in that case. And it may well be that in this case, just a mere two years later, the chickens have come home to roost.

Leah Littman (34:36)

Yeah. And I think it is important to link what is happening here in the Supreme Court to the Trump administration's efforts to roll back the civil rights movement and civil rights revolution. You know, as the Trump administration basically tries to resegregate the workforce and other institutions of civic society, you know, the court is potentially resegregating politics by dismantling a key protection for political opportunities for black voters and other racial minorities. The through line, or at least a through line in this is the idea that facilitating diversity or ensuring the presence of black people in schools, civic institutions, and politics is itself a form of racial discrimination. You know, for example, the Trump administration recently decided that the Civil War itself is just too woke. The Washington Post reported that the Arlington Cemetery website scrubbed links about black and female veterans. And, quote, the cemetery has completely removed educational materials on the Civil War and Medal of Honor recipients, among other topics.

Kate Shaw (35:32)

So outrageous. Okay, let's take through some other recent outrage. So the federal government required D.C. to remove the Black Lives Matter mural that was created in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. And I, for some reason, had been under the impression that it was just being painted over. But, no, like friends in D.C. have informed me that it's more mosaic. And so it was actually the street was ripped up in order to remove that mural. And then late Friday evening, after a district court judge had enjoined the Trump administration's attempt to literally cancel the law firm Perkins Coey, finding that the executive order targeting the firm was obviously an unconstitutionally retaliatory in nature, the Trump administration decided to double down by lashing out at another law firm. And this time, it was at least in part because on its face, because the firm seems to have done some civil rights work. So on Friday, the president signed an executive order called, quote, addressing risks from Paul Weiss. So Paul Weiss is a New York law firm.

Leah Littman (36:33)

And we should note by way of disclosure that Melissa's husband is a lawyer at the firm.

Kate Shaw (36:38)

So this executive order, like the last, was broad. It was punitive. It directed federal agencies to suspend security clearances held by lawyers at Paul Weiss. It required federal contractors to disclose whether they do business with Paul Weiss and directed agencies to review all contracts with Paul Weiss. It also, once again, directed agencies, quote, to the extent permitted by law, to, quote, provide guidance limiting official access from federal government buildings to employees of Paul Weiss when such access would threaten national security, which, again, a district court had just found was likely unconstitutional with respect to a firm with a different name. And so is also unconstitutional with respect to this firm.

Leah Littman (37:16)

Right. Like the law does not permit this. And the statement of purpose in the executive order made clear, once again, this is all about retaliation. You know, the primary offense Paul Weiss seems to have committed is hiring Mark Pomerantz, who worked in the Manhattan DA's office and apparently encouraged the Manhattan DA to bring charges against Trump. Charges, we should say, you know, Trump was convicted on. And the order also highlights that it is punishing the firm for, as Kate said, doing civil rights work. It accuses the firm of attempting to hire a diverse array of employees. It also singles out an instance where, quote, a Paul Weiss partner brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events of January 6th on behalf of the D.C. attorney General. End quote. Listeners, what was that lawsuit? It was a suit against the Proud Boys for defacing a black church. Thought these guys, like, really cared about religion.

Kate Shaw (38:08)

Some people's religion, Leah.

Leah Littman (38:10)

Exactly. So after we recorded the president announced on Truth Social and the New York Times reported that the president agreed to rescind the executive order targeting Paul Weiss in exchange for complete and total surrender. According to Trump's Truth Social statement, Paul Weiss agreed to acknowledge wrongdoing by Mark Pomeranz, the former partner, and agreed to represent pro bono clients from across the ideological spectrum. Trump also said the firm agreed to donate $40 million in pro bono work to causes that Trump supports, including the President's Task Force to Combat Anti Semitism, as well as other mutually agreed upon projects. That amount of money seems to correspond to something like more than 100 Paul Weiss lawyers giving a shit ton of annual pro bon time to Trumpism over the next several years. It's unclear exactly what the firm will do. It's unclear what they exactly agreed to or will agree to do, because the agreement that Paul Weiss shared internally with lawyers at the firm does not match what Trump described in some respects. And it's unclear how much of this, like pro bono work supporting veterans, for example, the firm was already doing. But this still feels like yet another failed institutional stress test. Paul Weiss is a very prominent firm that has four years has been associated with rule of law causes. A Paul Weiss partner successfully litigated United States vs Windsor, the case that invalidated a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Another partner helped to successfully litigate the case against the neo Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia. In the wake of the Unite the right rally in 2017, there are many current and former partners who have been prominent figures in Democratic administrations and politics. Arthur Lyman, who served as president of Legal Aid Society, among other things, was a partner. And the firm was originally named in part for Lloyd Garrison, a descendant of the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison and the man who hired Pauli Murray as an associate at Paul Weiss and who also represented Robert fucking Oppenheimer when the physicist was targeted for his work in opposition to nuclear weapons. Basically, the executive order was unconstitutional garbage aimed at targeting the firm for its work on progressive causes. Paul Weiss could have challenged it in court, and I at least think they would have won on any number of grounds. And in doing so, Paul Weiss could have set the stage for other law firms to stand up for the rule of law. But instead, what we got was capitulation and genuflection. I should make clear that I have no idea what it is like to run a large law firm and to have the livelihoods of thousands of people, from partners to mailroom workers, in your hands. I'm sure the pressure is enormous, but law firms are not like other businesses. When we join this profession, we agree to uphold the Constitution. And this is not that. What this is, is very bad. When parties capitulate like this, they are, in important respects, legitimating what the administration is doing and their abusive assertions of authority and illegal overreach. And Paul Weiss was not the only institution to bend the knee. This past week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Columbia University reached an agreement with the president so as not to lose the $400 million in funds that the President had threatened to freeze. Under this agreement, according to the Wall Street Journal, Columbia agreed to ban masks, to empower 36 campus police officers with, quote, new powers to arrest students, and to appoint a senior vice provost with broad authority to oversee the Department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies, as well as a Center for Palestine Studies, end quote. And the Wall Street Journal describes this new vice provost position is apparently going to review curriculum and non tenure, faculty hiring and leadership to ensure the educational offerings are comprehensive and balanced. Giving control over what universities teach and research and who they hire dismantles the independence of academia. It is fascist control over what people are allowed to learn, to hear, to teach, to study and to know. In case it wasn't already clear, institutions are not going to save us. Chuck Schumer isn't going to save us. It is on us. Like people. We need to be out there in the streets building our own networks and we wanted to take this moment to acknowledge at least one lawyer who is not backing down. Last episode, Kate and Melissa mentioned the letter on behalf of big law associates that urged law firms to stand up against Trump's threats. In light of the news about Paul Weiss, an associate at a major law firm, Skadden Arps gave their two weeks notice at the firm. Conditioned on the law firm doing something. The associate Rachel Cohen's letter is worth reading in full. I'll just note a few passages. It says, for example we do not have time. It is now or it is never. The firm has been given time and opportunity to do the right thing. Thus far we have not. Colleagues. If you question if it is as bad as you think it is, it is 10 times worse. And it ends with like any self important adolescent, I spent most of my high school history classes wondering what I would do in the moments before true horror or chaos, or where my values were tested and demanded great sacrifice. I do not wonder anymore. I know who I am. I thought I knew who we all were. End quote. Thank you Rachel for your bravery. And if listeners have leads on how to help Rachel with her job search, please feel free to offer them one outlet if you're looking for something to do. I just want to remind our listeners of Is the upcoming race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice really the first major town tests of Elon Musk's ability to buy and raise another part of government? So needless to say, last week had some sad, dispiriting days and the day of Paul Weiss's capitulation was somehow made even worse by a letter Attorney General Pamela Joe Bondi issued together with Russ Vaught. And this letter pertained to the Executive Order targeting Perkins Coie and the judicial decision that had restrained the administration from implementing parts of that Executive order letter. Attorney General Bondi's letter and written together with Russ Fought, said the following quote, the Executive Branch's position is that the executive order 14230 is permissible and that the Court's order was erroneous. The government reserves the right to take all necessary and legal action in response to the dishonest and dangerous conduct of Perkins Coie as set forth in executive order 14230, end quote. That seems to kind of dangle the prospect of non compliance pretty explicitly in this letter. And that is not all the administration had to say about law firms this last week.

Kate Shaw (44:44)

Another development around the same time is that the EEOC sent letters, right? So these are not the Executive orders but the equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sent letters to a number of law firms, including Perkins, Coey, but also a bunch of others, Latham, Kirkland, Sidley. So these are ostensibly also about dei, but these are demand letters in which the firms are ordered to produce a truly deranged quantity of information about their activities. So some of them are fellowships that these firms have maintained. But also the letters demand information about every summer associate and even applications for summer associates for years and years and years, including names, email addresses, race, gpa. For everyone who has applied for these things for many, many years. It's really interesting. This administration is forcing everyone to think and write a lot about race for an administration that really seems committed to the idea that at least certain kinds of considerations of race are deeply problematic. But of course, it's only some. Yeah, yeah. So, as Karen Vladek, who founded a legal recruiting firm called Rise Point Search Partners, noted on blue sky, 88 of major US law firm partners are white. Nearly 75% are men. More than 50% of firms report having zero black partners. The numbers are even worse when you look at equity partners. And what these letters suggest is that any presence of black partners, maybe black lawyers at all, at these firms is too much. And so they should be punished for any modest efforts they have made to try to increase diversity at their firms in light of the severe underrepresentation of minorities at these firms already. Like, it is so disgusting. Of course, that is not all. So the administration has also decided to modify the website that had acknowledged and celebrated General Charles Rogers for receiving the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. The administration appears to have deleted the page slash, the URL that had been used to describe this recognition, and it has replaced that URL with text that includes what DEI medal like. So sadistic.

Leah Littman (46:51)

Well, in case you had any doubts about what they are using DEI to mean, you know, this is a soldier who received the Medal of Honor, and because he's black, they are calling it a DEI medal. Right? Like, the very clear implication is basically all people of color, all women, like all sexual minorities, right. Are obviously unqualified, unfit for public life and any kind of presence in civic society. And on this point, just wanted to play a clip of Sherrilyn Ifill, the former president and director counsel of NAACP ldf, who appeared on cnn, Anderson Cooper's show, kind of outlining in very clear terms what is going on here.

Melissa Murray (47:28)

Diversity, equity and inclusion for your viewers is a program or a way of approaching policies, really, in corporate America of hiring, of procurement, of contracts to ensure that groups that had been formally excluded or were underrepresented in many of the corporations, practices, employment and otherwise would be included. And that meant casting a wider net, looking at the pools of people that you were doing business with or that you were planning to interview for jobs and making sure that you had cast a wide enough net that you were including those who were from underrepresented groups, groups. That's diversity, equity and inclusion. Nothing that has been removed from these Department of Defense websites are diversity, equity and inclusion. They are just black people, Native American people, women, gay people, or just the word gay. So this is not an effort to remove some program that is in some way harming the military. It is yes, an effort to whitewash history, Anderson, But I think it's even worse. It's an effort to brand. It's designed to inculcate in Americans the idea that when you see a black person or a Native American or a gay person excelling, piloting a plane, being a CEO of a company, being a four star general, you should presume that they did not earn that position based on their qualifications and merits. It's a poison pill designed to reach into Americans minds and to encourage Americans to believe that those people that they see who are from underrepresented Greek groups, who have achieved success and who are of positions of power and authority in our country did not earn those positions.

Leah Littman (49:10)

And in their quest to resegregate the country, the Marine Corps under P Tegseth's leadership announced that it would be separating service members who have a genetic skin condition that causes pain and scarring from shaving. If the Marine Corps says if the condition doesn't resolve within a year and they would therefore need to continue to request a waiver from shaving requirements in that year. So what is this condition? Pseudofolliculitis barbae or pfb. And guess who? This condition that may soon functionally become disqualifying for military service effects primarily black.

Kate Shaw (49:42)

Met pure coincidence I am quite sure, right?

Leah Littman (49:44)

Yeah, a few other assorted matters related to bringing back segregation and ensuring all occupations of civic life are filled only by straight white cis men. The Trump administration is reportedly freezing $175 million dollars in funds to the University of Pennsylvania because Penn undergraduate had allowed a transgender athlete to compete on their swim team. Almost $200 million.

Kate Shaw (50:08)

So that just dropped a few hours before we were sitting down to record. But obviously you know, Penn people are reeling. In response, Judge Anna Reyes, D.C. district Judge, issued her opinion blocking the administration's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. She stayed the opinion until March 21. So the administration had a chance to seek a stay in the D.C. circuit. And again, as we said, we're recording on Wednesday, so things might change by the time this episode is released. But her opinion called, as I think she did from the bench when, you know, considering the arguments about this executive order, she called the order, quote, soaked in animus. And just to read a little bit more from the order, she also wrote, quote, transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but defendants have not analyzed their service. Plaintiff's service records alone are exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, dignity and discipline to ensure military excellence. So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers, critics from defendants on this key question.

Leah Littman (51:11)

And she ended her opinion with thanking service members, saying, this court extends its appreciation to every current service member and veteran. Thank you. In another case involving another policy that targeted members of the transgender community, another judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia here, Judge Lamberth, issued an order in this case that is challenging the administration's transfer of transgender prisoners to facilities that correspond with their sex assigned at birth. The judge ordered the administration to transfer back prisoners they had already moved.

Kate Shaw (51:44)

And in yet other news related to the administration's efforts to resegregate the country, we wanted to play an exchange from the oral argument in the D.C. circuit over Trump's firing of members of the Merit Systems Protection Board, or MSPB. Mr. MacArthur, could the president decide that.

Leah Littman (52:01)

He wasn't going to appoint or allow to remain in office any female heads.

Kate Shaw (52:08)

Of agencies or any heads over 40 years old?

Leah Littman (52:13)

I think that that would be within.

Kate Shaw (52:15)

The president's constitutional authority under the removal.

Leah Littman (52:17)

Power coming soon to a federal government near you. So we can all look forward to that. I'm just going to take this moment to say two things. One is if you do not want John Roberts to get an endless stream of credit for making superficial statements while substantively enabling the President's expansive assertions of executive power and King like behavior, I have a book to recommend to you about how the court laid the groundwork for all of that. That would be my forthcoming book, how the Supreme Court Runs Unconservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. The book also very much goes through, like how the court is basically repackaging a lot of what Republicans are doing and saying in electoral politics into the language of the law. You know, the third chapter is about race and multiracial democracy and democracy in particular. So it kind of takes a similar approach to how we're talking about Louisiana for versus Calais and you know, linking it to the Republican Party's larger project of just resegregation writ large.

Kate Shaw (53:16)

Right. Because we only have about an hour to rage out in your ear holes each week. But sometimes you need more than that and this book will give you a heftier dose than we are able to bring you weekly. And I saw that you just finished recording the audiobook.

Leah Littman (53:30)

I did, I did. So that is, that is done.

Kate Shaw (53:33)

So so listeners, if you want to read the book, you can pick it up to read it. You can also get the audiobooks you can actually listen to Leah rage out inform you.

Leah Littman (53:42)

Yeah, giving the men's another forum to complain about my vocal fry in another medium. So can't wait. Can't wait for that.

Kate Shaw (53:49)

And the way to fight back is to buy five copies of it. So you know you have your task. Listeners.

Leah Littman (53:58)

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Zbiotics Pre Alcohol. I have to tell you about this game changing product I use before a night out with drinks drinks. It's called Pre Alcohol Zebiotics. 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 when you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. 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 while I was on vacation in Mexico, I could confidently plan on waking up early to see the sunrise over the ocean without a worry. You know, I was a bit on the fence about pre alcohol initially, but you know, I once again used it while in Mexico. I drank it before my first Mango Mojito of the evening and you wouldn't believe how on top of my game I felt the very next morning. So this college basketball season, don't let anything sideline your celebrations. Grab Pre Alcohol before you go out and be ready to cheer on your team all day and night long. Go to zbiotics.comstrict to learn more and get 15% off your first order. When you use Strict at checkout. Zebiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com strict and use the code STRICT at checkout for 15% off.

Kate Shaw (55:33)

Off.

Guest Speaker (55:35)

With the Venmo Debit card, you can turn the mini golf outing your co workers paid you back for into a trip to Miami with your best friend earning you up to 5% cash back. Use Venmo to pay for the things you love to do. Visit Venmo Me Debit to learn more. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank N.A. pursuant to license by MasterCard International, Inc. Terms apply dash cash back terms apply.

Kate Shaw (56:09)

Let'S turn back to a few other cases the court is going to hear in the sitting. One is Oklahoma vs EPA EPA vs Calumet Shreveport Refining so these are cases about whether courts of appeals throughout the country can take a swing at the EPA during what is apparently now open season on the epa. Specifically, the cases are about whether certain kinds of challenges to certain kinds of EPA actions have to proceed before the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, or whether they can instead be filed in other courts of appeal throughout the country. Cough, cough, fifth Circuit.

Leah Littman (56:40)

So Calumet is about whether challenges that seek exemptions from renewable fuel standards have to go to the D.C. circuit. Oklahoma is about whether EPA actions concerning a single state or region have to be filed in the D.C. circuit when the actions are part of a regulatory notice that affects other states or regions and use the same analysis for all states. States, you know, the Clean Air act, you know, has some jurisdiction channeling venue, channeling provisions. And again, these are all about whether litigants can select their preferred circuit.

Kate Shaw (57:08)

Cough, cough, Fifth Circuit listeners may remember that the court heard a similar case about venue provisions. That is, you know, rules about where to file in that case about challenging FDA determinations. So that case was about whether manufacturers could file a case together with distributors and elect to file the case where one of the distributors is located, which would basically allow them to pick where they file, because they could just find a distributor in a sympathetic or favorable venue and file there. And in that case, which again, the court has already heard, argued, Justice Thomas asked the following question. We're definitely not talking about jurisdiction here. We're merely talking about venue. And when I think of venue and.

Leah Littman (57:47)

Normally think of convenience to the parties.

Kate Shaw (57:52)

As a practical matter, why is it.

Leah Littman (57:55)

Inconvenient for the government to litigate in one circuit versus Another?

E (57:59)

It's not inconvenient for the government.

Leah Littman (58:01)

So what's what's this all about?

E (58:03)

It's about Congress's choice in the statute. Congress could have passed a statute that said you can sue the government anywhere you want. It chose not to do that. It specified particular venues. I think it had good reasons to do that. One is to minimize opportunities for form shopping, ensuring that that cases can percolate among multiple courts before they get to this court. Contrast Wages, where you had cases from eight different circuits that addressed the question before it got to this court to what's happening now where almost all the cases are being filed in the fifth Circuit. Congress had good reason.

Kate Shaw (58:38)

Seems like it's convenient for you then.

E (58:41)

Well, it's the statute Congress enacted and that's what we're asking the court to apply.

Kate Shaw (58:45)

So does, does it have anything to do with your not winning in the fifth Circuit?

E (58:52)

We have. We neither like nor dislike the fifth Circuit, Justice Thomas. What we dislike is for the other side to be able to choose whichever circuit is most convenient out of all 12 in the country.

Leah Littman (59:04)

As we said at the time. It's a real fucking mystery, Clarence, why people care about where litigants can file. You know, know, it's like, come on, guy, everyone knows what this case is about. You know, everyone is trying to avoid the bag of dicks that is the fifth Circuit. Although a part of me, like, does wonder whether the Trump administration, how they might view this. Like, do they want more of these cases to be filed in the fifth Circuit so that court lets it get away with its hijinks and does some dirty work for them and assists them in moving the Overton window? I'm just a little, kind of curious about.

Kate Shaw (59:39)

Yeah, they may be sort of cross pressured on some of it. Yeah, yeah. I don't know. Totally. Let's now just offer some quick summaries of the other cases the court will hear next week because there are some big ones, so we do want to at least mention them. So one is FCC versus Consumers Research, which is about the prospect of a judicially ordered rather than doge ordered end of the administrative state. But of course, like, why not? Both these things can all happen in parallel. This case specifically is about whether to revive the non delegation doctrine, something Big Balls is probably not familiar with, at least by its terms. But the idea is that Congress cannot give agencies particular kinds of authority, in particular legislative authority, because that's something that's supposed to be exercised by Congress. But this version of the non delegation doctrine would basically mean that Congress can't give agencies the authority to do much of significance, including Making rules and regulations, you know, having any significant impact and embrace of the non delegation doctrine in this or really any other case would essentially blow up the administrative state. The epa, the faa, tsa, hhs, fda. You know, like there are so many ways to make the planes fall out of the sky.

Leah Littman (60:51)

Oh God, just one of them. I'm literally supposed to fly to DCA tomorrow.

Kate Shaw (60:55)

Help. Sorry, I wish I could edit out in actual time what I just said anyway, but that is essentially what, what is at stake in this non delegation doctrine debate.

Leah Littman (61:07)

And here too we wanted to link what is happening in the courts or what might happen in the courts with what is happening in electoral politics with respect to the attempted dismantling of the administrative state and federal government. You know, President Trump last week fired the Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission, you know, in violation of the law that makes them independent. That directly tees up a fight about whether independent agencies are constitutional and whether the Supreme Court will overrule its precedent in Humphrey's executive, which had upheld, you know, the limitations on the President's ability to remove the heads of independent agencies and specifically the ftc, the Federal Trade Commission also last Friday night, I. E. Not the most recent Friday, but the one before that, while the President was engaging in First Amendment violations, you know, against Paul Weiss, he also fired off another executive order entitled quote, continuing the reduction of the federal bureaucracy, end quote. This CEO directed the elimination of the non statutory components of a bunch of different agencies. The Minority Business Development Agency. Wonder what that one's about. The United States Agency for Global Media, AKA Voice America, the anti propaganda arm. Also wonder what that's about. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Obviously dismantling that will help the price of eggs. And the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness since they've obviously solved housing prices. And the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which runs a bunch of libraries, so those won't exist anymore either.

Kate Shaw (62:33)

I mean this is not the only thing. It's largely the anti diversity and any kind of racial equity and sort of grievance agenda. I've been front and center in this episode, but also the like, oh, this is just, we're going to do a reverse new Deal, just dismantle. All of it is happening at the same time, both in the courts and the executive branch. It's great. Yes, things are going great. Okay. And because things are going so great, the court is going to hear an abortion case. I mean it's not really an abortion case, but it is a case about Planned Parenthood. And honestly about kind of the future of Planned Parenthood. So, so that case, care versus Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is about whether private individuals, so patients or providers can sue to challenge a state's decision to prohibit Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program. Meaning if a state says Planned Parenthood cannot receive any Medicaid money and Medicaid health insurance doesn't cover care or Planned Parenthood, can people, again, providers or patients, sue to challenge that determination?

Leah Littman (63:28)

Yeah. And here too, the judicial war on reproductive freedom is proceeding in tandem with the Trump administration's war on reproductive freedom. And obviously other Republican led states are participating in that as well. So the Trump administration dropped the federal government's lawsuit against Idaho over Idaho's restrictive abortion ban. That lawsuit, recall, had alleged that the near total prohibition on abortions violated the federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active labor act, which required hospitals that receive federal funds to be able to provide stabilizing care, including abortion care, when that is necessary to stabilize a patient. And the Trump administration is just apparently content to allow states to prohibit hospitals from being able to provide that life health, fertility saving care. Also in the last week, Texas arrested a midwife on felony charges alleging she dispensed medication abortion in violation of Texas law. You know, if convicted, she could face up to 20 years. And so that is happening as well.

Kate Shaw (64:31)

It does feel as though this kind of turn toward more punitive and also more deadly abortion policies on the states, on the state levels, like we have just taken another turn and that what's happening in Washington is kind of enabling all of the worst actors in the states. So finally next week, there is a case called Catholic Charities Bureau versus Wisconsin labor and Industry Review Commission, which involves the question of whether a state is essentially required to establish a relief religion or at least to fund a charity when the charity says it is religious. So specifically, the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin and some affiliated entities are seeking to obtain an exemption from paying unemployment insurance contributions on the ground that the organizations are operated primarily for religious purposes. So basically, the church is saying, look, we say that what we're doing is religious, and no court can second guess that, so we are entitled to an exemption from a law under the Constitution's protection for religion. And I'm not sure what the sort of logical endpoint there is. All the laws could be subject to the same challenge.

Leah Littman (65:34)

Well, it's like we were saying, some laws aren't laws, some orders aren't orders.

Kate Shaw (65:39)

Some religions aren't religious.

Leah Littman (65:40)

Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So lots of big ideas Great ideas happening here. Finally, just some assorted court culture and additional news. We wanted to note a cert grant the court's decision to hear an additional case. This case is not going to be argued this term, but will be on the court's docket for next term. And that is a constitutional challenge to a law banning conversion therapy. Conversion therapy, of course, is the therapy that tries to counsel people that they aren't actually gay or trans, effectively psychologically torturing them. And I just want to pause to note the very real, I think, distinct possibility that the court is going to decide Skremetti this term and that the conversion therapy ban case next term in the following way. It will say in Scormetti that laws prohibiting gender affirming care do not unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender people. And then I think the most likely outcome in the case challenging the ban on conversion therapy is the court is going to say such laws unlawfully discriminate against disfavored speech by those who, like, don't believe in the existence of LGBT people. And, and again, the idea that the court believes one kind of discrimination exists, like discrimination against people opposed to LGBT civil rights, but another kind of discrimination, discrimination against LGBT people whose civil rights are being taken away, like, doesn't exist. Like, these two mindsets, like, are very much part of the court's worldview.

Kate Shaw (67:11)

Absolutely. And you think they would be likely to say speech, even if it's kind of religiously inflected speech, as opposed to.

Leah Littman (67:17)

Religion, similar to what they did through it is.

Kate Shaw (67:19)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But here the two together, I think it will be impossible for them not to have said explicitly, even if they don't say in so many words, we only care about protecting certain kinds of viewpoints and certain kinds of people. And. And everyone will have to understand that that's what they're communicating. And I'm not even sure they're going to try to hide it at this point.

Leah Littman (67:39)

No. So no, like Sam Alito is going to write that loud and proud.

Kate Shaw (67:43)

Yeah. So that is. Is likely where we're going.

Leah Littman (67:49)

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by cookunity. Nutrient dense meals are vital to your health and they do not have to be boring. CookUnity has all star chefs craft each meal with local in season ingredients and high in protein, fiber, and unsaturated fats. So the last time that I ordered cookunity and all of their great fresh, not frozen meals were delivered directly to my door, I tried the white truffle Mac and cheese, which was a perfect comfort meal. To have on hand on a day when I really needed it. Another one of my favorites was the shrimp fra diavolo, which was wonderfully spicy in the red sauce that accompanied the shrimp and pasta. I loved it. One reason why their recipes are so varied and delicious is that their roster of all star chefs includes Food Network alums, James Beard Award winners and acclaimed restaurateurs who balance flavor and nutrition in small batch meals that are sent fresh. They're also made with humanely raised meat and organic ingredients when possible, plus fresh seasonal products. It's so easy to find dishes that align with your goals and you can also enjoy a variety. So I mentioned the Mac and cheese and shrimp fra diavolo. You know, I happened to be in the mood for pastas, but there were also tinga tacos, fish tacos. Those are some of my other favorites. So you can really find a bunch of different meals on cookunity no matter what you are craving and no matter how you are looking to eat. You can browse the menu by protein, by chef, by cuisine or dietary need to personalize your own menu and find new favorites. I really found cookunity super helpful during some of my busiest weeks. So I'm trying to record the audiobook for my book that's added a ton of time and I just need quick meals that are ready to go and my Cookunity meals are ready in minutes and shipped fresh to my door and and that's just kind of what I need right now. You can enjoy restaurant quality meals for a fraction of the time and fraction of the price. Subscriptions start as low as $11ameal. Crush your health goals with mouthwatering chef crafted meals delivered straight to your door. Go to cookunity.com strict or enter code strict before checkout for 15% off your first week. That's 50% off your first week. By using code strict or going to cookunity.com.

Kate Shaw (70:13)

With the Venmo Debit card, you.

Leah Littman (70:15)

Can turn the spa day that your friends paid you back for into concert tickets that you can earn up to.

Kate Shaw (70:21)

5% cash back on.

Guest Speaker (70:24)

Where a spa day with the girls becomes concert tickets. Visit Venmo Me Debit to learn more. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank N A pursuant to license by MasterCard International Corporate Incorporated. Term Supply Dosh Cash back Term Supply.

Kate Shaw (70:46)

Okay, some additional final court culture slash news so District Judge Jesse Furman in the Southern District of New York has transferred Mahmoud Khalil's habeas petition, which remember was pending before him in New York to New Jersey rather than dismissing it as the federal government had urged. So he is not keeping it, but he is transferring it to another judge. So that is certainly a loss for the federal government. So Khalil, remember, is the lawful permanent resident, Columbia grad student, US Citizen wife who's eight months pregnant. And the administration is attempting to deport him on the grounds that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who again, as Leah already reminded you but should be said again, Democrats unanimously confirmed him because he would be a grown up in the room. And I guess this is how that is working out. But he determined, you know, when he wasn't busy like retweeting tweets from foreign leaders celebrating deportations, taken time out of his busy retweeting schedule to determine that Khalil's presence in the United States would adversely affect foreign policy. So Khalil, remember, was arrested in his apartment and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. But this transfer, at least for now, means that Khalil does not need to file his habeas petition in Louisiana and have it heard by the fifth Circuit. So that is certainly a better outcome, at least at this stage. So in addition, a Maryland district court has also ruled essentially that Musk's role in government and in doge in particular appears to violate the Constitution and specifically the Appointments Clause. So we've mentioned before, there are three cases pending all making versions of this argument that it is inconsistent with the Appointments Clause for Musk to be wielding this kind of executive authority. And this is the first actual merits ruling we've gotten in one of these cases. And it was a big win for the plaintiffs.

Leah Littman (72:37)

Finally, the bit of culture we want to come back to is something eagle eyed listener Sherilyn Eiffel drew our attention to from the State of the Union. So we had previously talked about Donald Trump telling John Roberts, thank you, thank you, I won't forget it. While as Sherilyn noted, Justice Kennedy had some words for Trump, which you can hear here in this clip.

Kate Shaw (72:56)

Thank you. Young people to love America.

Leah Littman (73:00)

Well, I'm trying to too. What thoughts? Like what, what is there to say he if you weren't able to hear it? This is Anthony Kennedy saying to Donald Trump, you're teaching young people to love America.

Kate Shaw (73:16)

I honestly don't. I feel speechlessly, I can't. I find it so upsetting because there's like there's the amb. You know, Trump saying to Roberts, thank you, won't forget it. We can debate what it means. Roberts, you know, didn't affirmatively say much, actually looked kind. Now, again, we're not, I'm not trying to ascribe like all these good intentions to John Roberts, but he at least did look pretty uncomfortable and try to remove himself from the encounter. Barrett, we talked about this on the episode that you weren't on, but there's that like really somewhat ambiguous slow mo video of Barret looking either like completely horrified or maybe sort of starstruck. And it's, I think, kind of hard to tell. But either way those things are, we can sort of debate them. But Kennedy basically said, I love what you're doing. Do more of it. And I just somebody who we're inclined to think of as a throwback to like a slightly more reasonable version of a Supreme Court saying this is just like so wildly upsetting and disheartening. So I'm curious what you thought and also what do you, what did you make of the Barrett face because you didn't have a chance to weigh in on it?

Leah Littman (74:18)

I want to say some things about the Kennedy thing. First one is, I think on some level it's actually more horrifying than you explain. That is, it's not just Justice Kennedy saying, I'm on board with what you're doing. He is repeating like the Trump lie that people have been taught not to love their country and America and that it's somehow un American. Right. For people to have these real questions and criticisms about what the country is doing. Right. Like this is Donald Trump and the Republican Party's like entire line against, you know, educating people about the history of racial discrimination or discrimination on the basis of sex in this country. That like, that's somehow untoward and bad. And saying this seems to buy into that ideology and worldview, which is just totally horrifying. Second is, as you say, like Justice Kennedy is thought to represent some kind of bygone era in which the court was like more in independent, more of a reliable institution. And not true to pull a line from Sam Alito at the State of the Union. And again, Justice Kennedy is the person who voluntarily retired under Donald Trump with a Republican Senate that cleared the way for Republicans to basically take over ideological control of the Supreme Court. That was a choice. And I think this false nostalgia about what the court was is also part of what is allowing people to say we should be giving the court all this credit now. Right. And describing them as this great institution related to the Roberts comments. And it's just deeply wrong. And the final thing I will say is, as I have said on a previous episode that I think has actually gotten included in an episode. It definitely happened during Q and A we had during one of our live shows during the pandemic. But part of why I had wanted to do this podcast, like its origin story, is my working out my feelings from my year as a Supreme Court clerk. And, of course, I clerked for Justice Kennedy. So take that.

Kate Shaw (76:38)

We got a little glimpse of Leah's villain origin story in that Kennedy encounter with Trump. All right.

Leah Littman (76:45)

Just the smallest. Smallest of windows came to the smallest of windows, you know, on Barrett. Not readable. I think it was just a look of, like, kind of feigned. I know I'm not supposed to be reacting, which is probably the right call, but I think that that was probably the expression.

Kate Shaw (77:08)

Who read this as like, she's decided she's joining the resistance, and you can see it etched on her face.

Leah Littman (77:13)

They are just projecting, you know. Right. Like what they want to see. Okay, so finally, our new kind of last and final tradition, which is. What did you read in the last week that you enjoyed? I'm sorry that my entries for this week are kind of related to news and what is happening. But. But I think it is still good to have really great, empowering, impactful writing that adds clarity, calls to action, what is happening. So that's just forewarning that that's what I'm going to tick through. One is Rebecca Traister at a post. Fight, Fight, Fight. This was about the CR resolution debacle that I definitely recommend. Relatedly, Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's Blue sky feed during the CR debates and debacle.

Kate Shaw (78:02)

That's your reading recommend.

Leah Littman (78:03)

I love that. I definitely recommend that one. One and then some New York Times op eds. One of them is M. Gessen's piece, Hidden Motive behind Trump's Attacks on Trans People. The piece is extremely powerful in drawing, I think a very clear, effective analogy in what the Trump administration is doing to the trans community and likening that to rendering a population states list that I just found very evocative and. And persuasive and important. This might embarrass you a little, Kate, but I loved your piece in the Times. This election will be a crucial test of Musk's power. You know, we've talked about the volume of money Elon Musk is pumping into the Wisconsin election now, and I think you're totally right that, like, this election is kind of the first opportunity to draw a line in the sand, fight back, and render him effectively like political Ebola. And have this be a referendum on, like, do you want this unelected billionaire running our.

Kate Shaw (79:03)

So much for that state, as we have talked about, both in 2023 and in this election. But I also think, like, I walked past one of the Tesla takedown protests in Brooklyn last weekend, and I actually wrote about them a little bit in a previous Times piece about, like, Musk and the appointments issue.

Leah Littman (79:18)

Yeah.

Kate Shaw (79:20)

I do think that the people who are gathered are, like, making a constitutional argument. And, like, I don't want to sound too much like a constitutional fetishist here, and I'm really not, but it's like they are when they're saying we don't have kings. Like, that is a constitution. Constitutional claim. And, like, and it's a serious one. And, yeah, this was a really remarkable gathering. And I've heard similar stories from people, you know, all over the country. Sometimes the numbers of people on the sidewalks or, you know, like, the side of the road are small, but the number of cars honking in support and, like, enthusiasm are just, like, it's a huge, huge number. And so there's like, a very intense energy in those protests. And it does feel like people have, understandably, a lot of feelings about Elon Musk right now. And it's a little hard, I think, to know what exactly to do with them. And. And I do think that there is some. A very concrete outlet, like, right in front of everybody, which is the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which is early voting is already ongoing. The election is actually April 1, and there is a lot of both big and small money pouring in. And so it is, I think it is a real. It is a very, very clear, present way to get involved both in issues of democracy and in issues of Elon Musk, which unfortunately, are just really tightly linked right now. Yes.

Leah Littman (80:28)

Yeah. Finally, the last Time piece is Jamelle Bouie's piece. Trump has gone from unconstitutional to anti constitutional. I think it's very important in defining, like, the specter and nature of the lawlessness of the Trump administration is how what they are doing is not just violating laws or the Constitution, but acting in antagonistic ways to the very premises of a constitutional system or a constitutional democracy. So I definitely recommend that piece.

Kate Shaw (80:58)

Okay, so mine are also, like, largely but not exclusively sort of connected to, again, the kind of present constitutional moment. So one which is less so is a piece in the New Yorker by Sara Lustbader called the Feminist Law professor who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence about Lee Goodmark. And it is a fascinating, fascinating read. I Highly recommend it. Daphna Renan, who teaches at Harvard Law School, has written with a co author who is a history professor, Jesse Hoffnung Garskoff. Together they've written a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education called, quote, the Dangerous Document Behind Trump's Campus Purges. And it is about Project Esther, which, much like Project 2025, which we've of course talked about at length, is kind of a blueprint for what the administration is currently doing, which as Daphne and her co author detail in their piece, it is weaponizing anti Semitism to dismantle American higher education and liberal democracy more broadly does an incredibly powerful, powerful warning not to fall for this cynical and perverse attempt to use opposition to anti Semitism as cover for a wildly illiberal and destructive project. And I highly recommend it. And the last is a short piece that Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber ran in the Atlantic last week that was just a president standing up for academic freedom and against this attack on higher education. I mean, obviously we teach in law schools and so it is just unbelievably present right now, but it does feel like this is an effort to destroy higher education and, and it is unbelievably serious. And people who are speaking up in the terms that the moment calls for, like Princeton's president, I think are really to be commended and want to amplify those as they come.

Leah Littman (82:37)

Yeah. One additional note. Melissa is obviously out this week. She wanted to shout out the following strict scrutiny fans that she has met on her travels. Megan, Carolyn, Alex and Cheyenne at Tulane and John at Morehouse.

Kate Shaw (82:51)

Do not worry, Melissa will be back with us next next week. Okay, a few things to share before we go. One, we have something exciting to share with you, which is the first two episodes from Crooked's newest podcast, Shadow Kingdom. God's Banker are now out. So this is the type of true crime drama you actually want to hear so your ears can take a break, as maybe all of our ears sometimes do from the daily news about our government's wildly unlawful activities. So this podcast starts in the summer of 1982 when the Vatican's top money man was found dead. Roberto Calvi, known as God's Banker, was embroiled in an infamous money laundering scandal that tied him to an ultra secretive far right society, the Sicilian Mafia and the Catholic Church. His death was ruled a suicide, but the evidence told maybe a different story. For decades, no one could say for sure what really happened. Until now. Journalist Nicolo Minoni is following a new lead. Once that could finally answer the question of who killed God's Banker. So if this intrigued you, listen to the first two episodes of Shadow Kingdom, God's Banker right now, wherever you get your podcasts. Or better yet, join our Friends of the Pod community to binge all the episodes today@crooked.com friends or on the Shadow Kingdom Apple Podcast feed.

Leah Littman (84:07)

Also, tickets to Strict Scrutiny Live, the bad Decisions Tour 2025, are on sale now, so you can join us live as we gear up for for whatever chaos SCOTUS is going to throw our way this year. We will break down the rulings, chat with some amazing guests, and dive into the cases that are set up to shake our daily lives. And who knows what things will come out of my mouth that won't actually make it into the episodes that oftentimes happens in recording. So that's what live shows are partially for. We have three great stops on our tour this year. May 31st in Washington D.C. at Capitol turn around, June 12th in New York City at Sony hall and October 4th in Chicago at Athenaeum Center. And exciting news this year we are offering VIP tickets, giving you the chance to join us for an exclusive meet and greet after the show. Don't miss out. Grab your tickets now. Go to crooked.com events for more information. We can't wait to see you all soon.

Kate Shaw (85:02)

Yeah, I want to just make a plug which I've been meaning to do on social media and I have found, I don't know about you Leah, that like this is these are like very difficult and dark times and being with people in the flesh actually is so important and grounding and obviously there are plenty of ways to do that. But I am really excited to get to hang out with you guys at these three different points in person and also with like a bunch of listeners. And so if that sounds like that might be kind of nourishing for you, there are some tickets available to all the shows, so grab some.

Leah Littman (85:34)

Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by me, Leo Littman, Melissa Murray and Kade Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our Associate producer. We get audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Our music is by Eddie Cooper. Production support comes from Madeline Herringer, Katie Long and Ari Schwartz. Matt de Groot is our head of production and thanks to our digital team, Ben Hethcote and Joe Matoski, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to strict scrutiny on YouTube. To catch full episodes. You can find us@YouTube.com strict scrutiny podcast if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app 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.

Kate Shaw (86:34)

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to Mario's Bistro.

Leah Littman (86:38)

The special tonight is the Beef Carpaccio.

Guest Speaker (86:41)

With the Venmo Debit card, you can turn the basketball game tickets your friends paid you back for into a romantic dinner that you can earn up to 5% cash back on. Use your Venmo balance to pay for the things you love to do. Visit Venmo Me Debit to learn more. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank N.A. pursuant to license by MasterCard International, Inc. Terms apply dash cashback terms apply.

Leah Littman (87:03)

Last year, Americans ate 32 billion chicken wings.

Kate Shaw (87:07)

Who knows just how many helpless sides of celery were heartlessly thrown away? But this year, celery neglect can stop with you and irresistible Jif Peanut Butter.

Leah Littman (87:19)

Because you can make a snack to make a difference.

Kate Shaw (87:22)

You can buy a jar of Jif to save the celery.

Leah Littman (87:26)

So please don't let celery be decoration for wings. Tap the banner to save the celery.