Strict Scrutiny Podcast Summary

Episode: S7 Ep20: SCOTUS Again Takes on the 2nd Amendment—What Could Go Wrong?
Date: February 23, 2026
Hosts: Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray, Leah Litman
Guest Hosts/Interviewees: Steve Vladic, Elliot Williams

Episode Overview

This episode of Strict Scrutiny combines three rich segments:

1. Legal News Recap — Co-hosts Kate Shaw and Melissa Murray, joined by constitutional law expert Steve Vladic, break down the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on Trump-era tariffs, ongoing problems of noncompliance in lower federal courts, and new advisory opinions on judicial conduct.
2. SCOTUS February Sitting Preview — The team previews the comparatively lighter February Supreme Court oral arguments, with special focus on a significant upcoming Second Amendment case, and flags an under-the-radar asylum case coming up in March.
3. Author Interview — Melissa Murray interviews Elliot Williams about his new book Five Bullets, chronicling the 1980s Bernie Goetz subway shooting, its cultural and legal legacy, and connections to contemporary attitudes on violence, race, and gun rights.

The tone throughout is incisive, accessible, and peppered with the pod’s trademark irreverence and legal nerd humor.

Segment 1: Legal News from the Week

(00:00–34:44)

The Supreme Court’s Trump Tariffs Ruling

Key Case: Challenge to Trump’s global tariffs

• Headline: The Court struck down Trump’s worldwide tariffs (6–3)—a significant rebuke to the administration.

• Key Takeaways (Steve Vladic, 04:42):

  1. Optical Loss for Trump: Even if the justices’ motives weren't "altruistic," this prominent loss sets a meaningful tone.
     “It’s a pretty resounding loss for Trump on the case that the Justice Department chose as the first merits case.” — Steve Vladic [04:54]
  2. Major Questions Doctrine Split: Justice Barrett’s concurring opinion signals skepticism toward the distinctiveness of the major questions doctrine, potentially impacting future cases and executive authority.
     “Barrett’s softness...could be a very big deal.” — Steve Vladic [06:18]
  3. Kavanaugh’s Pattern: Kavanaugh’s dissent (joining Thomas and Alito) reinforces his steadfastness with Trump, highlighting evolving Court coalitions.
     “It’s the latest in a large and increasing body of evidence that he’s just not likely to stand up to President Trump.” — Vladic [07:22]
  4. Dissenters’ Inconsistency: Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissent despite their readiness to apply the major questions doctrine against Democratic administrations.
     “Here is yet another example...of the justices in the dissent doing absolutely nothing to disabuse people of the view that they’re voting their partisan policy preferences.” — Vladic [09:43]

• Remedies Question (10:30):
  The Court ducked the question of how to remedy the improper tariffs, leaving uncertainty for parties seeking refunds—a familiar “pass the buck” approach reminiscent of cases like Northern Pipeline.

  • “I don’t think [the Court] had any idea what to do.” — Vladic [10:59]
  • “In a world in which we had a functioning separation of powers...the question...would be answered by Congress.” — Vladic [11:43]

• Cultural Critique:
  “For those of us who do care about law, it’s wildly disheartening...the pure hackery on display.” — Melissa Murray [10:06]
  The Court’s reluctance to address remedies underscores both institutional dysfunction and political gaming.

Lower Federal Courts Push Back

(17:48–24:45)

• Federal Defiance & Compliance: Widespread DOJ failures to comply with court orders (e.g., 50 violations in 547 cases in New Jersey), with rhetoric of “accidental” violations. Judges—especially in Minnesota (e.g., Judge Provenzino)—are moving from warning to sanctions.

  • “At least some of this is logistics and incompetence, not malice.” — Vladic [19:48]
  • “But the policy causing all of this was maliciously intended.” — Murray [20:07]

• Sanctions on DOJ Lawyers: $500/day fines imposed personally on government lawyers—though the real problem is systemic and sits higher up in the chain.

  • “If there’s no one else to fine, you fine the lawyer. But it’s not the lawyer’s immediate fault.” — Vladic [21:35]
  • Murray and Vladic urge courts to bring higher-level DOJ/DHS officials into court.

Judicial Conference and Judges Speaking Out

(24:45–29:36)

• Advisory Opinion: The Judicial Conference signals support for federal judges publicly defending the judiciary and rule of law when under unprecedented attacks.
  • “The committee wanted to signal that it is OK for federal judges to raise alarm bells publicly as long as it’s not about specific cases.” — Vladic [26:35]

SCOTUS Stock Rule & Ethics

(29:36–32:08)

• Roberts’ ‘Reforms’: Instead of justices divesting stock holdings, parties must now include ticker symbols to ensure proper recusal—a classic half-measure.
  • “One might suggest the easier way out of this is to just not have the justices own individual stocks.” — Vladic [30:32]
  • “They are fully capable of implementing rule changes when they see fit.” — Murray [31:08]

A Note of Cautious Optimism

(32:08–34:40)

• Murray and Vladic close this segment by noting flashes of institutional resistance and the continuing importance of legal opposition, as highlighted by UCLA’s successful fight against a punitive fine and restrictions imposed by the Trump administration.
  • “When you fight, you win. And when you don’t fight, you never win.” — Murray [33:25]

Segment 2: SCOTUS February Sitting Preview

(38:40–57:42)

February’s Lighter Docket—But Key Issues

(38:40–40:45)

• After a blockbuster January (trans rights, the Second Amendment, property rights, Fed independence), February brings less headline-grabbing but still meaningful cases. March’s “calm before the storm” will bring major election law and immigration cases.

Spotlight: Second Amendment Case — U.S. v. Hamani

(40:45–49:49)

• Case Summary:
  The Supreme Court will decide whether federal law prohibiting gun possession by “unlawful users” of controlled substances (e.g., marijuana, cocaine) violates the Second Amendment, especially after the landmark Bruen and Rahimi decisions.

• Context & Messiness:
  The facts are muddied by claims that the respondent may have terrorist associations, and the government is seizing on “dangerousness” as a justification for the gun ban.

  • “This case is ostensibly governed by the court’s deranged decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen...” — Litman [43:31]

• History & “Analogous” Laws:
  The parties argue over whether Founding-era laws about “habitual drunkards” can justify today’s restrictions. The hosts deride the whole exercise:

  • “I just can’t believe this is what we have to do under the guise of constitutional law.” — Murray [44:34]

• Which Test Applies?
  The outcome may turn on whether the Court applies a “historical twin” approach (requiring nearly identical precedents) or allows contemporary understandings of danger to shape the result.

  • As Justice Jackson pointedly asked at Rahimi’s argument:
    • “If we’re still applying modern sensibilities, I don’t really understand the historical framing.” — Jackson (quoted by Murray) [46:35]

• Political Irony:
  The Biden/Trump administrations have both, at times, supported restrictions, suggesting that the real test is “for my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

  • “A campaign of ‘we get to decide who gets guns,’ after decades of suggesting that it’s the liberals who want to take some people’s guns.” — Murray [49:49]

Brief Roundup: Other February Cases

(50:03–55:47)

• Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean Cruises: Private litigation for property confiscated by Cuba.
• ExxonMobil v. Corporación CIMEX: Sovereign immunity and Cuban asset claims.
• Enbridge Energy v. Nestlé: Removal procedure in federal courts.
• Pung v. Isabella County, MI: When surplus from a forced property sale counts as an unconstitutional taking.
• Hunter v. U.S.: Are appellate waivers valid for claims of unconstitutional sentencing, even where judges say, “You have a right to appeal”?
• Montgomery v. Kariba Transport: Does federal law preempt state tort claims against freight brokers selecting dangerous motor carriers?

March Sneak Peek: Gnome v. Al Otro Lado (Asylum)

(55:47–57:42)

• Hugely consequential: Will those stopped at the Mexican border be deemed to have “arrived” in the U.S. for asylum law purposes?
• Danger if gov wins: “Would mean the administration wouldn’t even have to consider an individual’s asylum claim.” — Murray [57:21]

Segment 3: Elliot Williams Interview — “Five Bullets”

(62:04–86:45)

The Bernie Goetz Shooting and Its Echoes

(62:04–70:00)

• Event Recap:
  In 1984, Bernie Goetz, a white New Yorker previously mugged, shot four unarmed Black teens on a subway, claiming self-defense. The case polarized the city and the nation, triggering cross-racial support out of fear of urban crime but also deep racial anxieties.

  • “He was an avenger, almost a Batman of sorts.” — Williams [64:36]

• Complex Support:
  Many Black New Yorkers expressed empathy: “A number of Black people even saying, ‘I would have done the same thing.’” — Williams [65:32]

  • But, Williams notes, “The fact that he was white made it much easier to make him a hero. ... What if the races were reversed?” [66:30]

• Modern Parallels:
  Williams and Murray both highlight chilling continuities between 1980s crime politics, the racialized fear rhetoric of the time, and the present—touching on Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, and the straight line from “tough on crime” to “anti-woke” politics.

  • “Bernie was anti-woke before being anti-woke was cool.” — Williams [69:49]

• Key Moments & Quotes:

  • On Curtis Sliwa & the Guardian Angels:
    “He regards the fact that the Guardian Angels exist as indicative of the failures of the NYPD and policing generally.” — Williams [71:00]
  • On interviewing Goetz:
    “The most remarkable thing was the utter lack of self-reflection... He said, ‘Those guys needed shooting.’” — Williams [72:58]
    • Goetz’s racism became even starker over time.

The NRA and the Case’s Legacy

(75:09–78:55)

• NRA Shift:
  The Goetz case catalyzed the NRA’s pivot from a sportsman’s club to hardline Second Amendment advocacy. They directly funded Goetz’s defense.

  • “It was the perfect test case: urban, blue state, denied a gun permit, ‘self-defense.’” — Williams [76:11]

• SCOTUS and the New York “Danger” Narrative:
  Supreme Court justices—especially Alito—invoke 1980s NYC imagery to justify loosening gun restrictions. But NYC is dramatically safer now, making the nostalgia for the Goetz era striking and often misleading.

  • “It’s a Rorschach test: if the city’s rough, we need more guns; if it’s safe, we need even more guns.” — Williams [78:55]

Jury Dynamics & Social Reflection

(83:08–86:12)

• The Jury as Mirror:
  Williams and Murray discuss how the trial jury, mostly white and itself crime-scarred, “trusted their guts,” identifying with Goetz—demonstrating the persistent challenge of achieving racially unbiased justice.
  • “Trusting their guts means also putting themselves in the place of a defendant that they felt they had some kinship or connection to.” — Williams [83:08]

Favorite Things

(86:45–89:12)

• Murray: Listening to Ron Chernow’s Grant biography and binge-watching The Last Dance.
• Litman: Reading Adriana Herrera's A Caribbean Heiress in Paris series; loving Charli XCX's Wuthering Heights album.
• Manifestation: Litman hopes her new law review article, "The Passive Vices," will be snapped up by student editors.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “It’s a pretty resounding loss for Trump...” — Steve Vladic [04:54]
• “Barrett’s softness on the major questions doctrine could be a very big deal.” — Steve Vladic [06:18]
• “The fact that Kavanaugh is in the dissent here... is a big deal for how much it reinforces how this is the Roberts and Barrett court.” — Steve Vladic [07:22]
• "For those of us who care about law, it’s just wildly disheartening. Not the bottom line votes, but just the pure hackery..." — Melissa Murray [10:06]
• “This should have been unanimous... If we’re not being consistent, what are we doing?” — Vladic [10:20]
• “At least some of this is logistics and incompetence, not malice.” — Steve Vladic [19:48]
• “One might suggest that the easier way out... is to just not have the justices own individual stocks.” — Steve Vladic [30:32]
• “When you fight, you win. When you don’t fight, you never win.” — Melissa Murray [33:25]
• “I just can’t believe this is what we have to do under the guise of constitutional law.” — Melissa Murray [44:34]
• “Bernie was anti-woke before being anti-woke was cool.” — Elliot Williams [69:49]
• “Trusting their guts means also putting themselves in the place of a defendant that they felt they had some kinship or connection to.” — Elliot Williams [83:08]

Useful Timestamps (MM:SS Format)

• 02:29: Pod begins, guest Steve Vladic introduced
• 04:42: Tariffs ruling analysis with Vladic’s four takeaways
• 10:30: Remedies question in tariff ruling
• 17:48: Lower courts push back on DOJ noncompliance
• 24:45: Judicial Conference and free speech for judges
• 29:36: SCOTUS “stock ticker” rule
• 33:25: Note on UCLA’s win as symbol of resistance
• 38:40: February SCOTUS sitting preview begins
• 40:45: Deep dive on Second Amendment “unlawful user” case
• 55:47: Preview of March’s asylum/immigration case
• 62:04: Elliot Williams interview on Five Bullets
• 75:09: NRA in the Goetz aftermath
• 83:08: Discussion of juries, race, and legal system

Conclusion

This episode delivers a thorough, nuanced snapshot of the current Supreme Court milieu, lower-court resistance, and the enduring complexities of law, politics, and gun culture in America. With sharp legal analysis (especially of the evolving Second Amendment doctrine), historical insight, and interviews tying past and present, the team teaches, critiques, and entertains in equal measure—a must-listen for legal minds and curious citizens alike.