Hunger Games for Legal Hackery

Summary

Hunger Games for Legal Hackery

Release Date: July 14, 2025

In this season’s episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosted by constitutional law experts Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray from Crooked Media, the trio delves deep into the intricate dynamics of the United States Supreme Court, lower court rulings, and the broader legal culture shaping contemporary America. Titled "Hunger Games for Legal Hackery," the episode offers a rich, detailed exploration of recent legal battles, judicial behavior, and the commodification of attention in the digital age.

---

Welcome and Guest Introduction (01:36 – 03:24)

Kate Shaw opens the episode by introducing their special summer guest, Katie Fang, an independent journalist and trial lawyer renowned for her insightful commentary on legal affairs through her YouTube channel, Katie Fang News, and her Substack, atiefang. The hosts set the stage for an engaging discussion that promises a blend of legal analysis and conversational banter.

Ken Paxton's Divorce and GOP Hypocrisy (03:24 – 06:17)

The conversation swiftly moves to the high-profile divorce of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, Angela Paxton. Angela’s divorce filing on "biblical grounds" raises eyebrows, prompting Katie Fang to humorously critique the unconventional nature of such a legal move, especially when announced via social media:

Katie Fang ([04:23]): “I've never seen a petition for dissolution of marriage on social media. But you know what? It is the 21st century.”

This incident underscores the GOP’s resilience and hypocrisy, highlighting how political figures often weather personal scandals without significant fallout. The hosts discuss how Angela Paxton’s separation signals potential internal conflicts within the party, yet Ken Paxton remains undeterred amidst allegations of corruption and turmoil.

Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket and Political Influence (06:17 – 17:19)

A significant portion of the episode focuses on the Supreme Court's handling of Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, a case challenging the Trump administration's mass firings and reorganization of federal agencies without congressional approval. Katie Fang criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a preliminary injunction:

Katie Fang ([10:44]): “It is so incredibly arrogant to me.”

Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion is particularly scrutinized for its vague affirmation of the administration’s actions:

Kate Shaw ([13:02]): “... it’s circular. It doesn’t help me to say that.”

The discussion highlights Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s strong dissent, which laments the Supreme Court's disregard for lower court fact-finding and emphasizes the Court’s undue influence over administrative processes. The hosts express frustration over the Court’s use of the shadow docket to bypass comprehensive judicial review, perpetuating a disconnect between the Supreme Court and lower appellate courts.

Lower Courts’ Victories and Implications (17:19 – 35:50)

Shifting focus, the hosts celebrate a victory in New Hampshire’s federal court, where a nationwide class action was certified to challenge President Trump’s executive orders on birthright citizenship. This strategic litigation response leverages the Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions, allowing plaintiffs to seek broader reparations. Katie Fang commends Judge LaPlante for his meticulous handling of the class certification and the issuance of a nationwide injunction:

Katie Fang ([23:28]): “This federal judge was reasonably anticipating the appeal process.”

Additionally, the 8th Circuit’s denial of en banc review regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is discussed. This decision severely diminishes the Act’s enforcement capabilities, potentially nullifying millions of voting protections. The hosts express grave concerns about the future of voting rights and the weakened stance of the Department of Justice in enforcing civil rights:

Kate Shaw ([30:52]): “They’re gonna say, you know, to that question in Louisiana vs. Calais, which they put on the docket again for next term.”

Planned Parenthood and the Big Bad Bill (35:50 – 57:26)

A crucial highlight is the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in California against the Big Bad Bill, which aims to defund Planned Parenthood by imposing stringent Medicaid restrictions on nonprofits providing abortion services. This provision acts as a backdoor abortion ban, threatening clinics nationwide:

Katie Fang ([32:37]): “More than 1 million patients in 43 states receive healthcare services at Planned Parenthood covered by Medicaid.”

The TRO ensures that Planned Parenthood continues to receive necessary Medicaid funding for non-abortion services, safeguarding millions of patients across numerous states. The hosts emphasize the strategic importance of this legal battle in preserving reproductive rights and preventing the nationwide shuttering of essential healthcare services.

ICE Patrols and Civil Liberties in Los Angeles (57:26 – 57:41)

The episode also covers a positive ruling where a California district court issued a TRO limiting ICE’s roving patrols in Los Angeles. This order restricts racial profiling and mandates access to legal counsel for detained individuals, addressing significant civil liberties concerns:

Kate Shaw ([57:26]): “They can't stop and question people solely based on their race or ethnicity.”

Interview with Chris Hayes: The Attention Economy (57:41 – End)

Transitioning from legal battles, the podcast welcomes Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes and author of "The Sirens: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource." Hayes explores the concept of attention as a commodified resource, drawing parallels to labor exploitation in the industrial era. He discusses how digital platforms like TikTok and social media employ “slot machine models” of engagement, fragmenting and exploiting human attention for profit.

Hayes contrasts the attention strategies of figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk—noting Trump’s innate charisma and Musk’s compulsive social media use—as exemplars of how attention can both empower and dehumanize. He underscores the negative consequences of attention commodification, such as cognitive decline, societal alienation, and the erosion of meaningful human connections.

Chris Hayes ([72:15]): “Attention capitalism, when deployed at scale, has profound effects on what we can do with our attention—our most valuable resource.”

The discussion delves into potential legal and societal responses to the attention economy, including reconsidering First Amendment interpretations and exploring antitrust measures to mitigate monopolistic control over attention. Hayes advocates for re-establishing social norms around attention usage and reducing the invasive influence of digital platforms on daily life.

Concluding Recommendations and Farewell (End)

The episode concludes with personal recommendations from the hosts and Chris Hayes, highlighting impactful books and media that align with the episode’s themes of legal integrity and cognitive well-being. The hosts reiterate the importance of staying informed and engaged through reliable sources like Strict Scrutiny and grassroots initiatives such as Vote Save America.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Katie Fang ([04:23]): “I’ve never seen a petition for dissolution of marriage on social media. But you know what? It is the 21st century.”
• Katie Fang ([10:44]): “It is so incredibly arrogant to me.”
• Kate Shaw ([13:02]): “... it’s circular. It doesn’t help me to say that.”
• Katie Fang ([23:28]): “This federal judge was reasonably anticipating the appeal process.”
• Chris Hayes ([72:15]): “Attention capitalism, when deployed at scale, has profound effects on what we can do with our attention—our most valuable resource.”

---

Conclusion: "Hunger Games for Legal Hackery" offers a comprehensive and engaging analysis of recent Supreme Court activities, pivotal lower court decisions, and the pervasive influence of the attention economy. Through incisive discussions and expert guest insights, the episode illuminates the ongoing struggles within the American legal system and the broader societal impacts of digital attention monopolies. For listeners seeking an in-depth understanding of the interplay between law, politics, and technology, this episode serves as an essential resource.

Transcript

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. You don't destroy 250 years of secular democracy without gutting precedent, shattering norms and dropping a few billion. The same people and groups that Back Project 2025 are part of a larger shadow network that's relentlessly pushing to impose a Christian nationalist agenda on our laws and our lives. Church state separation is a bulwark that blocks their agenda. One of the last bastions of church state separation is our public school system. So they are pushing vouchers everywhere. They are arguing for religious public schools. Yes, you heard that right. Religious public schools. And they argued for it at the Supreme Court last term, which we talked about a lot on this podcast. If you're listening to us, you already see the writing on the wall. You know that we can and we must fight back. Join Americans United for Separation of Church and State and their growing movement because church state separation protects us all. You can learn more and get [e-mail] Crooked as the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News, with me your host, Yasmin Vasugian, along with Morgan Chesky and Brian Chung. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative, bringing you closer to the head headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the zeitgeist, all in 15 minutes or less. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily wherever you get your podcasts.

[Kate Shaw]

Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your favorite Supreme Court justices Favorite Supreme Court podcast? No, we are your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds. And this is our first summer episode. And as promised, we're going to bring you a debrief of Supreme Court and legal news, followed by a super fun conversation about a terrific recent book by someone in the Strict Scrutiny multiverse. Yes, after this new segment, you will hear Kate, Melissa and me talk with our roadie, Mr. Kate Shaw, himself, Chris Hayes, about his latest New York Times bestselling book, the Sirens how attention became the world's most endangered resource. But before we get to that conversation, I am delighted to be joined by first time guest, longtime great Katie Feng, who's going to help me break down the legal latest. Katie is an independent journalist and trial lawyer. You can find her with her must follow commentary at her YouTube channel, Katie Fang News, which will be in the show Notes and at her substack atiefang. Welcome to the show, Katie.

[Katie Fang]

First time, long time.

[Kate Shaw]

We could not have a better first summer guest.

[Katie Fang]

I am thrilled. This is like the best early birthday present ever. So yay.

[Kate Shaw]

So Katie and I are going to discuss gestures wildly a lot, but we'll make it punchy. So that's going to include the latest.

[Melissa Murray]

No.

[Katie Fang]

Okay. There's a lot to cover.

[Kate Shaw]

What are you talking about? Who woulda thug? Latest on the shadow docket, some goings on in the lower courts and then some Emile Beauvais and Ken Paxton, just to top it off. So listeners, start your engines. Let's get to the crazy. We'll start with a brief moment of silence, like one second, maybe millisecond, to mark the end of the marriage of one textile Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, uber right wing state senator Angela Paxton. Okay, that's all the silence we need. Angela announced their conscious decoupling with an epic Twitter post. As all healthy marriages end, it read, Today, after 38 years of marriage, I filed for divorce on biblical grounds. In light of recent discoveries, I do not believe that it honors God or is loving to myself, my children or Ken to remain in the marriage. Katie, you're a trial lawyer. What does it mean to file for divorce on biblical grounds?

[Katie Fang]

That's what I was just about to say. I didn't remember learning that in law school. Now I will say the caveat is I did not attend law school in the state of Texas, although I did go to law school in the state of Florida, which is often a hold my beer kind of moment between the two states. They're competing on a race down to the bottom of hell together. But that I, you know, I did and I do a lot of family law. And I will say I have never seen a petition for dissolution of marriage on social media. But you know what? It is the 21st cent century. And of course she'd put it on the cesspool, which is X. But biblical grounds suggest the consistency of the Ken Paxton biblical knowledge allegations. Like I biblically knew her. And so I suspect that there have been more revelations. Yet another biblical reference that I'm dropping Here. I think that there's been some new revelations. That being said, what's fascinating is the. You said it. You know, Ken Paxton's wife was definitely having her own meteoric rise to fame and to power politically. Being the spouse of Ken Paxton, there was definitely the hitching of a star to a wagon there or wagon to a star. And I think that for her to say that she's done is, I think, a big, big deal, because he has done a lot. Allegedly.

[Kate Shaw]

A lot of that wasn't the impeachment. Right. It wasn't the alleged corruption, the fraud.

[Katie Fang]

The whatever it could have that. It was the biblical stuff. But you know what's fascinating, though, is it just kind of highlights, though, Leah, the hypocrisy of the gop that you can have all of these stains and still be the Attorney General of the state of Texas and to still be a politician. And, you know, they're incredibly forgiving when it comes to their own.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, like, of course, it's the guy who is furiously searching for husbands and boyfriends to terrorize their wives and girlfriends by filing wild anti abortion litigation. Right. Who would be the one that needs to have his marriage dissolved on biblical grounds. Makes you wonder how much weird stuff did Judd with 2D stone have to do in order to be fired from that office? But we're gonna leave most of the Ken Paxton coverage to our friends at lawyers behaving badly, and that takes us to the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court stayed on biblical grounds, of course. A significant decision of the lower courts. That's a joke. They did bother to explain themselves on this one, and it wasn't on biblical grounds. But maybe before we get into that detail, we thought we'd answ a question we've received a few times, which is, I thought these clowns were done. They finished the term. Why are we still hearing about them, Katie?

[Katie Fang]

I mean, why. Why are we still hearing from them? I mean, you would think that the. The destruction had some cessation or expiration date like my milk does, but apparently not. I thought these people, like, wanted vacation. Did Clarence not get the memo on where Harlan's yacht is this summer? Because, I mean, why are we still getting this? But we've talked about this a lot, and I've talked about this with Steve Vladic, another friend of the show. You know, the emergency application process. I've equated it to a little boy running to hide behind his mother's skirts. Anytime the Trump administration gets something that they don't like, they run to hide. Behind mama skirts. And that constitutes your ultra conservative majority scotus. But this one was a little weird. And if we're talking about the American Federation case, I mean, for, for, for Katanji Brown Jackson, who, in full disclosure, is a friend that I went to high school with, you know, for her to be the lone dissenter on this one was really startling.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So I don't know before we get to too much of that detail.

[Katie Fang]

Sorry.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, no, we'll, we'll unpack, you know, what the case was about and the dissent for sure. But yeah, I mean, we're still getting all of this stuff because the shadow slash emergency docket is can't stop, won't stop. You know, the government is still going to be filing all of these requests for emergency rel. You know, even after the justices finish releasing their opinions and argued cases, which is part of the reason why we are still going to be in your ear holes throughout the summer. So with that background, you know, the specific shadow docket order, as Katie suggested, was Trump versus American Federation of Government Employees. And this order came in one of the cases challenging the regime's mass firing of federal workers and its restructuring of the federal workforce. So the plaintiffs in the case challenged the President's executive order directing agencies to plan for large scale reductions of force in the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management's memo instructing agency heads to submit reduction in force and reorganization plans. And the agency's plans, you know, that followed all of that. But the basic gist of the legal challenge is the President and the agencies, omb, OPM and DOGE acted without congressional authorization in ordering agencies to engage in these reductions in force. You know, Congress laid out a specific method for doing reductions in force and reorganizations, and this ain't it. And because only Congress has the authority to do radical restructuring of federal agencies and the federal worker workforce, the President and agencies can't just, you know, go at it on their own. And the government's position in this litigation has been. What do you mean? The President ordered agencies to do this without regard for the relevant statutes. The agencies just so happened to come up with reductions in force after the President directed them to do so and told them to follow the law while doing so. You know, the district court rejected that argument based on the facts. The court wrote, quote, the evidence plaintiffs have presented tells a very different story, that the agencies are acting at the direction of, of the President and his team. So based on that finding and others, the district court found the executive order and the implementing OMB and OPM guidance unlawful and issued a preliminary injunction. Ninth Circuit declined to stay that preliminary injunction. And that's when the Supreme Court comes in. So last Tuesday, the court issued a stay. It offered its conclusion, but not so much its reasoning. It said, quote, because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay or satisfied, we grant the application. End quote. How helpful. So court's decision 8:1 we'll get to Justice Jackson's dissent in a second. But Katie, what did you make of the court's order?

[Katie Fang]

Well, thanks for no favors. Once again, the very limited explanation being provided. The summary kind of casual like, well, hey, they're going to succeed on the merits, so let's just disregard everything the district court did. It is so incredibly arrogant to me. And it dovetails with the Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent we're about to get into. I take umbrage with this idea from SCOTUS that the work that's being done on the district court level, it could just be summarily disregarded.

[Kate Shaw]

Right.

[Katie Fang]

It's work. There is some heavy lifting that is being done by these trial courts. And it's like, are you supposed to just say, well, hey, we think that the Trump administration will ultimately prevail, so to hell with what you just did. District court Judge, it is just such a slap in the face of all of the heavy lifting that's being done. And again, like I said, it kind of just goes to the crux of the KBJ dissent in this case.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. No, I mean the district court did this in camera review. The Supreme Court looks at none of this and just says, well, our vibes right AR read just kind of different. And you know, listeners are probably curious about the fallout that is the upshot of this order. Basically what it means is the Trump regime's widespread massive scale layoffs and reorganization are no longer blocked. We've just gotten news that the Department of State plans to lay off a ton of diplomats and, you know, foreign service workers. But the plaintiff's case, that is the case that is challenging these reductions in force and reorganization can proceed against the individual agencies. That is, the plaintiffs can argue that any individual particular agency's plan for a reduction in force and reorganization is unlawful. And there were 22 other agency defendants names. So this would require them to show that each of those agencies adapted illegal reductions in force and reorganization plans, you know, making it harder for the plaintiffs to really stop all of this. And I wanted to talk about the vote breakdown, which appeared to be 8:1. Justice Sotomayor issued a short opinion concurring in the stay. She wrote, quote, the relevant executive order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force, quote, consistent with applicable law, end quote. And it's like, I'm sorry, my this policy is consistent with applicable law t shirt is raising questions that are answered by my this policy is consistent with applicable law T shirt.

[Katie Fang]

It's circular. It's like you're answering the question with the question. And it doesn't help me to say that. And I think that's what really is upsetting because there is no recourse now beyond the Supreme Court. And so we look at these opinions, and not just as lawyers, just as Americans, we're looking at these opinions for guidance. Why? Because now we can maybe retry or restrategize or reconfigure the way that we're going to approaching litigation in the future, but when you leave us hanging like that, it's a really bad cliffhanger. And the problem is you now have people that are unemployed. And that's what troubles me, too. I feel like this ivory tower energy is now coming from this opinion. It's the, well, y' all are down there and we're up here. And you know, the fact that a district court judge did all of this work to be able to determine the ultimate impact and did as a finder of affect, a credibility determination, which is also critical here, that you do not get from the Supreme Court when they sit again in their ivory towers and make these decisions. It's just a very humbling thing to watch that happen in a bad way.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. I mean, it seems like just last month when Samuel Alito was ranting about the appellate otherworldliness and the removal of of appellate judges from the realities of trial courts. But the Justice Sotomayor concurrence was super puzzling to me because it basically says, well, the administration says that what they're doing is legal, so therefore it's legal. That seems like the presumption of regularity into something that is basically irrebuttable. Like, we're not just presuming regularity, we are declaring regularity and insisting on it. And I mean, the Supreme Court's order, that's just a conclusion without an explanation. And so that leaves us to actually understand what's going on by looking to the dissent by Justice Jackson, which is yet another tour de force that sounds the theme she has been either ing the court and the administration With Katie, you already kind of started talking about the dissent, and I cut you off. Just to get all of our listeners up to speed.

[Katie Fang]

Sorry that. I'm sorry that I jumped.

[Kate Shaw]

That's where you should start. That's where you actually get the information.

[Katie Fang]

Well, sadly, these days, that's where you have to start.

[Kate Shaw]

Right.

[Katie Fang]

Because apparently the, like, six lines that you get in the majority doesn't suffice. I feel like it's this. This one line that if I could read from her dissent, just. It's just it. But that temporary practical harm, reducing preservation of the status quo, which was the injunction. Right. In this case, whatever, was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture. I mean, she covered the waterfront. The emergency application dis. You disingenuous. The emergency application. The fact that this is a temporary injunction. This is just an injunction, which is just a band aid on status quo, so that these cases don't have to be rushed to the Supreme Court and they can be measured and determined on the facts on the record. But, you know, she really excoriated her colleagues, and she included the ones that we normally are looking to for sanity. Because they joined in on the majority opinion.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, no. And that is underscoring a theme that she has raised several times, which is the extent to which the court is just kind of in the bag for the administration or at least giving them favorable treatment. And she really takes issue with what you were also highlighting as problematic about what the Supreme Court did, which is the Supreme Court giving a big middle finger to the lower courts and their fact finding. So, as she explains, you know, the issue in this case is whether what the federal government is doing is a massive restructuring at the direction of the president and omb, or on the other hand, like minor workforce reductions that are being initiated by agencies and, you know, assessed to be consistent with their statutory obligations. And as she acknowledges, like, you need facts to answer that critical question. And the district court made a ton of factual findings. And the Supreme Court does not explain how they disagree, where they disagree, which fact findings they disagree with. And that seems to be the basis for their decision.

[Katie Fang]

So what people need to understand is these injunctions in these contexts are based on evidence. There is the presentation of evidence to sustain these injunctions, to grant them, to deny them. And in the course of considering the evidence, the judge not only relies upon whether or not the evidence is admissible in the first instance, but also, again, is able to make a credibility determination that is a luxury afforded to a trial court judge that normally, if you were in a jury trial setting, for example, the jury would be the determiner of whether or not there's a credibility issue. But. But there is a uniquely situated person in this instance, which is the district court judge. This is a part of that judge's job to do this. And so when you are not, the Supreme Court is effectively telling the district court judge, you did your job wrong. But hey, we're not going to tell you how you did your job wrong.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Katie Fang]

So did you take umbrage with the facts themselves, or do you take umbrage with the process within which I obtained the facts? Facts. Or like you said so eloquently, it's just the big middle finger because we don't really care about the work that's being done by the lower courts. So now we have this fissure between the lower courts and the Supreme Court. And here's. We haven't even talked about this. Let's just skip over the appellate courts, Right?

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Katie Fang]

Because who the hell cares about what their role is in some of these determinations? And fundamentally, I love the fact that Catanja Brown Jackson keeps it real. She says there are very real harms that are coming from the overturning and the dismissal of a temporary salve, a temporary bandaid, while we let the facts sort themselves out. And it's funny because we haven't heard a lot about DOGE lately. I mean, really, we haven't. It's always kind of been some other horrific federal agency that's been doing something massively wrong, like dhs, ice, et cetera.

[Melissa Murray]

But.

[Katie Fang]

But we haven't heard a lot about it. But we all know that motivation and intent is an incredibly relevant part of this analysis. And that is, again, the luxury afforded to a district court judge to be able to assess. And now we're just summarily kind of cloaking this administration with a presumption of decency when we all know that that's not the case.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. And maybe just to unpack, you were referring to this as like a temporary salvin band aid, just to explain for our listeners the different stages of litigation. So here the district court had a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from firing so many people and restructuring the agencies. And one reason to do that is because if you allow them to do those firings and that reorganization, and then at the end of the case, you conclude it's illegal. It's really hard to unwind that. And so part of the put the.

[Katie Fang]

Genie Back in the bottle. Exactly. Quick.

[Kate Shaw]

Exactly. Part of the purpose of these preliminary interim relief is to preserve a status quo, to allow the court to collect the facts and determine, you know, whether what the district court has concluded, you know, kind of makes sense as the permanent answer in the case. So Justice Jackson's writing, you know, is consistent with her public statements from last week. You know, Katie and I have been reading from her dissent. Let's hear her in her own words. At an event sponsored by the Indianapolis Bar association in Indiana, Justice Jackson was in conversation with a district court judge, and she was asked what keeps her up at night? And we'll just play her response.

[Brian Chung]

Response, what keeps you up at night?

[Yasmin Vasugian]

I would say the state of our democracy.

[Melissa Murray]

I would say that I am.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

I am really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government.

[Katie Fang]

She's a talker now.

[Kate Shaw]

Talk about keeping it real. I am here. Oh, for this. Yeah. I was surprised.

[Katie Fang]

I'm like, look at her go. She don't care.

[Kate Shaw]

I love it. I absolutely love it. But the punchline or bottom line of this shadow docket order to me is, you know, a continued war on the lower courts that is being waged by both the Supreme Court and the Trump administration. And this notion that district courts have to follow the rules, even the ones that the Supreme Court makes up and won't tell them about. But, of course, the court itself and Trump, they don't have to follow the rules like that seems to be what Justice Jackson is saying the court has done.

[Katie Fang]

And again, it's the lack of guidance that troubles me, too, because now it becomes a little bit of a free for all. One of the luxuries you get from reading a Supreme Court opinion is, again, you get to go back to the drawing board for future cases. And we refer to Supreme Court cases as the ultimate case law. Right. And that's the precedent as defined by any lawyer. So if I'm trying to figure out how to present a case, if I'm retained to represent a group of plaintiffs, I'm going to go to a Supreme Court case and say, okay, this was attempted and they lost. In this instance, it is a black box, a black box of an opinion. But this is what we're getting from these emergency shadow dockets. It is wild that not only is it punting the regular audit of SCOTUS to be able to address these cases, but they're creating all of this, this kind of perpetuated lack of knowledge, lack of clarity, lack of transparency. And how do you not have transparency in the law? That's the part that I don't understand.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, law. But make it secret. So it's not the end of this case challenging the massive firings and reorganizations, but it makes the plaintiff's case in challenging that so much harder. So now let's move on to the lower courts, I. E. The courts who are actually doing the whole law thing, at least some of them. We had some, I think, welcome developments in the challenges to the president's illegal attempts to deny people birthright citizenship. And specifically, a district court in New Hampshire certified a nationwide class action and blocked the government from applying that order to anyone in the class, which includes anyone potentially subject to the order. Katie, what should people know about this district court decision?

[Katie Fang]

Well, I, I suspect you teed this up in this order, Leah, because coming off of what we just said about, we look at Supreme Court decisions to get some guidance. As we are aware, back in June, towards the end of June, there was a decision from the United States Supreme Court authored by Amy Coney Barrett, that basically said nationwide injunctions are now, they're a little bit suspect now, can be used in limited situations, but hey, class actions are a vehicle by which a nationwide injunction could be used. So what did very smart, very capable lawyers do? They immediately filed new lawsuits to be able to get class actions certified. A group of people to be able to represent an entire class of people across the United States. They tried and they went to a federal judge in New Hampshire. And in disclosure, Leah, I am a part of Democracy Defenders Fund, which was one of the lawyers and lawyers groups that was representing the group of plaintiffs here. I myself was not in court for this. However, a federal judge in New Hampshire said, well, hey, I'll see your request for a class. I will narrow it, though. It's a little bit much what you're asking for. But not only will I certify a class, but I also will enter a nationwide injunction on that executive order. But I'll give the federal government seven days to be able to appeal. But you know, Leah, it's again, we derived this theory of a strategy based upon a Supreme Court decision that gave us a new roadmap, which was incredibly helpful.

[Kate Shaw]

No, I mean, if the Supreme Court was basically going to use the possibility of class actions to blunt the effect of its ruling and to reassure people that it was no big deal, you know, that was going to generate class action litigation where judges would award the prospective class nationwide injunctions. And the question to Me now is whether the administration chooses to take this all the way up back to the Supreme Court and how quickly and what the court would do and whether it would deign to reach the merits this time. As you noted, the judge stayed the order for seven days to give the government time to appeal. So it's going to the appellate courts, ready or not. And I think the question is just what happens after that.

[Katie Fang]

I do think that the judge in this case, Judge LaPlante, did a really nice job because he narrowed the class, because that was an argument from the Trump administration lawyers that it was a kind of an overly broad stretch. It was an overreach to protect too many people in terms of the certified class. I think the fact that he narrowed it one and two, the language of the injunctions tracks the language of the executive order. It's very clear that the people who are the beneficiaries of the nationwide injunction are the ones that would have been subject to the executive order entered by Donald Trump or announced by Donald Trump back in February of this year. And so I think that this federal judge was reasonably anticipating the appeal process. One and two, your point is well taken. I do not think the Supreme Court is prepared to deal with the substantive issue of the, the birthright citizenship, because we need to remind everybody tuning in, there is still other litigation that is still pending on that because the CASA case, the one that we just talked about, that, that had that Supreme Court opinion at the end of June, that case is still winding its way through the judicial system as well. So this was another case. This was Barbara in quotes Barbara versus Donald Trump, President of the United States in its official capacity and other defendants.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by ZBiotics pre alcohol. Let's face it, after a night out with drinks, I do not bounce back the next day like I used to. So I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or I can have a great next day. But I refuse to make these kinds of choices. I'm going to have both. That's why I love Zebiotics Pre Alcohol. Let me tell you, if there is a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after a night of drinks with friends. Friends, it is Zebiotics 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 a night of drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut and it's the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration. That's to blame for your rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme enzyme that breaks down that byproduct. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you will wake up feeling your best the next day. Every time I have pre alcohol before I have some drinks, I notice the difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on being able to get on this podcast and make some sense without any worries. Now that summer is here and you're ready for your hot, strict scrutiny. Summer Summer. That means there are even more opportunities to celebrate with the warm weather. So before that backyard barbecue brew, before that glass of Pinot while you watch the sunset on the beach, or before you imbibe that cocktail by the campfire, just take your zebiotics Pre alcohol drink 1 Pre alcohol before drinking and wake up the next day feeling great and ready to take on everything that's coming your way and all that summer has to offer. Just go to zbiotics.com summer strict to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use strict at checkout. Zebiotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zebiotics.com strict and use the code STRICT at checkout for.

[Melissa Murray]

15% off how many discounts does USAA Auto Insurance offer? Too many to say here. Multi vehicle discount? Safe driver discount? New vehicle discount, Storage discount?

[Yasmin Vasugian]

How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the Banner or usaa.com autodiscounts restrictions apply.

[Kate Shaw]

So that is the news out of a district court in New Hampshire. Moving on to another court that might also be teeing up some issues for the Supreme Court, that is the 8th Circuit. So the 8th Circuit recently denied en banc review, that is review by all of the the act of judges on the A circuit in the case about whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights act has a private right of action. That is the question is whether the Voting Rights act can be enforced in litigation brought by private parties like citizens and voting rights organizations, or whether instead it can only be enforced by the Department of Justice, which as we know, not so interested in enforcing voting rights as opposed to voting wrongs. Right about now. You know, the Chief Judge Smith noted in dissent in the the Court of Appeals case that over the past 40 years there have been at least 182 successful Section 2 cases. Of those cases, only 15 were brought solely by the Attorney General. So not allowing private parties to enforce the Voting Rights act that really kills what remains of the Voting Rights Act. And this issue, you know, whether Section 2 can be enforced is now headed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to grant cert and review the case. And I'm sure only good things will happen from there. No.

[Katie Fang]

Well, what's left of the Voting Rights Act.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Katie Fang]

Honestly, I mean, we don't know what.

[Kate Shaw]

They'Re gonna say, you know, to that question in Louisiana vs Calais, which they put on the docket again for next term.

[Katie Fang]

I just feel like the chipping away is eventually going to leave absolutely nothing left on the bone. There will be no substantive meat left on the bone. And I think the primary concern is not actually, ironically, it's not the substance or the merits of it. It's the Department of Justice in and of itself. I think the decimation of the Civil Rights division at the Department of Justice has turned equity on its head, inequality on its head. And your point is well taken, that if you do not have a Department of justice that is seeking to protect civil rights pursuant to section 1983 of our Federal statutes, if you don't have a Department of justice that thinks that. That its Civil Rights division actually has to protect civil rights, then this becomes a free for all. And my greatest fear is, again, what happens to what's left of the Voting Rights Act?

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. No, we are all going to be watching for that. So now back to some good ish legal news. And it is once again out of the district courts, which are the place to be. So we got a temporary restraining order in Planned Parenthood's challenge to the provision of the Big Bad bill that prohibits Medicaid recipients from being reimbursed for care that they receive at entities that provide abortions and that receive more than $800,000 in Medicaid funds in, you know, one fiscal year. So, Katie, I guess let's start with that provision that is the provision in the Big Bad bill. You know, can you explain what that does?

[Katie Fang]

So the Big Bad bill has a specific provision that goes after nonprofit organizations that generated $800,000 or more in revenue from Medicaid payments in the 2023 fiscal year. So there are nonprofit, nonprofit health centers. Right. That not only provide abortions, but they also provide other medical care. I think that's a big footnote here. There's a big misconception about clinics like Planned Parenthood and other healthcare centers and healthcare clinics that even though they may provide abortion services, that that's all they do, but in fact, they actually are usually centers within neighborhoods and clinics within neighborhoods that provide essential healthcare services, from mental health services to birth control to abortion and to other things. And so basically this big BS bill, as I like to call it, but I'll be polite because this is your show. This big BS bill, though, is an attempt by the Trump administration to end run having to deal with something that frankly was already dealt with, which was the Hyde Amendment. So the Hyde Amendment says you cannot use federal funds for abortions. Right. So that's already in existence. But the Trump administration says if we include a funding slash in the big B bill, then we're going to basically gut Planned Parenthood because now they won't be able to get the funding that they need. And the lawsuit that was brought essentially says, please, let's dispense with the stupidity here. We all know you're really coming after Planned Parenthood because there's really only us. That generates more than $800,000 in income in Medicaid payments. Ha ha. We figured you out.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. And so just to take that one step further, the significance of this provision, it's kind of a backdoor abortion ban because it will defund closed clinics in blue and purple states, you know, not just red states. Because if you defund Planned Parenthood, right, if you starve them of the funds that they would receive for providing care to Medicaid patients, that is not just going to close clinics in red states, that is going to close clinics across the country, you know, as they reallocate resources. And I think in that way, like, it's similar to the targeted regulation of abortion providers legislative strategy of like regulating abortion out of existence. Because if you force the closure of a clinics, then no abortions. And that seems to be the point.

[Katie Fang]

So I wanted to read a statistic because I really like numbers. More than 1 million patients in 43 states receive health care services at Planned Parenthood that are covered by Medicaid. That's a lot. And that's every year. So to your point, it's not just, you know, red states, it's red states, blue states, purple states. It's 43 states out of 50 states that are going to be impacted by this. And I think it's incredibly insidious because it's not for a failure of imagination on our part, Leah, but this is some pretty creative stuff that they do.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, yeah.

[Katie Fang]

And what's incredibly disturbing is this 900 something page bit has these types of things baked in where you have to again extend your thought process strategically beyond just saying, well, how does this work? Like what is this nonprofit? What does this amount. No, no, no. They are trying to get around and create basically a nationwide abortion ban because Planned Parenthood is again the only provider that would meet these threshold financial requirements under the bbb.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So a district judge issued a temporary restraining order which pauses that provision of the BBB for 14 days from. And that means patients will be reimbursed for care they receive at Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood will receive funds for the care other than abortions, you know, that it provides through Medicaid. And we will obviously be watching that case to see what happens from there. So after we recorded late on a Friday, I should add, in order to prevent subsequent breaking news, we got some late breaking post recording legal news. But it's good news. So not going to complain and gonna let you know about it. The news is this. A district judge in California issued a temporary restraining order that limits what ICE and DHS can do as part of their roving patrols in Los Angeles. This is a super important ruling in that if followed and implemented and upheld, it will reduce the amount of terrorizing that DHS is able to unleash on la. A few quick details about the ruling. There didn't seem to be a lot of disagreement between the government and the plaintiffs about what the law actually is. That is what the law allows the government to do. So the district court actually starts out the opinion by laying out the agreement between the parties, bullet pointing the things they don't dispute. The opening paragraph says the federal government agrees roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the fourth Amendment and denying access to lawyers violates the fifth Amendment, end quote. The dispute, in other words, is about the facts. That is whether DHS is detaining people without reasonable suspicion and then denying them access to lawyers. And the district court concluded plaintiffs submitted enough to substantiate their request about what is happening and to get a tro. The district court wrote, quote, what the federal government would have this court believe in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case is that none of this is actually happening, end quote. You would think that this would be the kind of ruling that would or should hold up on appeal in the event the government tries to appeal a tro, which ordinarily isn't appealable, but appellate courts let you appeal temporary restraining orders that are functionally the equivalent of injunctions anyways. As Justice Jackson's scorcher of a dissent in the Union of Federal Workers case indicated, the Supreme Court is not above second guessing district courts on the facts, even when the fact finding process is on the up and up, and even when the facts seem to line up as the district court found them to be. Still, the temporary restraining order is great and welcome news. And this is what it actually prevents DHS from doing. Doing ice. Dhs, Border Patrol. They can't stop and question people solely based on their race or ethnicity. Speaking Spanish or having an accent, being at a specific place, like, you know, being outside of Home Depot where day laborers might gather, or doing specific work such as landscaping. Side note, for our listeners, an old Supreme Court decision, Brignoni Ponce from 1975, had actually permitted some racial profiling in the enforcement of immigration laws. But at the border and functional equipment equivalents elsewhere like la, the government has to identify specific articulable facts in order to justify stopping and questioning people on the basis for the government's arrests. In this case, the court remarked, quote, defendants, that is the government, do not explain why fleeing upon seeing unidentified masked men with guns exiting from tinted cars without license plates raises suspicion, end quote. When ICE doesn't identify themselves, there are consequences. The temporary restraining order that the judge issued also directs the government to immediately provide people who are detained in the basement of federal buildings with access to lawyers and confidential legal calls. So, great news, la, about this order. And again, in a sane, functioning legal system, this should be the kind of order on which a district court gets a lot of deference, the kind of order that stands. The Trump administration, as I was saying, did not argue that these kinds of stops were legal. They just claimed, in spite of all the evidence, that, that it wasn't actually happening. And we usually let district courts resolve facts in reasonable ways, but we will see whether the administration gets the Supreme Court on speed dial for this one. And speaking of the Supreme Court, back to the original recording. So auditions continue apace for the role of America's next top SCOTUS justice. And among the auditions is, of course, the one being done by fifth Circuit Judge James James Ho, who issued a concurrence to his own opinion in a death penalty case. Hey, it worked for Neil Gorsuch anyways.

[Katie Fang]

He doesn't have enough to do, my bro. It's like we saw you in your very lengthy majority opinion that you drafted. We needed you in a concurrence. What the hell?

[Kate Shaw]

He's gonna do extra credit. So this case is actually back from April but we haven't had a chance to cover it yet. And the case involves some individuals who were sentenced to death in Louisiana and they had tried to, to challenge Louisiana's lethal injection protocol. And one death row inmate sought to reopen the case to challenge the state's new nitrogen hypoxia protocol. So the case is about the interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which governs motions to reopen. And not content to rest there, Judge Ho filed a concurrence to his own majority opinion in a case about Federal Rule of civil procedure 60 and motions to reopen. And what did he say about in this case on civil procedure involving the death penalty? He wanted to stake out his position about how the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad district courts are doing too much to control Donald Trump's unlawful actions. Like he literally just goes off on the proceedings in Trump vs. JGG, the alien enemies act case. And I just gotta respect the hustle. I don't know.

[Katie Fang]

Well, I mean it was the, the best part of his concurrence is the lying down spitting up in the air moments of him saying, quote, it is often said that the judiciary is a co equal branch of government, but that's wrong. Well, what do you do, buddy, for a living? Because last I checked, that's what we do.

[Kate Shaw]

So he then prostrates himself in front of the President. That's what he does.

[Katie Fang]

We're not an active branch branch, we're a passive branch. And under the constitution of our founders, the judiciary is the least powerful branch. I mean, bro, like maybe you need to find a new job because this is your job as a judge. Last I checked, as a member of the judiciary. But that type of self flagellation. Yes. Like really, like why we. He needs therapy.

[Kate Shaw]

Yes.

[Katie Fang]

But what's horrific is to your point, this guy is shortlisted all the time for scotus. Yeah, all the time. And I'm like, should be happy. Fellow Asian American maybe being considered for a big role. Not so happy. That is James Ho just gonna put that out there.

[Kate Shaw]

And he is not the only 5th Circuit judge trying to put his name in the hat because Judge Andy Oldham also got on this shtick and he filed a lengthy dissent to the fifth Circuit's decision to reaffirm that federal law is indeed Supreme Court and that Chief Justice Marshall got the whole federal supremacy thing right in McCullough vs. Maryland. So the 5th Circuit concluded that Texas's SB4, which basically allows the state to countermand federal immigration law, is preempted by federal law. And Judge Oldham filed a lengthy dissent. What to make of this dissent? So it cites White House press releases, including one called Promises Made, Promises Kept. It cites Fox News several times, at least five. And it cites anti immigrant talking points from executive orders. Katie, who do you think has the edge here? Judge Ho or Judge Oldham?

[Katie Fang]

Listen, I think Ho wins the gold medal, but I think that. I think Oldham saying I respectfully but emphatically dissent. Oh, okay, well that's gonna change my mind now because you emphatically disappear dissent. He spent a lot of time on his love for Texas. Yes, like Texas this, Texas that. I wonder if he consulted Ken Paxton and his wife. I mean it was, it was a, it was a love song to Texas. Yes, it was wild.

[Kate Shaw]

It was a love song to Trump immigration policy.

[Katie Fang]

Well, yeah, and it's like, you know, the, they're, they're standing in the way of Trump America. Like the whole thing read like a project 2025. Trump campaign for illegal immigration enforcement. Yeah, it's what it is. But to your point, it's who's gonna outdo the other when it comes to the beauty pageant. Tyra, where are you? We need you. Tyra, send up the bat signal to figure this one out. To send somebody home. Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, so this is what's coming from the guys already on the federal bench. We also have some news about the guys who may yet still be on the federal bench. Specifically one Emile Beauvais, nominated to the third Circle Circuit. So Senator Durbin released a trove of communications and documents provided by the whistleblower, Mr. Arez Reuveni, who alleged that the regime plotted to defy court orders and that they, you know, plotted to smear Kilmara, Brago, Garcia as they resisted efforts to return him. You know, recall that Rouveni alleged that Emile Beauvais, nominated to the third Circuit, had said the administration planned to say, quote, fuck you to the courts in the event the courts prevented expulsions to El Salvador before they were carried out. Most self hating judges between him and Judge Ho. But anyways, the allegations more generally describe Bovet's machinations to defy court orders. And so now he's provided, he's turned over to Congress these text messages, phone records and emails with his colleagues at various federal departments. I guess, Katie, I'll just start by asking high level thoughts on this recent document.

[Katie Fang]

Done Dump Bro has receipts. Yes, Raveni is impressive. I mean he's like, he's like every law professor's dream, right? It's like save all your notes, write everything down. I mean, he's the king of no spoliation of evidence. Yes, I am like, wait, there's more. It's like, do you want the Ginsu knives, too? I thought there was plenty before the first time Emil Bovey went and testified. And the fact that there's more stuff that we're getting to see. And the crazy thing is I have to ask, like, how did he keep these things? Because, you know, he got walked out of that place. You know, when he got dismissed, DOJ was like, email cut off, we're going to escort you out. But he kept all of this stuff because he knew, all kidding aside, Leah Erez Reveni knew that this was going to come back to bite somebody, and it wasn't going to be him. He's like, I am not going to be able to hold in the bag. But what's startling to me is how it is a direct refutation of Emile Bovey's credibility. And it's crazy because, I mean, I did a video on my YouTube channel about this, and I said, if Bovey makes it to the Third Circuit and he doesn't agree with one of his fellow brethren on the bench, is he gonna turn to that judge and say, fuck you, Right? Like, I'm serious. Like, how is that gonna work for him? I know this is alarming. Alarming that his, as in Bove's DNA and fingerprints are on Kilmar Abrego Garcia's fate and the fact that he knew and he was directing other official agencies to disregard judicial orders is, of course, part and parcel for this administration, but is a huge red flag. But I fear, Leah, I fear it's still not going to be enough.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So just to highlight the evidence that substantiates Revenue's allegations of Beauvais saying, fuck you. So there are texts in which, you know, he and other people are saying, this doesn't end with anything but a nationwide injunction and a decision point on fuck you, you. And guess it's time to find out time on the fuck you. Right? Like, they are referencing the comment. So it seems to have been a thing. And, you know, this is not just an indictment of Emile Beauvais. Although, of course, like, that is in some ways, like, the most relevant, given that he is nominated to the Third Circuit. You know, there are text messages during the hearing with Judge Boasberg in which Reuvenne seems to make clear that the lawyer. Right. Arguing in front of Boasberg lied. Like, there's one text message that says, shit, that was just not true in reference to his co counsel saying, I.

[Katie Fang]

Think it was Drew Ensign.

[Kate Shaw]

I think exactly. In reference to Drew Ensign saying he doesn't know whether there are plans to actually bring about the AEA removals. And then someone else said it's a question if Drew, that is Ensign, the lawyer arguing, gets out without a sanction. When you are wondering in real time if you're going to get out without sanctioning, something has gone wrong.

[Katie Fang]

Well, and also one of the things that actually is removed from the revenue credibility issue is the fact that Erez Reveni's boss actually emailed and said that the office of the Director of the Attorney General, you know, obviously the Deputy Attorney General, which, you know, basically said it was Emile Bovey was instructing those federal agencies that it was totally okay pay for them to deport these detainees, disembark, deplane them in El Salvador. And that was a direct, direct contravention to what Judge Boas were doing. I, Leah, am upset that they got the administrative stay on the appellate court level, which would have, Which. Which stopped. Effectively stopped Judge Boasberg's contempt inquiry. Because I know for a fact that Judge Boasberg would have done some damage to Emile Beauvais. And so as they said, timing is everything.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So Katie's referring to the decision by the D.C. circuit to pause Boasberg's order or decision finding probable cause for criminal contempt. And he would have proceeded further like this evidence could have come out earlier. He might have made findings that Emile Beauvais did indeed direct other federal officials to defy the court order. He might have made findings that Emile Beauvais said fuck you to the courts, but he wasn't allowed to actually consider the. The facts because the D.C. circuit stopped that in its tracks.

[Katie Fang]

More middle fingers to the district court.

[Kate Shaw]

Exactly. One bright spot of this document dump is that friends of the Pod turned up in the oddest of places. So after Raveni texted, quote, guess we are going to say fuck you to the court super, his colleague responded, well, Pamela Joe Bondi is not you. And I love that, that they're listening to the pod. So they know, say her name. It's Pamela Joe Bondi. It's not just Pamela Bondi. So.

[Katie Fang]

Pamela Jo.

[Kate Shaw]

Exactly. Pjb. So this is how the Republican Party selects its judicial nominees, through something like a Hunger Games for legal hackery. But it's not the only way to select political officials. We know the crooked listeners and Vote Save America volunteers have been inspired to run for office for a variety of reasons. So. So we thought what happens when we ask folks in our network to run Vote Save America is running a first of its kind pilot program to recruit our audiences. You in Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas to run for office. That means candidates for school boards, city council, county commissioner, town clerks. That's like election protection, state legislature and more. This is how you build power. So if you want to learn more, you can sign [e-mail] okay, so this is probably about all we have time for for this particular episode. Katie, we always are ending these, I don't know, surveys of the fustercluck around us with things we've recommended, things we've read, seen, watched and liked over the last week. So wanted to put that question to you before we say our goodbyes.

[Katie Fang]

So, I mean, I probably should say something a little bit more uplifting, but I am paying particularly close attention to the Alligator Alcatraz concentration camp. It is literally less than 40 something minutes away from where I live here in Florida. And there have been a couple of lawsuits that have now been filed. One from an environmental impact standpoint that I have covered on my substack, and then one that was just filed yesterday by a group of state representatives that were denied access to conduct state statutorily authorized unannounced visits because there's going to be an imminent dog and pony show tomorrow or over the next couple of days where there will be a scheduled visit. And by all accounts, the detainees are saying that the conditions are abysmal at Alligator Alcatraz. So I am keeping a very close eye on that and I invite other people to look at the cases and consider the litigation because it is a very interesting collision between the federal government, government and the state. And frankly, anything involving Ron DeSantis and his political demise makes me very happy.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. And if you want to again follow along with that litigation, you can follow Katie at her YouTube channel, Katie Fang News, or at her substack@katiefang. So my recommendations from this last week would be as follows. So V E. Schwab's Bury Our Bones in the Midnight Soil is this totally unexpected, surprising work of fiction that I didn't see coming. Highly recommend if you really want some escapist distraction. Also loved Gilbert King's Bone Valley. I got an advance reader copy of that. It's coming out this fall. He's of course, the author of Devil in the Grove. And it's just this book, Bone Valley is just terrific. Finally I got to see Cowboy Carter and it gave me life.

[Katie Fang]

I am so jealous.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh my goodness. Just everything so Katie, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate you breaking down all of this legal news for our listeners.

[Katie Fang]

Thank you for the hospitality and just huge fan of all of yours and especially of your book, Leah, so thank you so much.

[Kate Shaw]

Thank you.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Cozy Earth. Guess what y', all, it's summer. And not only am I having a hot strict scrutiny summer, summer. I'm just hot because it's hot at night. And sometimes it's really hard to go to sleep when you're feeling overheated. That's where Cozy Earth sheets come in. Cozy Earths are the best bamboo temperature regulating sheets that are designed to give you a comfortable night's sleep. Cozy Earth sheets are made from viscose from bamboo. They naturally wick away heat and moisture from your body, helping you sleep sleep several degrees cooler. And I love cozier sheets. Again because I run hot and I don't like to sleep hot in the middle of summer. I like to be cool. I like to be regulated. I like to be comfortable. Sleeping in a cooler environment offers several scientifically supported benefits that enhance your sleep quality and your overall health. Here are some key findings from recent studies and expert recommendations. Cooler temperatures facilitate the body's natural drop in core temperature at night, promoting the release of melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. This leads to faster sleep onset and improved sleep quality. Cooler sleeping conditions may boost serotonin levels, contributing to improved mood and reduced symptoms of depression. That is especially important after a Supreme Court term like the one we just had. And for individuals experiencing night sweats, such as those undergoing menopause, cooler room temperatures can alleviate those menopausal symptoms and promote uninterrupted sleep. So what do you have to lose? You can try Cozy Earth sheets during the hottest nights of the year and if you're not in love, you can return them hassle free. But trust me, you will not want to return these sheets. Cozy earth offers a 10 year warranty on all bedding products, so that offers you a decade's worth worth of cool quality sleep. So upgrade your summer go to cozyearth.com and use code scrutiny for up to 40% off best selling temperature regulating sheets, apparel and more. Trust me, you will feel the difference your very first night. Sleep Cooler Lounge Lighter Stay cozy with Cozy Earth.

[Melissa Murray]

Coverage varies by plan. View contracts and [e-mail] if your car is out of warranty, one major repair bill could wipe you out. Just ask.

[Kate Shaw]

Ludicrous car breakdowns can wreck your wallet without Endurance. A worn out timing belt could cost you $1,700.

[Katie Fang]

A busted transmission, that's 4,000 easy. An engine meltdown, 7,000.

[Kate Shaw]

But if you've got Endurance, you could never pay out of pocket for a car repair again. With Endurance, your car's most expensive parts are covered. Plus you pick the mechanic you trust to do the work. With Endurance, your rate stays the same no matter how many cars claims you file.

[Melissa Murray]

If your car is under 20 years old, Endurance has you covered with unlimited miles. Plus your plan includes 24, 7 roadside assistance anywhere in the country.

[Kate Shaw]

So who's going to pay for your next breakdown? You or Endurance?

[Melissa Murray]

Choose the name Ludicrous Trusts. Endurance. Right now, get $300 off any plan plus a year of elite benefits. A two thousand dollar value free, all backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Get your free [e-mail] that's endurancewarranty.com.

[Kate Shaw]

We are delighted to be joined today by one of our favorite collaborators, Chris Hayes, whose fantastic new book the Sirens Call is so good that we'd want to discuss it even if Kate wasn't married to him and even if he wasn't. Our trusted roadie. Chris, welcome back to the podcast.

[Melissa Murray]

Thank you. That means a lot.

[Kate Shaw]

Lot.

[Melissa Murray]

Leah.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

That sounded so genuine.

[Katie Fang]

Chris.

[Kate Shaw]

I meant he was a sincere guy. I was sincere.

[Melissa Murray]

I meant it genuinely. It doesn't mean a lot.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

All right, okay, so let's get right into it. Chris. The Sirens Call's central premise is that attention has become a commodified resource that is extracted and exploited in what you call the attention age. And you analogize it to the way that language labor became commodified and was extracted and exploited during the industrial era. So we've seen this before, only now we're seeing it with attention. In your own words, you say. What you're arguing here is that the scale of transformation we're experiencing is far more vast and far more intimate than even the most avid critics have understood. Because this process of attentional resource extraction produces a wide array of negative consequences. So I am someone who, who is always seeing my attention divided. What are the negative consequences of attention being a scarce resource?

[Melissa Murray]

I think the most profound, at a kind of like soul level, is a sense and a feeling of alienation. And that term is the one that Marx uses to describe the way that industrial era laborers felt about their labor. Right, that people have always worked, they've always toiled. But the difference between, say, being a cobbler, shoemaker who makes a shoe and pours yourself into the process of making a shoe, and at the end of the process has a shoe to sell. That's a very different experience than being on an assembly line stamping soles into shoes 10 hours a day. And in some ways, the transformation from one to the other was the experience of a thing that should be internal to you. You, the sum of your total effort and toil being extracted outside of you so that you are alienated from it. And I think when we think about attention, it's kind of inseparable from the very heart of what it is to be a conscious human being. I mean, William James takes up this question in the 19th century precisely because he rightly, I think, understands attention as inseparable from consciousness and free will. Right? The ability to put your mind's focus where you want to put it is kind of what makes us human. Right? I mean, you know, a sea slug in a lab will just stimulus, response, stimulus, response. But the ability to exert dominion over our own minds is, is very much at the core of what it is to be human. When that faculty, which is the ability to exert that dominion starts to degrade, starts to be taken from us, then I think we, we suffer something at the most profound level of ourselves like, like what we are as humans gets taken from us. And I think endemic to the inner life of almost everyone in the attention age is this feeling of alienation.

[Kate Shaw]

So can you say more about the dehumanizing aspect of the attention age? Like, kind of concrete examples, maybe, about how this manifests?

[Melissa Murray]

Well, one of the things I think that's happening is that, like, everyone's literally getting dumber. And I actually, this is a sort of interesting thing like this. The metrics by which we measure people's cognitive capacity and intelligence are rightly the subject of tremendous amounts of controversy, imprecise and in all these different ways. But one of the things we've sort of been seeing across the globe is a decline across every country in scores on sort of some of these basic aptitude tests and cognitive tests about people's literacy. And I think that the thing that's necessary to process and think is the ability to sustain attention. And when you start to take that away, then you really start to strike a deep blow at people's ability to kind of do cognitive work. And I think all three of you are teachers and professors, and all three of you are extremely, extremely top tier law schools where you're getting, getting the people whose faculties are the most intact who've sort of run through this gauntlet to get to the. Well, you are. I mean, to get to that.

[Kate Shaw]

I'm not sure they would take that as a compliment, the people whose faculties are most intact.

[Melissa Murray]

But, I mean, I think it's probably true, and I still think it probably manifests in your classrooms all the time and with students. And I think this idea that we're now going to have this new wave of AI that creates, that sort of institutionalizes all the shortcuts away from cognitive effort is also, like, particularly dispiriting in this sense. But I also think it also has really tactile consequences for the media and information environment we live in. So one implication of this is that in competitive attention environments, you tend towards the sort of lowest common denominator of compelled attention. So, like, what does Times Square look like, and why does Times Square look the way it looks? Well, Times Square is a place where people's attention is being fought over in a very competitive marketplace place. And so you get bright lights and interruptions. The same of a casino floor. Right. Increasingly, all competitive attention markets look like that, and they work against other forms of communication or media that. That look different.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Can I ask about that? I mean, is it now that it's not just that you can walk into Times Square and you're being assailed by all of these different things that are competing for your attention? Now you can walk with your phone and your phone exactly. Is like. I'm thinking about that art that came out, I guess, a few months ago about how college students can't read a book. Like, they're just not trained to sustain attention long enough to be able to finish a lengthy reading assignment. And so it's sort of revamped the entire structure of curricula, even in higher education. Are we making ourselves dumber with smartphones and other technology?

[Melissa Murray]

I think we almost certainly are. And I think that, you know, the. The experience of Times Square or the experience of the casino floor, like, is increasingly the experience of inner life. And to be clear here, we're talking about six, seven, eight hours a day, depending, like, what who's doing the measuring. Like this idea that I think 10 years ago, more and more you can make this distinction between irl, like, get offline, go touch grass. And, you know, the Internet, like, the Internet was one sphere, IRL was another sphere, and those spheres kind of contacted each other throughout the day. Now it's like there's no distinction really between the two. It's one seamless lived reality. And that seamless live reality is most of our waking time or a Sizable portion for some. Most. Some. Half, some slightly less than half, is spent in a competitive attention market whose job is to extract our attention whether we want it to or not. Not. And then to sell that attention to some third party. And that is going to have profound effects on what we can do with the sort of miracle and gift that our attention is.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Brian Chung]

So will you say a little bit more about that, Chris? The kind of the way that our entire social and political and economic order has been restructured around attention. And I think, you know, you make this really profound point in the book about the difference between. Between getting and keeping attention. So can you walk through that?

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah. So we have these sort of two faculties for attention. One's voluntary and one's involuntary. And the involuntary one is the root of what attention is. Because if you're walking across the street, scrolling through your phone and a car honks because it's about to hit you, the whole point, the thing that attention has to do from evolutionary perspective, is to render wrench you away from the phone towards the thing that's about to put you in danger. Right. So the reason we have this faculty is so that we can recognize danger. It is and is so that we can be interrupted in some deep sense. So involuntary attention, which is, you know, the wail of a siren down the street, the crying of a baby on a flight, the honk of the horn of the car, or a waiter dropping a tray of glasses, that's one form of attention. The other form of attention is voluntary. Right. Which is. Is you're deciding right now, as you're listening to this podcast, that you want to listen to this podcast and you're putting your focus on it right now. The issue is that if you are in competitive attention markets, it's much easier to grab someone's attention than to hold it. So think about it this way. Almost any person, if there was a room, let's say, an auditorium of a thousand people, and you said, look, your job is to go in there, get on that stage, and just get everyone's attention. Like anyone can do that. It's. It's sort of trivially easy, like. Or anyone who's out never raised their glass and hit the fork against it, to be like, hey, everyone, toast time. Right? Like, you can get attention very easily. But if you said, okay, your assignment is to go into that theater of a thousand people and hold their attention for an hour, well, that's a much, much more difficult proposition because it's easier to grab than to hold. What it means is Competitive attention markets tend to drive towards iterative grabbing of attention. I call this in the book, the slot machine model. Right, right. Someone you know, people legendarily will sit at slot machines for 6, 8, 10, or 12 hours. They're not being told a story. Right. There's no narrative arc. They're not spellbound by their attention being held. Instead, the slot machine is taking three second bites of interruption and repeated interruption. This sense of selecting in competitive attention markets for iterative interruption, you know, that is what the infinite scroll of the Internet now has become. And I mean, I don't even think it's an accident that its actual interface is like a slot machine. Like, I mean, it's scrolling in front of you. You're sort of like awaiting the dopamine hit of the cherries, which is like the funny video or something that's provocative or interesting or titillating or whatever it is. And so you have this selection effect because it's speaking to some deep part of our wiring. Right. And the comparison I use in the book is the same with that. You know, we have certain evolutionary inheritances when it comes to our appetites that are exploited by companies like Coca Cola or McDonald's, which can sell their product anywhere in the world. Right. In any context, you can get people to drink sugary water because there's a deep part of us that reacts to that. There's something similar happening with attention. And what happens to attention capitalism, when it's deployed at scale, and remember the scale we're talking about about here, you know, Meta's got 2 billion users, right? Like ByteDance has something in that universe, billions of users. I mean, this is, this is on a scale that almost no corporation has ever been selling a product at.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

So, Chris, in the book, you make the point that no one wants mere attention. In fact, you say, quote, we want recognition, and attention is a poor substitute. How do you we distinguish between what is mere attention and what is recognition? Which from your telling, seems deeper and more substantive and meaningful.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, I think this is one of the most central points of conflict and despair in the social media world that we've constructed, which is not only can we pay attention to people, but people can pay attention to us, that social attention. And in some ways that social attention is, you know, from the moment we come into the world, we need it. I mean, a newborn baby is helpless and it will die without attention. It has to be attended to. And that attention is the thing that brings care. You know, that in fact, newborn babies have this trick. Right? They can Cry. And it's not an accident that, like that cry is very, very hard to ignore if you're ever around a newborn, wailing. Because that is the means by which it attracts attention, and that attention is necessary for its survival. So we are creatures that are social creatures, and we're. We need social attention to live from the first moments of life. And what that means is that the platforms have kind of weaponized this against us by engineering social attention into the very foundations of the platform. Right? When someone tags you, responds to you, right? Your mentions, your notifications, right? All that is sending this bit of information, someone's paying attention to you. There's experiments that show in a setting where, like a cocktail party, where you're focused on the conversation in front of you, someone says your name across the room, it leaps into your consciousness because that. That social attention is such a profound part of who we are that it's even wired into our perceptual apparatus at us. The difference between that and recognition is that I think the thing we want as humans is to be seen as humans by other humans. Like, the weird thing about attention is that it's mere. It's necessary, but never sufficient. So, like, what you want in a relationship, in a friendship, in a collaboration with colleagues, in a romantic relationship, right? In a friendship, you want care, reciprocity, you want to be seen as human by another human. You want all these things that are profound and deep about recognition, cognition, attention is the merest level of it, but it's necessary to get the other stuff. And so what we're being fed online is the merest thing that is easy to kind of mistake for the deeper thing. It's like a sort of, like, synthetic version of. Of. Of something, right? Like a synthetic drug that replicates endogenous chemicals in our body. And that mismatch between, like, what we're getting and what we actually crave I think describes a lot of people's extremely compulsive behavior online, particularly as regards social attention.

[Brian Chung]

Okay, let me maybe pivot for a minute. So I obviously know the book super well, so I'm just, like, asking you to talk through some of my favorite parts of the book and kind of insights in the book. But I really like the parts of the book now. It's not a book that's about Donald Trump, and you spend most of the book not talking about Donald Trump, but then you have to. And so he is in some ways, like, this kind of product of. And paradigmatic exemplar of the kind of. Of attention Age figure. And you talk a bit about Elon Musk as well in the book. So can you just talk through the way you discuss those two really important players in the book and then maybe let us know, has your thinking about either of them changed?

[Katie Fang]

Right.

[Brian Chung]

So you finished writing the book a year plus ago. I'm trying to remember the exact timeline, but obviously there have been a lot of developments involving both Trump, who has become president again, and Musk, who is, you know, know, bought Twitter. I think he was purchasing Twitter and newly running it as you were kind of putting the galleys of the book to bed. So any and all of that.

[Melissa Murray]

So I think in Trump's case, this is someone who recognized very early on how powerful attention is. Also, one of the things that distinguishes attention from other forms of human relations is that it can be positive or negative. Like, there's no such thing as really, like, negative care or negative love, negative reciprocity. Like. Like the things that we think of as positive aspects of human relationships are positive, but attention can be negative or positive. I mean, someone can be screaming at you on the subway, or they can be flirting with you, and, like, those are both forms of attention. Donald Trump is such a, I think, just profoundly broken person at such a deep and feral level that he doesn't really distinguish between them, or he wants attention so badly that he's willing to take. Take negative attention in ways that are truly kind of pathological and unnatural for most people who don't like negative attention. But I think via this deep, instinctual aspect of his personality, he made the discovery that attention is basically the most important resource, and if you collect it to yourself, you collect tremendous amounts of power. I think Elon Musk didn't start out with the same brokenness of Donald Trump, but he got it somehow. I think, by being online too much. Like, I literally think, think Twitter broke him profoundly. And he became addicted to attention in a way that was totally compulsive and pathological, but also led him to the same insight that I think Trump had, which is about the power of attention and even negative attention, that if you collect enough attention and even if it's negative, you aggregate power yourself. I do think that his arc is really interesting to study in contrast to Trump. Trump, because I think Trump has natural charisma, which I think, you know, aids him in a way that Elon Musk is like the opposite of charisma. He's like the least charismatic human being I've ever encountered. He's like a negative void of charisma. He's. He's just.

[Kate Shaw]

Have you met Sam Alito?

[Melissa Murray]

You're right. Actually, Alito is in a very similar category. And so I think that they have the same insight and some of the same pathologies. But ultimately, like, Trump has, like, a natural. A natural talent for. For getting attention in a way that Elon Musk doesn't. His is born purely of the kind of pathologies and addictions of. Of his very, like, very obviously and, like, documented addiction to social media, which he posts on all hours of the day and night.

[Kate Shaw]

I feel like you are channeling Bane. You merely adopted the dark. I was born and molded by it as you were talking. Okay, so I wanted to ask, you know, you've talked both in interviews about the book, but also the book itself, about how, you know, part of your job was kind of staying on top of rapidly developing news and how that kind of forced you into this world of attention and the attention economy. And I guess I wanted to ask for your advice because I feel like a lot of what people are being asked to do right now is to. To stay tuned into politics. Right. And engage in public information and public education. And these situations can be quite rapidly developing, like, as a vote is unfolding and people are all of a sudden calling on you to call certain representatives and whatnot. So how do you balance the competing demands of this rapidly evolving political hellscape in which we all need to be tuned into and participating in and informing ourselves and others about, with the reality that, of course, in order to form deeper engagement and engage in deeper thinking, you need to check out of that at some points and, like, toggle back and forth between the two.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, it's a really great question. I mean, I would say my first answer is just like, if you listen to strict scrutiny, why is this happening? Watch all in. And then, like, make some time to read Lawless and the Sirens Call. Like, you're. That's your. Basically, that's a good, comprehensive media diet. You need of information sources. No.

[Kate Shaw]

And Kate's New York Times op eds.

[Melissa Murray]

Yes. I mean, obviously, when Kate pops up in the New York Times, you got to read that, too. But no, I think that fundamentally, it's a great question. I mean, I tell people this, which is kind of an admission against interest, which is that, like, you don't really need to follow the news all day every day. I think, you know, one thing I think about is, like, there's a kind of a natural logic to the idea of morning news radio or like, the morning paper. Paper, or you read the paper later that day when you get home. There used to be, you know, back in the day there'd be morning papers and evening papers, morning paper in the evening news is another combo you could do, right? Like, I do think that setting time aside, where you actually pay attention to the news and try to digest it at, in some way that is more than just the kind of barrage does make kind of sense. And, and I do think the constant plugged in can have kind of diminishing returns after a certain point. Even though obviously from the perspective of my employer, it's better if people watch our network all day, which I get. But I do think that, yeah, I do think there can be diminishing returns. And I do think setting time aside, I mean one little thing I write about in the book which I do think is interesting is reading the physical paper is so much better. Better than reading it online or reading it mediated through social media. I saw this really funny thing the other day where like the Sunday shows all did rounds of interviews where there was a lot of questions about Zoramdani and some Democrats said some pretty bad stuff about him and that got clipped and it went viral. And I saw people like, why are Democrats paying it like they're about to pass this terrible bill and why are Democrats only talking about Zora Mandani? It's like, like if you go back to the interviews, like there were tons of exchanges about the bill. The thing that got people's attention was the controversy of Ramadani which then got clipped. But the actual original source of the interview was not just about Zoram Hamdani. In fact, it spent a lot of time on, on the bill. And one thing that happens is when you get information in news totally mediated by social media, you can lose that context very, very, very easily. Which is why I think that like doing things like reading the newspaper or like, you know, listening to strict scrutiny, you know, all the way through, even about cases that are not like the big cases is actually just a really useful way to get information.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

I mean, because they're all big cases when you get right down to it.

[Melissa Murray]

That's right.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by cookunity. I hate cooking. I absolutely hate cooking. And I especially hate cooking in the summer when I. When an elaborate meal just makes your kitchen feel like you are in the third circle of hell. That's why I love CookUnity. Cook Unity was made for adventurous eaters with countless global cuisines from 160 plus award winning chefs. Cook Unity has an ever expanding menu of small batch meals that are all tailored to your lifestyle, your dietary needs and your cravings. You can get these wonderful ready to eat meals delivered directly to your door by going to cookunity.com strict free or by entering code Strict Free before checkout for free Premium Meals for Life here's what I love about Cook Unity. It makes it so easy. There's so many different meals to choose from. I ordered some pasta dishes because my family loves pasta, but I also ordered some really delicious meals with seafood in it like shrimp and grits, which were absolutely fantastic. I love how perfectly the shrimp was cooked and also grits are hard to do, but they managed to do them absolutely perfectly with a lovely sort of flavorful garlic sauce on Top Chef's Kiss. And I didn't have to cook it myself. Cook Unity's roster of all star chefs includes Food Network alums, James Beard Award winners and Acclaim restaurant tours. Certainly better than anything I I could come up with on my own. These chefs balance bold flavors and nutrition with their handcrafted meals, which are freshly prepared and delivered directly to your door. The meals are delivered fully cooked. You can heat them in as little as five minutes in the oven or the microwave and you can enjoy high quality culinary masterpieces for a fraction of restaurant or takeout prices. Subscriptions start as low as $11ameal and you can skip deliveries, pause deliveries or cancel your subscription anytime. So get what you're craving. Try the freshest, best tasting meal delivery service made by your favorite celebrity chefs. Just go to cookunity.comstrict free or enter code strict Free before checkout for free Premium Meals for Life. That's free Premium Meals for Life by using code strict free or going to cookunity.com strictfree terms and conditions apply. Go to cookunity.com for details.

[Melissa Murray]

USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

It's undisputed that that President Trump Elon Musk are major figures in the attention age. But on strict scrutiny I think we are of the view that the Supreme Court is also a major player in the age of information. So yes or no, do you agree with us? The right answer is obviously yes and then I will ask you to elaborate. How exactly is the Court a player in this ecosystem? Is the Court more susceptible to public pressure because attention is More fluid and performative than it's ever been. You know, how does all of this impact the world that we occupy and our views of the court?

[Melissa Murray]

So I agree with you that it's as important as. As the other institutions, and in some senses more so. But I also think it has the most interesting relationship to attention. I, I think they generally don't want a ton of attention. I mean, there are definitely divas among them, and in that sense. But I think institutionally, one of the things that you find in TV is that it can be hard to do stories about the court because you have nothing to show. Like, there's so many times I've done a court segment when I look up at my return monitor. It's the first when they sit for their. When they pose their term portrait. There's a still photo and then there's B roll. And we're just. We're re. Racking the B roll over and over as I talk about the case, because it's like, there's no images. There's a reason they don't let cameras in the courtroom. There's an admirable part of that and a devious part. The admirable part, I think, is that I think there's genuine concern about the court as an institution being pulled into the same set of attentional incentives that the rest of the branches are. Right. Controversy raises money, for instance. And so you, you get, like, real, you know, nutty figures who are trying to raise money and say wildly outlandish things because it's will, you know, they can win a primary or, or, or, or get eyeballs that way. So I think there's a. There's a sort of wise fear of being pulled into that maw. But there's also something devious, which is that they don't want really attention because attention also is related to, like, democratic accountability, and they don't really want democratic accountability. Part of that is by design, but I think part of that's their, Their desire at this moment. I do think it would transform fundamentally the court in really fascinating ways if we had video of oral arguments, if you could watch them live. It's interesting to think through what the implications of that might be. I do think it's really interesting the sort of experiment that we had with, you know, starting with COVID where we got live oral arguments and got to listen to them. You know, we've been able to sort of stream them on msnbc, where, like, show the pictures of the faces when the person's talking, but it's not the same, obviously. And I think that's a very, it's an, it's a really intentional relationship to attention on the court.

[Brian Chung]

Can I ask one quick follow up to that?

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah.

[Brian Chung]

You know, so obviously we are kind of doing our part to try to draw attention to the court. I'm curious whether there are strategies to, to the extent that you're right, and I think you are, that the majority would prefer to have less attention focused on what it is doing. Like this kind of three Democratic appointee bloc is going to be in dissent for a long time. And I have kind of occasionally wondered whether they need to be playing a different game vis a vis the public's attention. And I'm not sure if you agree with that or have sort of thoughts about what that might look like.

[Melissa Murray]

That's a really interesting question, and I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but I also think you're probably right. I mean, one of the things I've been thinking about in the political sphere is that there's sort of different rules for like incumbents and challengers about attention. You know, you see this sort of reflected in political conventional wisdom, for instance, that the, you know, the person leading the polls wants to do fewer debates and the person behind the polls wants to do more debates. Right. If you extend that logic right to the, the 6th street court, it's like they're the challenger, they're the ones behind in the polls. They should want more attention. And I think that's right. And I think it's interesting to think about how they might go about doing that. You know, again, one of the things we've learned is that all these are just norms. You know, I mean, there's no one, you know, the Supreme Court doesn't have a boss, which is why you can like violate, you know, federal gift reporting requirements and, and, and all basic common sense ethics and, you know, take trips that you don't disclose and things like that. You could just give interviews about cases like the day that they happen. You could have a media availability. Who says you can.

[Kate Shaw]

Strict scrutiny. We repeat the invitation.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah. Like, I mean, and I think that obviously, like, even as I say that I'm like myself, I'm a little aghast at it. But.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, but here's the thing. The Republican justices sometimes appear on Fox to promote their books, as do other Republican appointees. They also appear on podcasts or they.

[Melissa Murray]

Like appear at, you know, I mean, it is very funny to me, like, where these rules are and aren't like what you can do and say. And what you can say and do in books. And all of it is this kind of like, none of it's written down, but there are these sort of unwritten rules. And you can like give this almost sort of like comically petty bitchy speech in Notre Dame, you know, if you're a Supreme Court justice. But like, you would be crazy to go on like my show the Night of Casa if you were Ketanji Brown Jackson and be like, this sucks, but like, why not? Right, Right. I mean, and, and why are they re. Why are they different? I mean, in some ways, right? I mean, and now you can argue, as I sort of say this out loud and argue with myself. I mean, you can argue that if he had to do all over again, maybe Alito didn't would take back the Notre Dame speech. Right? Like, was it. Did it redound to his benefit to like give this sort of petty speech where you're like, calling out specific Atlantic writers and also saying, like, how dare you accuse of us of, of, you know, deciding these shadow docket emergency questions on SB8 because we, you know, want to get rid of abortion before you actually go ahead and do exactly that. So, like, I don't know, did it rebound? We're down to his benefit. But I do think there's a really interesting question about, you know, I think you guys are. So your sort of fundamental insight here, right, is that there's a mismatch between the amount of the attention the court gets in its power. Power. And part of the project of what I see you guys as doing is like shrinking that distance. Right. To bring attention to it because that's a kind of necessary first step in like healthier court, broader democratic, like small D Democratic accountability. And so I do think it's interesting to think about that in broader terms as like, how that can be wielded with this 6 free minority. It's really interesting question.

[Kate Shaw]

So maybe shifting from problem to solution and to the thing the Supreme Court is supposed to be doing, which is law. What legal or constitutional concepts do you think we might need to revisit in order to effectively deal with the growing wave of attention based manipulation. You know, maybe there's some possibility of using antitrust to focus on attention monopolies or, you know, your book talks about the First Amendment being a potential barrier to effective regulation. So can you elaborate on possible legal concepts that we might have to rethink as we are thinking about how to address this?

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I think what's interesting is that a lot of Attempts to deal with, with regulating attention run up against the fact you're regulating speech. And that's a real thorny issue. I did think that the court allowing the. Well, this is funny. The court allowing the TikTok ban to go into effect, which it then we've all decided. Talk about no law, just vibes. Like, we've all just decided the law doesn't apply, including all of the members of Congress of both parties and both chambers that voted for this law and everyone, which was a lift and they passed this law. And now everyone has just unilaterally decided the law doesn't matter. It's so insane that this has happened. But I digress. But when the court allowed the ban to go into effect, their finding, which was unanimous, which is that like this kind of. I mean, obviously it was partly on national security grounds, which I always get a little, like, worried about, and kind of gets my back up a little. But that the idea that platform, total platform regulation, right. Independent of content, doesn't do enough. Like, does it. Like, there are speech interests, but largely spares the speech interest in such a way that that's a, that's a useful avenue for regulation. Like, for instance, I mean, this would obviously get challenged, but like, it would be interesting for the law to regulate how many hours a day people could look at the platforms like that. That to me, doesn't like, is there a speech issue there? It's not clear to me. There is. Right. Like, we're not saying, like, you could, you could watch all of the worst stuff you want for those six hours. We're just saying that there's actually. And then, you know, age. Age restrictions are the other question. And again, on age restrictions, there are live issues, I think, even before the court, before the appellate courts on the speech implications of those. And I think I part ways with some progressive folks on this question. I'm much more in favor of age regulation on this stuff than I think a of lot. Lot of, you know, than, than the line that comes from, say, the ACLU and others.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

But Justice Alito is just going to say that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children in the manner of their choosing, and they can watch Bible TikTok as long as they want.

[Melissa Murray]

Yes, exactly. Yes, I think that's right. I think if you like, if you challenge it on religious grounds, like my kid has to watch like, Bible TikTok all day.

[Brian Chung]

Can I throw one more thing in that I've heard you talk about is like, space, not just age, kind of. Of like the Fact that once upon a time smoking in restaurants was like extremely normal and natural. And we have obviously basically banned that like, limitations on public phone use. Now I don't know if you're talking about that as social norms or law, but I've also heard you talk about it in kind of an interesting way.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, I think of that more as a social norm that's enforced. Although if you extend out the analogy with smoking, obviously that was, that was both. First it was both, right? Like, first it was restaurants being like, we're not going to have smoking. And then, then it was, you know, than it was law. I do think that before you get to the law, the social norm, you know, there's all this focus on schools and classrooms, understandably. But I also think that like, the focus on kids ends up being this, a little bit of, this displacement of our own anxieties and also onto subjects with less autonomy than us. So there's this kind of thing of like, we should take their phones away is like the consensus view of like, they should not be in front of the phones all day. It's like, well, what about us? And I do think that there's, you.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Know, because they have their whole lives ahead of them. We're on the B side of life, Chris. Like, there's no hope for us.

[Kate Shaw]

Wow. Come on.

[Melissa Murray]

I saw a very funny joke about this about someone like on their, you know, the, the old cliche about no one on their deathbed is like, I wished I worked harder. And I saw some joke about like being on your deathbed and being like, I wish I could have scrolled more. If I had to do over again, I would have scrolled more. But no, I think that creating adult norms around this, that, that are similar to what we say about the classroom. Like, I mean, I, I, I found myself recently in like some context of like adult conferences. And it's just crazy for people to be sitting on like with their phones out. And I do think that something I do think will happen, and I'm wondering how much AI actually speeds this up, is that I, I would love for us to arrive because it is a collective action problem that like certain public places, certain public environments, experiments are just phone free. Whether you, that means you just don't take them out as like a matter of practice or there's actually some cubby system or yonder bags or whatever it is that you just, you, you, you, you check them and that's just like, and so when you're at a restaurant, like people don't have their Phones out. Like that's just like we saw.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, that worked in White Lotus.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, sorry. Oh.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

This is how it starts. This is, is, this is the root.

[Melissa Murray]

Of all of it.

[Brian Chung]

No, this summer we're going to, we're catching up slowly but surely.

[Melissa Murray]

But yes, I think, I do think that, like, and then, you know, it is interesting to think about what legal implications of that might, might be. Like I said before, I increasingly believe even in the months since the book was put to bed and come out that like, a lot of the problems here may be so exacerbated by AI and become so bad so quickly that the whole thing kind of blows up a little bit. We'll see.

[Brian Chung]

All right, so I think we have.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

To leave it there.

[Brian Chung]

Before we let you go, though. We have recently started ending episodes by identifying a couple of things that we read or watched or did in the last say, week and want to share with our listeners. So do you want us to go first? Do you want to go first, Chris?

[Melissa Murray]

I'll go first with something that will, by the time your listeners hear this, might be a little dated, but is fresh to me, which is one of the things I thought was really interesting about Zoran Mandani's campaign for mayor was the way that he sort of used social media and particularly like direct to voter communication, sort of not relying on intermediaries but going direct to voters with these short form videos. And after he won, there was a round of takes in the amongst the take mongers like myself, people slinging various takes back and forth about what it meant, which was the kind of classic mediated political discussion. And I thought it was really, really interesting that he put out his own take on his own win today in a long video where he did the thing that all of us as pundits do, which is like look in the cross tabs of the precinct level data and who won this and how did you win? And he's like, here's my take, having just done it on how I won and made some really interesting and good points. But both the content was interesting, but also this idea of the politician sort of reasserting authorship over their own story I thought was really interesting because the post election take circle as such a tradition.

[Brian Chung]

I agree, that was great. And actually I'm going to go next and also mention something Mamdani content related, which is a conversation that you, Chris, had with Ezra Klein on his podcast just after the election that kind of takes this lens of attention in the attention age and brings it to bear on Mamdani's campaign and win and it was a great conversation conversation. So really recommend that. And then I just have just started. So I don't really have a full assessment of the book but I started reading Rutger Bregman's Moral Ambition which is much more like how to self helpy than I realized. It is really just like a how to kind of reconceptualize your relationship to ambition and to focus on literally just prioritizing making the world a better place every day with the choices you make. But I really like it so far so that's my other recommendation.

[Kate Shaw]

Recommendation.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

So I am going to do a read and a watch. I re watched Dirty Dancing which I love. I remember watching it at summer music camp at fsu. I was the first chair Viola and it was amazing. And I like, I think every time I come back to it, I'm always surprised to recall that there's a huge abortion storyline.

[Melissa Murray]

Yes.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

Like it's just like it's, it's not really like baby doesn't have an abortion. If I'm ruining it for you, that's a real problem. You should have been watching it a long time ago. But it's, it's, the whole plot is animated by this question of an illegal abortion that happens and then sort of propels the plot forward. So I love going back and watching things I haven't seen in a while. And I'm always nostalgic. I read this week a fantastic, fantastic book by a law professor named Andrea Freeman. The book is called Ruin Their Crops on the Ground the Politics of Food in the United States. From the Trail of Tears to American School Lunch. And it is a James Beard Award winner.

[Kate Shaw]

I didn't even know James she got to meet. I love that.

[Yasmin Vasugian]

I love that for her, like, Andrea is probably the most important legal scholar working on questions of food justice in the country right now. And this book really is a tour de force. She had another book a few years back called Skimmed, which was about the way in which the pet milk company marketed infant formula to the black community during the 1950s. I mean, she's done amazing work on this and related it in really interesting ways to both our history of enslavement and racism and segregation, but also to our current moment of deep, deep income inequality.

[Kate Shaw]

Chris, thank you so much for joining the podcast. Chris Hayes is the author of the Sirens Call How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource. And if you only know him as our roadie or the host of all in with Chris Hayes on msnbc or the why Is this Happening? Podcast now. You know, he's also a brilliant thinker and author. Chris, thank you again for joining us today.

[Melissa Murray]

Oh, it was such a pleasure. Thank you for having me. Having me.

[Kate Shaw]

And before we go, a few housekeeping notes. So the media might have moved on from Trump's reign of terror in Los Angeles, but we definitely have not. If you want to join us in spreading the word that we're not okay with what the Trump administration and ICE are doing, pick up some merch from the Crooked Store. The Friend of Immigrants Tea sends a message that you're standing up for your neighbors. And the don't poke the Bear California flag Tea is perfect for those of us who love the state and the immigrants who make it amazing. You can find [e-mail] store. Also, as you know, Republicans in Congress just passed one of the cruelest and least popular pieces of legislation in history. It's going to kick millions of people off their health care so that the rich can get even richer. Many House Republicans who voted in favor of this bill won by slim margins and are facing tough reelections next year. We can hold them accountable by voting them out and taking back the House. And that's why VoteSave America set up a Take Back the House fund to support must win House races. To get more information, head to votesaveamerica.com this was paid for by VoteSave America. You can learn more at votesaveamerica.com this ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.

[Brian Chung]

Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, Melissa Murray and me, Kate Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our associate producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Katie Long and Adrienne Hill. Matt de Groat is our head of production. And thanks to our digital team, Ben Hethcoat, Joe Matosky and Johanna Case, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to strict scrutiny on YouTube. To catch full episodes. Find us at YouTube.com strictscrutinypodcast 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 help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps. I've never felt like this before.

[Katie Fang]

It's like you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy?

[Brian Chung]

And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, that's it.

[Brian Chung]

I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you from.

[Katie Fang]

Brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas.

[Brian Chung]

And more at your DSW store or.

[Katie Fang]

Dsw.Com.

[Melissa Murray]

The world is on the brink. Wars, contentious elections, disinformation spreading at warp speed. And Donald Trump. Trump at the center of all of it. But what does it mean for the rest of us? Every week on Pod Save the World, Tommy Vitor and I cut through the noise to explain how global power is shifting. No jargon, no homework, just clear, honest conversations about what's happening and why it matters. From breaking news to long, simmering international conflicts, we dissect it all with critical analysis and some jokes that will surely embarrass our children one day. Tune in to Pod Save the World every Wednesday, wherever you get your podcasts or catch it on YouTube.