Steve Vladeck (3:26)

Steve, happy to be here. Wish we're under better circumstances as ever. Yes.

Leah Littman (3:32)

So for people who might not remember what exactly the story is about, back in 2016, generally speaking, Supreme Court wasn't really in the business of firing off unreasoned orders, staying a bunch of lower court opinions or administrative policies, but they did so and really began this unprecedented practice in important ways when, as I said in 2016, they stayed the Clean Power Plan with no explanation. And there's so much to talk about from this New York Times story, but I guess I'll just ask you what's one big thing that stuck out to you and we can go from there.

Steve Vladeck (4:02)

John Roberts.

Leah Littman (4:03)

Oh, yeah. Wanna say a bit more than that? Sure.

Steve Vladeck (4:08)

So I don't think that either you or I or most of the folks who listen to Strzok's scrutiny were ever especially smitten with the balls and strikes canard that then nominee John Roberts trotted out in 2005. But if this isn't the last nail in whatever coffin was left for the idea that John Roberts is some impartial institution, constitutionally minded, deeply principled jurist who believes in judicial restraint, I just want to hold his two memos up and say no. Even though Justice Kennedy is clearly the dispositive vote in this case, none of this happens without John Roberts.

Leah Littman (4:50)

The story describes how he initiated it. He is the one that puts the state application to the conference, writes a memo saying, I think we should do this. And when people push back, he is the one that continues to press for it. And his memos, you mentioned, the two memos, they read like they were written by industry. You know, a key point of his is that this is, quote, the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the power sector, as if that is the emergency warranting intervention.

Steve Vladeck (5:17)

So I mean, I mean, there are so many things to say. I'll just say, and I say some of it in my, in my newsletter this morning. To me, the three things, Leah, that really stand out about the memos themselves as opposed to just their existence. Right. Is one, he is completely wrong about the stay standard. So he invokes older cases that were about stays of lower court mandates in a context in which what industry was asking him to do was reach across the separation of powers and basically almost enjoin an executive branch policy.

Leah Littman (5:54)

Right.

Steve Vladeck (5:55)

Everyone agrees that there are no examples before this case of the Supreme Court doing that. And so you would think. And indeed, Justice Kagan says as much. And the Solicitor General in their opposition made a huge deal out of this. Right. There's no acknowledgment in his memo that this is new. He cites the standard for a much more traditional stay as if that were the correct standard. And then there's. So that's one. So one, is he sort of. He gets off on the wrong foot by not even taking the. The actual request seriously. Two, I mean, Leah, your point about industry I would sort of slightly reconfigure as a point about irreparable harm.

Leah Littman (6:30)

Oh, yes. Which is definitely want to talk about irreparable harm.

Steve Vladeck (6:33)

So this is the guy who, you know, is responsible for the court's modern obsession with the idea that any time the government actions are blocked, the government is irreparably harmed.

Leah Littman (6:44)

Yeah. Just want to underscore this. Right. They have been virtually explicit in shadow docket orders from the Trump administration that there's almost a per se presumption of irreparable harm for the government whenever the government's policies are irreparably enjoined or paused.

Steve Vladeck (7:01)

And Leah, what opinion do they cite for that proposition?

Leah Littman (7:05)

What opinion did they cite for those.

Steve Vladeck (7:06)

Oh, gosh, they said in chambers opinion from 2014 by a little guy named John Roberts.

Leah Littman (7:11)

Yeah.

Steve Vladeck (7:12)

Right. And so, you know, this sort of. Even if you buy the argument that the industry actually faced irreparable harm, and oh, by the way, the court also doesn't think economic costs are ever irreparable harm.

Leah Littman (7:24)

Yes.

Steve Vladeck (7:24)

Right. But even if you bought the conspiracy theory, I want to come. That's my third point about the irreparable harm. This is the guy who also says the government's reparbably harmed. So where is the balancing of the equities that the court is supposed to be undertaking here? Right. What about the harm to the administration? What about the harm to the, oh, I don't know, environmental.

Leah Littman (7:42)

Right. No one talks about harm to the environment. Nobody.

Steve Vladeck (7:47)

So I want to get back to why I think the opposition memos are so soft. I suspect you and I have the exact same explanation, which is Anthony Kennedy.

Leah Littman (7:55)

Exactly. Justice Kennedy is still on the court.

Steve Vladeck (7:57)

Right. And then the third point is like the factual, and this is more in Roberts second memo than in his first, but like the factual basis for their belief that if they didn't intervene in February 2016, they'd be stuck. Right. Is a BBC News story and one other like random factual statement that wasn't in the record. How do we know they weren't in the record? There was no record.

Leah Littman (8:23)

Exactly. Yeah. So I want to talk about those citations because this is also just a huge part of the story to me. But just one more. Be it on irreparable harm, which is, it's not only that in my view, the Chief has inverted this irreparable harm, it's that he has been so completely unconcerned with all of these claims to irreparable harm that people whose lives have been totally disrupted by things the Trump administration has been doing, he doesn't care.

Steve Vladeck (8:49)

And neither does or in the funding context.

Leah Littman (8:52)

Right, right.

Steve Vladeck (8:53)

Programs that have to shut down because without funding they can't continue to operate. That is the exact kind of baked in economic cost that was putatively the basis for why they intervened back in 2016. So. Right. The point is not just that he's being inconsistent, the point is that he's being ruthlessly hypocritical.

Leah Littman (9:13)

Yes, exactly. So let's talk about the citation, because part of the story, and what seems to be driving the Chief justice and maybe some other justices as well, is that the Chief seems really angry at President Obama and the Obama administration and their epa, because what had happened is the Supreme Court had earlier invalidated the Obama administration's rule regarding mercury admissions. And after they do so, the EPA basically says, look, the majority of power plants are already in compliance or on their way to compliance, so this isn't going to be a huge deal. And the Chief justice basically takes offense to this and says, look, this is going to mean our rulings aren't necessarily going to keep these policies from going into effect, reaping their benefits and imposing the costs. And so the Chief repeatedly gestures to

Steve Vladeck (10:06)

this because, let's just be clear, because some people voluntarily chose to comply with the regulation.

Leah Littman (10:13)

Exactly.

Melissa Murray (10:14)

Yes.

Leah Littman (10:14)

Right, Right. They voluntarily chose to comply with this regulation, arguably suggesting the regulation might not have been so awful after all. And indeed, that was partially the story of the Clean Power Plan, because for all of the Chief Justice's belly aching about how horrible and catastrophic this policy was going to be, it ends up Industry meets the targets, and so their prediction game, not so great. But the memos, as you were noting, cite the BBC interview talking about how the EPA said they were baking in the Clean Power Plan to the system. And he invokes the, quote, comments of the EPA administrator. And there's so much to say about this. I mean, obviously this indicates they care deeply about what is said about them. They are monitoring this. They also seem to care deeply about the consequences of their opinions and not just like, the reasoning or the judgment.

Melissa Murray (11:03)

Think.

Leah Littman (11:03)

And also, where was this energy in SB8 when you talk about, you know, an opinion having no effect. Right. If you come back later. Right. And all of a sudden decide it. And also, this is another thing that I could not get out of my head. The hypocrisy of the Chief justice fixating on these statements when two years later he says, you can't take anything the President says and use it against him in the travel ban case.

Steve Vladeck (11:24)

The wide seems a little inconsistent.

Leah Littman (11:26)

It's just wild. It's wild.

Steve Vladeck (11:29)

I will give the Chief sort of an eighth of a pass for SB8 because he was on the right side in SBA. So, you know, we don't have. We can talk about some of the criminology a bit, too. I mean, we don't have memos from Scalia, Thomas, or Ginsburg. Right. We have memos from six of the Justices. I guess Alito's memo is, to me, entirely unsurprising.

Leah Littman (11:48)

Oh, of course.

Steve Vladeck (11:50)

Right.

Leah Littman (11:51)

He invokes the court's legitimacy.

Steve Vladeck (11:53)

That's right. The court's legitimacy is undermined. Yeah. Okay, we're back to, like in Mirabelli, where he says, we can't possibly indulge the someone who might be elected in a district we later strike down. Never mind that I'm responsible for doing that in Alabama, but I guess I'm a little struck also by Justice Kennedy. Right. Because it seems to me that the Chief had to be the mover here. This is a case that came out of the D.C. circuit. He was the circuit Justice. He would have always written the first memo. What's striking to me is that clearly everyone was fighting over Kennedy's vote, which is why, you know, Breyer's memo is very civil. Right. Breyer proposes a compromise.

Leah Littman (12:35)

Exactly. Yes. He offers the compromise, basically saying, well, the states can ask the EPA for an extension, and if the EPA doesn't give it to them, then they can come to us. Like, that was his proposal.

Steve Vladeck (12:45)

And Kagan adds, we can tell the D.C. circuit to hustle, which is funny. Like Roberts pooh poos that in his response, but it's funny because now they do that all the time.

Leah Littman (12:54)

Exactly.

Steve Vladeck (12:55)

Right. And so what's striking to me, though, is that the result is that there's nothing in the memo about the stakes. And what I mean by that is the stakes for the court. And I think some of that's because Breyer and Kagan and Sotomayor were all pulling their punches a bit because they thought they still had a shot at Kennedy's vote. But so there's almost like, no acknowledgement. I mean, partly because the chief's member doesn't acknowledge how novel this is. Right, right. None of the discussion inside the court is, is this something we should be doing in general?

Kate Shaw (13:28)

Yep.

Leah Littman (13:29)

Yeah. And clearly, I mean, with the benefit of hindsight, they think they did awesome because they've only continued to do it since. And that is also part of what is so startling to me is you look back at their memos, they were wrong about the predictions. They were wrong about so many aspects of this, and they just keep doing it.

Steve Vladeck (13:49)

And I think also, I mean. So this is maybe a question for you. Right. Because I guess it's a question. It's more about what's inside Justice Kennedy's head, which is maybe he. Because his memo I find to be the most frustrating of all of them because he's like, I'm persuaded by the Roberts memos without any analysis of them,

Leah Littman (14:07)

what aspects of them.

Melissa Murray (14:09)

Right.

Steve Vladeck (14:10)

But I wonder if part of this is Kennedy believes that he'd be the gatekeeper and that things fall apart not because of the move they make in 2016, but because when the volume ticks up, Kennedy's no longer the gatekeeper. Now it's the chief in Kavanaugh.

Leah Littman (14:26)

Yeah. So that is definitely a possibility. On the other hand, and I don't take you to be giving Justice Kennedy a pass, but by the time he steps down, the Supreme Court has already used the shadow docket to give the Trump administration a lot of what it wants on the travel ban. So he has seen what this might become, and he has seen that the Trump administration is going to be making these extravagant requests, and he decides to give them a seat on the Supreme Court. And so maybe he thought that, right, maybe this was one of, like, I will save the country delusions, but obviously does not play out that way.

Steve Vladeck (15:01)

And then just the last obvious thing that jumps out at me is no one suggests that any of the substantive exchange should be memorialized. Right. So I know, because I don't know. Right. They wrote these memos.

Leah Littman (15:13)

He's trying to persuade colleagues.

Steve Vladeck (15:16)

Right. But so the actual order we get. Right. Has no analysis from the majority and it has no dissent. I mean. Right. The, the Dems all note that they're dissenting, but they don't say why.

Leah Littman (15:25)

Yes.

Steve Vladeck (15:26)

And there's no discussion internally about whether that's a good thing or not. I mean. Right.

Leah Littman (15:30)

Yeah.

Steve Vladeck (15:30)

So the court basically opens a Pandora's box because the chief was pissed off at the Obama administration.

Leah Littman (15:36)

Yep.

Steve Vladeck (15:37)

In a context in which it's completely hypocritical about why and doesn't tell us anything that would give us any insight.

Leah Littman (15:44)

Right, right. Exactly. And I think we've already been implicit about this. But the fixation on the equities and the fairness of all of this is also really hard to miss because it was such a reflection of results oriented judging and the inevitability of these guys views about fairness and equity informing what they are doing here. And yeah, so this is why I

Steve Vladeck (16:11)

find the timing of this story really fascinating because you know, as, as, you know, as I think you guys probably talked about in the rest of the episode, it's been an interesting week for conversations about the Supreme Court's lack of politicization or very politicization between Justice Jackson's speech last Monday at Yale, Justice Thomas speech Wednesday at Texas. Right. And the Justice Kavanaugh is a principled centrist leading us to a bright future book tour. It really does seem to me like this story pours a whole lot of cold water on everything except Justice Jackson's speech.

Leah Littman (16:48)

Yes.

Steve Vladeck (16:49)

Which is completely consistent with what's in the Clean Power plan memos. That the court stopped taking equity seriously, that in the process it stopped caring about how its behavior affects anyone other than who the court views as its constituency and that that's the central problem with the emergency docket.

Leah Littman (17:06)

Yeah. Since you mentioned the Justice Kavanaugh as an institutionalist and willing to save the country book tour. Did want to explain for our listeners who might not understand it. You know, on this podcast we constantly struggle between wanting to talk about things and not giving them airtime or platform. This is an example where this already has a platform. So one of the co hosts of advisory opinions who's now the publisher of SCOTUS blog, Sarah Isger. Sarah Isger Flores, former spokesperson for the Trump DOJ during child separation, has a new book, Last Branch Standing, in which she argues the Supreme Court is awesome and they're doing amazing sweeties. And actually especially Justice Kavanaugh, especially Justice Kavanaugh, and they have this grand plan to save the country from executive power. And that's actually what they're doing all along. And indeed, the day before this Cantor Liptak story runs, she has an interview with Ross Douthat and the New York Times explicating the thesis of that book. Again, Supreme Court doing amazing. Justice Kavanaugh is going to save us. And they're reining in executive power. And I just don't know if you can have like a better reveal about why exactly that is so misguided. And also underscoring how it is obviously an effort to legitimize and give cover to what the court is doing than this one. 2. But that was the reference.

Steve Vladeck (18:29)

No, I mean, it's whitewashing the course. Because part of what I find and I have not written anything about the book, I wrote a piece in my newsletter back after the tariffs case. Cause Sarah Isger wrote a piece in the Atlantic after the tariffs case where she said the real program of the Roberts court is reining in presidential power.

Leah Littman (18:48)

Oh, my God.

Steve Vladeck (18:49)

And it's not just that Lee and I both roll our eyes at that claim. It's that the actual analytical foundation for that claim is based on a remarkably superficial series of easily debunked and or incomplete assessments of the work of the court. I mean, she writes a piece about the Trump administration being reined in by the court that ignores just about all of the Trump administration's wins on the emergency docket last term. I don't know how you can do that. And so it seems to me that part of the problem here is that you can believe that the court is getting things right in these cases. I don't. But the notion that this is somehow reflecting some deep body of coherent principles that reflect judicial decision making at its finest, I think is rather blown up by what we learned on Saturday.

Leah Littman (19:40)

Yes, completely. And you know, if you ever find yourself perusing legal commentary that treats the range of reasonable views as somewhere between the shadow docket is pretty good to the shadow docket and Justice Kavanaugh are amazing. You might want to ask yourself what exactly is is this commentary publisher expert exactly trying to sell me on? That will be my final note.

Steve Vladeck (20:04)

Yeah, I'm not sure how to top that, except just to say one more thing, which is, as Leah, I think you know about as well as any other human being in the planet, this has been my project for the better part of a decade. And I think it's worth stressing that whatever there's going to be efforts on the right to sort of say what the court did in the Clean Power Plan cases was totally legitimate. Right. The same folks who thought that the Obama administration, I mean back to the Isger thing, that Obama was just as bad as Trump because he said I have a pen and I don't remember what the other thing he had was. But right. You can think that the results in these cases are correct. You can think that the court was correctly pissed off at the Obama administration. We are increasingly past the point where you can defend the court against charges of hypocrisy, inconsistency and lack of principle. And so if your only principle is that I like the result, it very well may be possible, friends, that you don't have any principles.

Leah Littman (21:06)

Great note to end on again this New York Times piece. Incredible reporting. What a public service. Thank you to Jodi and Adam for getting this out there and getting this done. Thank you so much Steve for hopping on on short notice and for all of your work on the Shadow docket. If you have read Steve's book, the Shadow Docket, this would not have been surprising. And so again, thanks Mom. Please check that out and also Steve's Substack one first to stay up to speed on all of this. And thanks again Steve.

Steve Vladeck (21:38)

Thanks Leah.

Leah Littman (21:39)

And now for our regular episode. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Cozy Earth. Mother's Day is coming up, which means it's time to treat the moms in your life, including dog moms. And Cozy Earth is a guaranteed way to do do that. Cozy Earth creates comfort designed for the rhythm women live every day. From the soft, plushy fabrics in the morning to the comfort that helps unwind at night. Thoughtful by nature and gentle in every detail, it's a small way to give back to the person who gives so much. I recently expanded my Cozy Earth collection to include slippers and let me tell you why. These are elite level slippers. The fabric is plushy and the footbed is super supportive. I basically can't walk barefoot on wood floors because of running injuries and so a lot of slippers just don't offer me the support that I need need. But Cozy Earth slippers do. They give the support and the plush comfort. Plus they're versatile enough that I've been able to wear them around the house during the 50 degree swings in weather here in Michigan. No joke on 20 degree days or 70 degree days. And sometimes those are back to back days here in Michigan. Cozy Earth slippers are where it's at. Cozy Earth also offers risk free purchases like their 100 Night Sleep trial. You can try their products for yourself or with a special mom. Again, maybe a dog mom in your life. Try them for herself. They also offer a 10 year warranty because cozy Earth products are made with mom level quiet devotion. Let this Mother's Day be a reminder that she deserves care too. Discover how Cozy Earth turns everyday routines into moments of softness and ease. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code STRICT for an exclusive 20% off. And if you see a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. That's Code strict for an exclusive 20% off. Because home starts with Mom. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by mosh. It's 4:20, which means it's probably snack time. But I'm Also in my 40s on this 420 and the older I get, the more I find myself wanting to be more intentional about the way I live, eat and take care of my body. And that's why I turn to Mosh Protein Bars. After seeing a loved one's battle with Alzheimer's, Maria Shriver and her son Patrick created Mosh, the Brain brand to inspire and educate you to proactively maintain your brain health. Mash protein bars are made with ingredients that support your brain and body, like the Ashwagandha, Lion's Mane and Omega 3s Plus. Mash is the first and only food brand boosted with Cognisym, a premium form of citicoline that helps support focus, memory and mental clarity. And the Mash bars taste amazing with nine delicious flavors including plant based options in Chocolate Chip Cookie, Hazelnut Chocolate Chip and Peanut Chocolate Chip. And now you can save on MASH while making your wellness routine effortless. Get 25% off plus free shipping on your first 15 count variety pack and then 20% off for life on your monthly subscription. You can swap flavors anytime based on what you like best. Keep your go to's on repeat or try something new. Your favorite functional fuel is delivered directly to your door so you never run out and supporting your brain health becomes a simple habit you can feel good about. Why? Well, Mosh donates a portion of the proceeds from every order to the Women's Alzheimer's movement because two thirds of Alzheimer's patients are women and Mosh is working to close that gap, which is part of what makes it a perfect snack to have on hand for Mother's Day. It's more than just a protein bar, it's brain fuel with a purpose. Find your favorites, build your boxes, or keep things Fresh with a variety pack. Mosh bars are the best way to customize your health while giving back. Head to moshlife.com scrutiny and subscribe today to get 25% off your first variety pack and 20% off your monthly subscription with code SCRUTINY. That's 25% off your first pack and 20% off your subscription of brain boosting bars delivered straight to your door. Start building brain health into your everyday with Mosh bars. Thanks to Mosh for sponsoring this episode. Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Leah Littman.

Melissa Murray (25:44)

I'm Alyssa Murray.

Kate Shaw (25:45)

And I'm Kate Shaw. And we have a great show in store for you today. We're going to begin by discussing some news. Are you there, God? Because there is a lot of it, in particular involving Pope Leo. We will then walk through the single SCOTUS opinion that we got last week and we will also preview the first week of the April sitting. And as always, we will close with some of our favorite things. All right, first up, some news.

Audio Producer/Interjector (26:06)

Legal.

Kate Shaw (26:07)

Ish.

Leah Littman (26:08)

First up is the President and the Pope. You would think that a week after getting flack for posting on social media an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ healing the sick. Scratch that. Scratch that. As a physician healing the sick, dressed as Jesus as you do as a physician. Right. That the President would ease up on the Messiah imagery. You would be wrong.

Melissa Murray (26:33)

This week, the President posted another image of himself, this time being embraced by Jesus. What would Jesus do? Indeed. Anyway, I can tell you what Jesus probably wouldn't do. Jesus probably would not pick a fight with the first American Pope. But as should be evident but nonetheless bears repeating, Donald Trump is not Jesus.

Kate Shaw (26:59)

Amazing. This needs to be said, Melissa.

Leah Littman (27:01)

But do we need a fact check?

Melissa Murray (27:05)

Is he Jesus?

Kate Shaw (27:06)

Will we get sued? The fact that he says no says no. But yeah, you know, it has been a pretty amazing development in this otherwise cursed timeline that Pope Leo xiv, the first American Pope, has emerged the way he has as this singular voice of moral clarity. He's increasingly spoken out against the administration's hardline immigration tactics and has now begun to criticize in no uncertain terms the administration's catastrophic wars, emphasizing the need for multilateralism, championing decency and the rule of law. Last month, when DEI Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Americans to pray for victory in Iran, quote, in the name of Jesus Christ, AKA Donald Trump, apparently the Pope, in his Palm Sunday message, said, in what definitely seemed like a response, God Quote, does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.

Melissa Murray (27:58)

Oh, snap. And, of course, the President of the United States took all of this personally. Just a few weeks after Easter, the holiest day in Christendom, he decided to drag the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Leo xiv, for filth. Let's roll the tape. Why did you attack Pope Leo on Trish Social?

Leah Littman (28:18)

I don't think he's doing a very good job. He likes crime, I guess. We don't like a pope that's gonna say that it's okay to have a nuclear weapon. The week on crime is just. I'm obsessed with that lie. Whenever anyone says shit to me, I just say, you're weak on crime.

Melissa Murray (28:37)

Or the Dow.

Leah Littman (28:38)

The Dow. Exactly.

Melissa Murray (28:41)

He's like, have you seen the crime in Vatican City?

Audio Producer/Interjector (28:43)

Yeah.

Melissa Murray (28:44)

Think about it.

Leah Littman (28:44)

Think about it.

Melissa Murray (28:46)

In any event, the Vicar of Christ is doubling down on dgaf, responding to the president's comments and posts. The pontiff responded, quote, I am not a politician, and I do not want to enter into a debate with him. Shorter. Pope Leo, that guy.

Leah Littman (29:05)

More like, who's she? I don't know her. I don't know him.

Kate Shaw (29:09)

That seems more.

Melissa Murray (29:10)

More.

Kate Shaw (29:10)

More papal, honestly, than more people.

Melissa Murray (29:13)

Yeah, it's true.

Leah Littman (29:14)

That is.

Kate Shaw (29:15)

Mileage may vary.

Melissa Murray (29:18)

I do think Pope Leo was just like, no. Like, no, no, don't need to. Will not. I do not engage. In any event, Pope Leo also made clear that he would not be cowed by the president saying, quote, I continue to speak strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, dialogue, and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems. Too many people are suffering today. Too many innocent lives have been lost. And I believe someone must stand up and say, there is a better way.

Kate Shaw (29:51)

Just Amen.

Melissa Murray (29:52)

What would Jesus do?

Kate Shaw (29:53)

I might do that. That does seem like it. But don't worry. Not one to miss the chance to suck up to the guy upstairs and here. That's Trump, not God. In this man's universe. Despite his avowed piety, the Vice President of the United States also weighed in to say, quote, in the same way that it's important for the Vice President of the United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy. I think it's very, very important for the Pope. I can't even get through this. For the Pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.

Leah Littman (30:24)

Mr. Vance said, sir, what do we call this? Is it Godsplaining? Is it Vance splaining to the Vatican? It's something else.

Melissa Murray (30:38)

I do think this is an improvement. Because it does seem like JD Vance is advocating for a species of separation of church and state. So that's a plus. Let's all look for the silver linings.

Leah Littman (30:49)

Right?

Kate Shaw (30:50)

I'm trying to remember the name of his forthcoming book, and I feel like, is it Communion?

Melissa Murray (30:55)

Is it Manhood?

Kate Shaw (30:57)

Close. You'd be forgiven for making that mistake. But in fact, it is something like Finding My Way Back to Faith. And as I think about this upcoming book release, I'm. I. I just wonder whether we should revive something that we've done previously, which is have Love it on the pod to play Vance. Maybe in a faux book episode. Anyway, just floating it. Let's think on it.

Melissa Murray (31:17)

I think the vice president would love that.

Kate Shaw (31:18)

I do.

Leah Littman (31:19)

I'm sure he would. And I'm really hoping that the vice president manages to do with his book what he did with Viktor Orban ADF in Germany. The invitation, Hope. Right. And Pope Francis. And that he does with his book, you know, in that he helps another book coming out that week, which would be, of course, the paperback version of Lawless, an updated chapter on the unitary executive and everything else.

Audio Producer/Interjector (31:50)

So.

Leah Littman (31:51)

Yeah.

Kate Shaw (31:51)

Anyways, get Vance on that now.

Leah Littman (31:55)

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Have him campaign against my book.

Kate Shaw (31:59)

Yes.

Leah Littman (31:59)

Ask for better publicity.

Melissa Murray (32:02)

But women are reading and writing.

Leah Littman (32:07)

But speaking of being careful and talking about matters of theology, DEI Secretary of Endless War, slash Secretary of War crimes. Allegedly crimes. Pete Kegseth. Kegsbreath. That's not it either.

Kate Shaw (32:24)

Wait, who was it? Was that Katie Fang? No.

Leah Littman (32:26)

Katie did Kegsbreath. Katie Fang. Love her. I love that. Anyways, DEI Secretary of something, Pete Hegseth quoted a Bible verse that was actually some lines from Quentin Tarantino's 1995 film Pulp Fiction that loosely drew on the Bible, but of course was not actually in the Bible because actual reading is apparently too hard. What's your two favorite Bible verses? Wrong answers only. Mine is Duane Reade. Bag with the handles tied. Sex toys, butt plug, lube inside.

Kate Shaw (33:00)

When I tell you the crowd in New York City lost its mind at that line. Above all other lines, I am not exaggerating.

Leah Littman (33:07)

We'll get to my other favorite line.

Melissa Murray (33:08)

Wait. What's your name?

Leah Littman (33:09)

I'm coming to the cottage.

Melissa Murray (33:11)

Okay, what's yours? Kate.

Kate Shaw (33:15)

He who picks a fight with Pope Leo shall have, shall not have the last word.

Melissa Murray (33:23)

Okay. Mine is TikTok, you don't stop. TikTok, you don't stop.

Kate Shaw (33:28)

Come inside.

Melissa Murray (33:29)

That's for you, Adam. Sorry. Inside inside joke. All right. All right. On to some other news. Speaking of squabbling up we are about to hit the final stretch of October term 2025, which means the girls and the ghouls are fighting.

Kate Shaw (33:51)

All right, first up, we got a girl. We got a ghoul in. In the first ring.

Melissa Murray (33:56)

Girl versus ghoul.

Kate Shaw (33:58)

So I think it's now. Two weeks ago, at an event at the University of Kansas Law School, Justice Otomayor said, when asked a question about the Gnome versus Vasquez per Domo case, quote, I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals and probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour. There are some people who can't understand our experiences even when you tell them. There was no ellipsis in there. That wasn't all a continuous statement, but all of that was in Justice Sotomayor's remarks.

Melissa Murray (34:29)

So obviously, she was talking about son of privilege Brett Kavanaugh, inventor of the Kavanaugh stop, wherein ICE agents are permitted to racially profile people regardless of their citizenship or legal status in this country and detain them, but the detentions must be brief and do not have any real impact on their lives, jobs, or rights. Wait, no, that's not right. Right.

Kate Shaw (34:57)

Has someone told Brett Kavanaugh that?

Leah Littman (34:59)

Well, I think someone told Brett Kavanaugh something, and it's unclear exactly what happened. Maybe what. Quied quite a little a widdle. Then last week, Justice Sotomayor walked back some of her comments. So the Supreme Court's Public Information Office released the following statement, quote, at a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I. That is, Justice Sotomayor referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague, end quote. Why do you think she apologized? Slash, should she have?

Kate Shaw (35:39)

You know, we've talked about this before, and this has obviously been written before. She is somebody who works very hard to maintain good relations with her colleagues. It seems like it matters to her a lot. I mean, she's, like, got good relations with everyone. She really does seem to care a great deal about, you know, sort of knowing. Knowing and maintaining, like, genuinely warm friendships with everyone in the building on the court. And I think he actually, like, was offended, and she felt badly. I'm not sure why she felt she needed to do it publicly.

Melissa Murray (36:08)

Sweet. I'm so sorry.

Kate Shaw (36:09)

Yeah, I don't know. But obviously, Melissa, you are much more of a knower of the mind of Sonia Sotomayor.

Melissa Murray (36:13)

What do you think? I think that is probably right. I mean, I think she does prioritize collegiality. I mean, she was friends with all of her colleagues on the second circuit, even when, you know, there were broad ideological disagreements, although not quite as broad as these. But I guess I bristle a little with the idea that these comments were inappropriate, because I actually would have said they were incomplete. Right. I mean, actually, she could have given him a much harder read. I mean, so basically she was just saying. And again, it was harsh criticism. Like, you know, this is someone who doesn't know what it's like to need a job, need to show up at your job every day, where a detention stop could actually be fatal to your employment prospects. Like, if you just did not show up at work because you had been detained by ice, whether wrongfully or not, you were going to lose your job. Like, his parents are professionals. They have the freedom to be like, you know what? I'm taking a personal day. Like, ICE detained me. Although that would actually never happen. I think that was the gist of her comment. Maybe it's harsh, but I think it's real. I actually thought she could have gone even further, because the real critique of Brett Kavanaugh here is not necessarily that he is the son of professionals who may not know what it's like to have to show up every day at a 9 to 5. The criticism of Brett Kavanaugh and these Kavanaugh stops is like, you are a white guy who does not know what it's like to be a person of color living in this country at a time when. When the government is racially profiling people

Leah Littman (37:40)

and who just ignored the facts.

Melissa Murray (37:42)

Yes. Yeah, that's the real criticism. And I think she was actually quite restrained in not being like, yo, do you know what it's like? I mean, like, this is basically what black people say about stop and frisk. Like, it doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter what degrees you have, like, how much money's in your bank account. This can hit you at any time. And it is devastating, maybe in a very real practical sense, to your employment, but also to your dignity. And. And he just does not get that. And I think she could have gone in. And she could have gone in really hard on him, and she spared him. And so props to her for some restraint, I think.

Leah Littman (38:16)

Yeah. So in addition to the possibility that it just matters to her to maintain these relationships with her colleagues, a part of me wondered, which is kind of the flip side of what you know, I jokingly suggested last week, which was, what did Brett Kavanaugh do this time to provoke these comments? Whether those relationships and maintaining them, she thinks, and whether they in fact do accomplish some substantive purposes, maintaining relationships in order to preserve the possibility of a coalition to avoid the next cliff jumping into fascism. And I don't know to what extent she thinks that. I don't know to what extent that is true. We do know these people have very thin skins. And so it's not outside the realm of possibility. And this is. Is part of what makes their job so difficult. And it is hard to assess from the outside exactly what is happening and to know in some alternative universe whether some other course of action might be better. That's my own personal view, as I've said before, but I don't know exactly the calculus she is making.

Melissa Murray (39:28)

Well, I do think that there is that recently filed case in the Second Circuit that's being brought by individuals who, who would be subject to these stops, challenging the prospect of these stops. And so there is an opportunity, I think, for Justice Kavanaugh to, on the record, on the merit stock, it actually recant what he did in his concurrence in Noem vs Vasquez Perdomo. And maybe her initial comments are meant to sort of spur that on to like, actually clear some room for him to sort of like, you know, listen, I didn't think this out fully. Like, here's why, whatever. And you know, I do think she was just like, okay, she probably got some heat from people about this and clearing the air. But she said it. Right? And she said it. She may regret having said it, but she said it. It's true. And it's not even the worst thing she could have said.

Leah Littman (40:20)

Yeah.

Melissa Murray (40:21)

If you were wondering, listeners, whether the Supreme Court of the United States falls prey to patriarchal double standards when it comes to critical speech amongst colleagues, well, that is obviously an open question. We will simply note we're making no statements here. But we'll just note that on the same day that Justice Sotomayor's apology was released, Justice Thomas made the following remarks at a speech delivered at the University of Texas at Austin.

Kate Shaw (40:50)

Wait, can I just quickly interrupt to note that at these remarks, Justice Thomas mentioned at the outset that he was joined by and like, wanted everyone to know that he was joined by Harlan Crow, which is a name that people may not have heard for a while. But that is the.

Melissa Murray (41:06)

Oh, we remember him, you guys.

Kate Shaw (41:07)

We remember. Hope our listeners do. But this was private jet, Harlem billionaire, benefactor, close personal Life size unconstitutional as we remind all for them to be friends. But in any event, I, I just thought it was the trolliest move for Thomas to just say, like Harlan, I'm so happy to have you here at the outset of his remarks, because he wants everyone to know he is not worried about the scrutiny he has faced. He's not sorry.

Melissa Murray (41:35)

Is that what I said?

Kate Shaw (41:36)

Yeah. And then he took what I said to say a lot of other, I think pretty jaw dropping things just in terms of the self. Intense talk. Let's roll it.

Justice Clarence Thomas (41:46)

Since the day I arrived in Washington, there was never a shortage of people espousing noble purposes, saying all the right things. All around me, there have been people full of promises, claiming a commitment to some righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety, or to the original meaning of the Constitution. They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences and their country. Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights. You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people.

Kate Shaw (43:07)

Well, well, well. Yeah, I mean, so it's me. Hi. We're the problem, but I don't think he's going to apologize to us ladies. So, I mean, to kind of the double standard point. Justice Sotomayor apologizes for criticizing one of her colleagues, you know, in pretty measured terms. On the same day, Justice Thomas launches this diatribe about progressivism, a diatribe in which he labels those who dissent from the conservative values espoused by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, many of whom unapologetically owned human beings, the greatest threat to the country. I also have to say, yes, the unhinged theocracy in this speech was also none of you know, our rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. They come from God. The number of invocations of God was pretty stunning. And then of course, there was this sort of attack on kind of progressivism and progressives. But of course, that's not what was intemperate or over the top in the kind of category of, of public statements by Supreme Court justices in the month of April. So no need to apologize. To, you know, half the country for that. Got it.

Leah Littman (44:14)

Got it.

Melissa Murray (44:15)

Yeah.

Kate Shaw (44:15)

Okay. But that is not all in terms of the justices riding circuit because they have been busy. Also last week, Justice Jackson decided to enter the fray, delivering some pretty pointed remarks about the shadow docket as part of a lecture that she gave at Yale Law School. So let's play a clip from that speech.

Audio Producer/Interjector (44:33)

It is one thing for the Supreme Court to entertain a stay application early in a case's life cycle and publish its back of the envelope, first blush impressions of the merits of the legal issue. It is quite another for the court to then insist that those scratch paper musings be applied by other courts in other cases, stymieing the full deliberative process. I. I adamantly reject any effort to normalize a process whereby the Supreme Court actively superintends matters that are pending in the lower courts. There is no such thing as an interim docket. I disagree with some of my colleagues who have made public statements suggesting that, you know, the court really has its hands tied or that this is. Is a function of a lot more of these cases being filed or applications being filed.

Leah Littman (45:35)

It seems that unlike those people who are actual DEI hires, Justice Jackson knows how to read. And she knows how to read for filth like the scratch paper musings line just injected into my veins.

Melissa Murray (45:50)

My favorite part is when she said there's no such thing as an interim deficiency.

Leah Littman (45:55)

I know.

Melissa Murray (45:55)

Stop trying to make the interim.

Leah Littman (45:57)

I refuse to legitimize.

Melissa Murray (45:58)

It's not going to happen. Wait.

Kate Shaw (46:01)

And now here's the question. Is Brett going to come into our office next week and demand an apology for disparaging interim docket his. Which is, of course something he coined or is, I guess, has been trying to make happen.

Melissa Murray (46:10)

He's. I don't know if he coined it because originalism, I think maybe Justice Alito. Was he the one who called it the. I don't remember. He called it the emergency.

Kate Shaw (46:19)

I think Brad is the one who's been at least pushing interest.

Leah Littman (46:21)

He's definitely been pushing it. Yeah.

Melissa Murray (46:23)

Yeah.

Leah Littman (46:28)

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by zebiotics. Let's face it, after a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is, until I found pre alcohol zebiotics. Pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.

Audio Producer/Interjector (46:54)

Gut.

Leah Littman (46:55)

It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration. That's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have pre alcohol before drinks, I notice a difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on getting up to work off by working out at least some of my anxiety and stress and rage and many other feelings too without worry. Look, I won't lie, I was kind of on the fence about pre alcohol initially. But then I drank my zebiotic and felt great the next day after multiple margaritas at Crooked Con. And believe me, that makes it the real deal. So I took my zebiotics with me when I went to see Lily Allen perform West End Girl. Let's be real. Usually a Friday night out means a Saturday morning spent canceling my workout class, but since I started incorporating pre alcohol, my glass of wine doesn't disrupt my morning flow. Remember to head to zbiotics.com strict and use the code STRICT at checkout for 15% off. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Wild Alaskan Co. Okay, when I go to the grocery store, they don't always have the fish I want. And here's the thing, I'm a picky fish eater and so is my partner. If the grocery is out of, let's say halibut, he refuses to accept cod. No joke. So Wild Alaskan company is the best way to ensure I can get wild caught perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to to my door and your door. Trust me, you haven't tasted fish this good. When I got my first box of Wild Alaskan company, it was like a bonanza of so many different fish. We had halibut, salmon, two different varieties and more. And the fish works great in all of our recipes. Buffalo salmon, Salmon, Sesame bowls fish, Tikka masala, Honey crisp fish and more. Basically, no matter the fish and no matter the recipe, you can count on Wild Alaskan Company. Why choose wild caught seafood? Well, it's 100% wild caught and never farmed. That means there are no antibiotics, GMOs or additives. Just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and fishing communities. It's also nutrient rich and full of flavor. Wild Alaskan fish is frozen off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s, it's also sustainably sourced. It's wild caught from Alaska and so every order supports sustainable harvesting practices and your membership delivers flexible shipments, expert tips and truly feel good seafood food. As I mentioned, some of my favorites are the whitefish options, specifically the halibut and the sea bass. If you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan Company will give you a full refund. No questions asked, no risk, just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com strict for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com strict For $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode.

Melissa Murray (49:48)

Okay folks, we got a new twist in the ongoing saga regarding Judge Jeb Boasberg's efforts to hold this administration in contempt for refusing to heed his April 2025 order to return to the United States planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. As we've talked about on the podcast, about a year ago, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling finding that probable cause existed to hold the administration in contempt for its refusal to return the planes of Venezuelan migrants to American airspace. The ruling was appealed to the D.C. circuit. There was a lot of back and forth, and last Tuesday we got the latest iteration in it when the D.C. circuit issued its fourth order halting Boasberg's contempt inquiry and Trump appointee and reputed SCOTUS shortlister Judge Naomi Rao. I think no one has told her that the lady spot has been filled, judge Rao wrote for the two to one panel, and she characterized Boasberg's ruling as, quote, unquote, improper, unnecessary, and a clear abuse of discretion. She further maintained that the Trump administration had a, quote, clear and indisputable right to termination of this judicial investigation because Judge Boasberg's initial order requiring the planes to return was, quote, insufficiently clear and specific to sustain a charge of criminal contempt. According to Judge Rao, Boasberg's initial ruling only prohibited the removal of the migrants and, quote, said nothing about transferring custody of them. She then reasoned that because the planes were already in the air when Boasburg issued his ruling, the removal had already occurred. Thus, the DOJ's decision to hand over the migrants to Salvadoran megaprison Prison could not support a contempt investigation.

Kate Shaw (51:36)

Well, yeah, so this latest order, that's

Melissa Murray (51:39)

how you campaign right there. That's how you do it.

Kate Shaw (51:42)

I think it's probably not gonna work, but it does seem to be what is.

Leah Littman (51:45)

No, Judge Rao should have added Judge Boasberg is weak on crime. That would be how you campaign the Dow. The Dow, yes.

Kate Shaw (51:54)

Although it didn't work out that well for the last person who tried that line. So maybe she's right to avoid that.

Melissa Murray (51:58)

She's still the truth.

Leah Littman (51:59)

Yeah, right.

Melissa Murray (52:00)

Ladies, ladies. Talking about the Dow never works.

Kate Shaw (52:02)

Nope. So this order goes on to direct Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt proceedings. And this latest order was issued by a three judge panel featuring not just Rao, but her fellow Trump appointee Justin Walker, and then also Judge Michelle Childs, who pointedly did not join Judge Rao's order. The attorneys for the wrongfully removed migrants have indicated that they will seek en banc review of the panel's decision before the full D.C. circuit. And the administration may well face some tough flooding with the full court in that six of the court's 11 judges are already on record saying that Boseberg properly exercised his contempt authority and that an earlier panel was wrong to cut off the district court's investigative process. That was a very complex opinion, but that really was how the numbers kind of shook out. So I definitely don't think this three judge panel is the last word on the Boasberg contempt proceedings.

Leah Littman (52:53)

Pamela Joe Bondi may be out of the administration, but she is not out of our heart, hearts, our minds or others hearts and minds. Because it seems like in a last ditch effort to prevent herself from being Pamela Jo Firebombdeed Director of National Intelligence. Not a joke, but kind of a joke. Tulsi Gabbard referred two government officials who effectively served as whistleblowers in connection with Donald Trump's first impeachment inquiry to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation. One of the officials reported an urgent concern about Trump's request for Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Zelensky to investigate then former Vice President Joe Biden. The whistleblower wrote, quote, I have received information from multiple US Government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 United States election. End quote. Listeners, you may recall that the president characterized his phone call with Zelensky as, quote, perfect. Gabbard, who alleged that, quote, deep state actors had instigated the impeachment. Also referred to the Department of Justice, a government official who was the former Intellig intelligence community watchdog who had investigated the whistleblower complaint. And that is former intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

Melissa Murray (54:09)

I have to say it is really rich to talk about the deep state when you're basically in the sheep state, just blindly following what this president wants you to do. But whatever. Anyway, I just wanted to note that the Ladies of Hysteria, another crooked media podcast, have a series of series called this Guy and one of the most recent episodes is a deep dive into Tulsi Gabbard. And all I can say is the tea is hot. It has cults, it has backstabbing, it has all the things.

Kate Shaw (54:43)

Chris Butler is a very interesting character who all of it

Melissa Murray (54:51)

like a lot of things going on, a lot of switching back and forth between parties is actually a lot of shade to the DNC for not seeing this and multi generational switching. Yeah, it's a lot of stuff. Yeah, it's a lot going on. Lots going on.

Kate Shaw (55:07)

Check that out if you have not another piece of news we wanted to just mention might be of interest to our listeners. And that is some reporting that we got last week actually from the Harvard Crimson, the student paper at Harvard, which ran a very interesting story about the changing dynamics of the law school clerk clerkship market. So clerkships, many listeners know, but in case you don't, are these one or two year jobs that frequently go to recent law school graduates. Those clerks work closely with a judge in the judge's chambers. Historically, students are frequently hired for these clerkships at the end of their second year or the start of their third year of law school. And this process wherein judges wait until that point is the result of a very long and kind of starting stopping, agonizing effort to instill some restraint in the clerkship hiring process. You know, which has taken different forms over the years.

Leah Littman (55:57)

Some people don't seem to be super into that whole restraint thing except for abortion.

Melissa Murray (56:03)

They care about restraint of judges when

Leah Littman (56:06)

it's about the fundamental and restraints on women. But anyways, other restraints.

Melissa Murray (56:10)

No.

Leah Littman (56:11)

Yeah. So according to the Crimson, a two tier clerkship hiring process has emerged with conservative Republican appointed judges preferring to enlist for future clerks ideologically aligned first year students. So students who literally just got into law school who might not even have a full year's worth of grades are being hired largely because the Republican appointed judges are prioritizing ideology in the clerkship hiring. Please also recall that many of these folks are among the anti DEI pro meritocracy crowd. And the best part of all of this is that at least some of the judges may not actually be doing the ideological sniff test themselves. Instead, the Crimson reports that they enlist ideologically aligned third year law students to vet candidates on their behalf. So a conservative 3L vibe check is basically a smell test for at least some federal clerkships.

Melissa Murray (57:07)

But dei, I mean, I'm not even surprised by this. So a few years ago we interviewed California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu and one of his co authors, Professor Mary Hoopes, about the recent study of federal judges hiring practices in the clerkship hiring process. And they noted that they did not have a sufficiently large sample size to draw broad conclusions. But they did note that their initial sample of some of the conservative judges showed that these judges were much more likely to prioritize ideological fit in hiring and were much more likely to dive deeper into the class in terms of grades in order to be able to hire ideologically aligned clerks. And now it seems that the deep dive may actually just be wholly unnecessary. You don't even have to look at grades because some of these students, if they're 1Ls, may just have a few years or a few months of grades. And if they go to Yale, they don't have grades at all because no one gets grades in the first semester. So it's basically this 3L vibe check. Like, you know, do we like you? Do you show up at our events? Do we get that conservative vibe from you? I have to say, it sounds incredibly convenient and efficient. Basically, it's no grades, just vibes.

Kate Shaw (58:28)

Convenient and efficient. If you don't. If you're not really that worried about, you know, doing law in your chambers.

Melissa Murray (58:33)

Exactly.

Kate Shaw (58:34)

Sure. Like just a purely ideological hiring process makes.

Melissa Murray (58:38)

But merit.

Kate Shaw (58:39)

Right, the merit part, that's.

Melissa Murray (58:41)

That's the good part.

Kate Shaw (58:42)

This was interesting reporting and good on them for doing it. I mean, I definitely. I don't know about YouTube, but noted that shift of like some of these conservative judges and only conservative judges, as far as I could tell, like getting way ahead of the kind of previous hiring calendar. But it seems like it is just even more widespread than I'd realized. Okay, Some other news to note. We got last week a verdict in the Live Nation Ticketmaster antitrust case. Listeners may recall that the administration, the federal government, tried to torpedo the litigation by announcing a settlement midway through the trial. But unfortunately for them, and fortunately for consumers, the DOJ settlement did not actually succeed in killing the case entirely because as actually is becoming a trend, some states, including California. Right. Remember, we had the Attorney General Rob Bonta on our show talking about this lawsuit, among other things. And also New York continued to litigate the case against Live Nation, slash Ticketmaster, even without administration's participation. I mean, this is what we call federalism, ladies and gentlemen.

Melissa Murray (59:44)

Yeah, federalism for the win, literally, because the states that continued to press litigation actually won. They won a jury verdict holding Ticketmaster and its parent company liable for operating as an illegal monopoly that suppressed competition and inflated prices to the detriment of consumers.

Kate Shaw (60:03)

And we have to give a shout out to a bunch of stricties who are on the Live Nation Ticketmaster trial team. They pulled off a win again even after DOJ pulled out and settled. And I also wanted to quickly highlight that Gail Slater, who was the DOJ antitrust chief who left the federal government around the time of the Fed's settlement, took to X to congratulate the states on their victory, saying, quote, you made antitrust history today. You fought the good fight, you finished the race, you kept the faith. And I just really love that energy.

Melissa Murray (60:33)

It's almost like she didn't leave voluntarily.

Leah Littman (60:35)

Almost.

Kate Shaw (60:36)

Pure speculation.

Melissa Murray (60:38)

Pure speculation on our part. But I do love. I do love a petty queen on Twitter.

Leah Littman (60:43)

Indeed, in other frontiers of federalism, the Hennepin county attorney has charged an Immigration Customs and Enforcement agent with assault for pointing a gun at people on a Minnesota highway. So Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said she believes this is likely the first state criminal case brought against a federal immigration officer for actions arising out of the Trump administration crackdown on immigration enforcement and surges in California, Illinois, Minnesota and elsewhere. She added, quote, there is no such thing as absolute immunity for federal agents who violate the law in the state of Minnesota, end quote. I do wonder if JD Will attempt to law splain constitutional law to an actual attorney and tell her that practicing attorneys need to be careful when they talk about the law. Just waiting for that statement.

Melissa Murray (61:32)

Science point to yes.

Kate Shaw (61:33)

Yes.

Leah Littman (61:33)

Yeah.

Kate Shaw (61:34)

So this particular indictment charges the officer with two counts of second degree assault. The charges are based on allegations from a 911 call in which a couple reported that a driver in an unmarked SUV that turned out to be an ICE vehicle pulled up, rolled down his window and pointed a gun at them. And they were understandably terrified. The ICE agent maintains that the vehicle may have cut him off. And of course, the ICE agent assumed that this was some sort of obstruction. According to the ICE officer, he identified himself as an ICE officer, but the couple just couldn't hear from inside their vehicle.

Leah Littman (62:05)

Wanted to give a shout out to friend of the pod, Steve Vladic, professor at Georgetown Law School, also Author of the 1 First street substack, who's written a lot about Supremacy Clause immunity and how these state criminal prosecutions might work, both on a substack and in The New York Times and other outlets, Steve catches a lot of strings, just as a very prominent public intellectual from both the left and the right in just what I think are deeply unfair ways that reflect how good and successful of a public voice on the law he is. So if you, like me, benefit from Steve's work, maybe think about sending him a note to that effect or giving him a shout out. I think people sometimes see all of the benefits or upsides of being a public presence when the downsides sometimes seem less apparent. And this last week was just one of those occasions for me, you know, for Steve in particular.

Kate Shaw (63:06)

Can I. Yeah, I assume this will be taken in the right spirit. But as I, yes, I totally co. Sign everything you just said. And it's like when it's somebody else, you can sort of say like, yes, obviously, you know, you that bitch when you cause all this conversation like that is a sign of how central to the discourse he is if people are attacking him. But it sucks to be the object of that. And so I think it's really good to acknowledge it completely.

Melissa Murray (63:28)

Justice for Commander Vladek.

Leah Littman (63:29)

Exactly.

Melissa Murray (63:30)

All right. Speaking of catching strays for being a public intellectual, we got an opinion in

Steve Vladeck (63:36)

Chevron vs. Plaquemines Parish.

Melissa Murray (63:38)

Yes, listeners, that was Chief Justice John G. Roberts stepping in here on strict scrutiny to pronounce the name of this case with which, as you have noted in our voicemails and emails, has befuddled us all term.

Kate Shaw (63:50)

And Melissa took that personally.

Melissa Murray (63:54)

So if you listeners are from the Pelican State and you object to this pronunciation of Pakman's Parish, please direct your emails and voicemails to Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the United States Supreme Court. Thank you for your attention to this message. Anyway, the case is about federal officer removal. I'm sorry, I really needed to do that.

Leah Littman (64:22)

We love a petty queen. I love a petty queen. I'm a petty queen.

Kate Shaw (64:25)

Yeah.

Leah Littman (64:26)

And you know, the federal. Federal officer removal statute could end up being significant in cases like the one we just talked about, the newly filed case in Minnesota that involved criminal charges against federal office officers because the federal officer removal statute allows federal officers or people acting under federal officers to remove from state court to federal court lawsuits against them, at least when the suits are for or relating to any act under color of such office. Now, this particular case is a lawsuit against certain oil and gas companies filed under federal law. The lawsuit alleges the companies lacked permits for some of their crude oil production, which is also alleged to have been initiated illegally. Legally. Chevron removed the case to Federal court arguing that the suit concerned its contractual duty to refine crude oil for the federal government during World War II.

Kate Shaw (65:15)

So the Supreme Court in this case said that at this stage of the litigation, the oil company had plausibly alleged a close enough relationship between its crude oil production and the performance of its federal refining duties that removal to federal court was proper. The court made clear that the federal officer removal statute is broad and allows removal where there is a connection between a private entity and a federal officer. Answer. So long as the connection isn't attenuated or tenuous. The opinion is effectively unanimous. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion just concurring in the judgment, emphasizing both legislative history and the Court's obligation to seek to discern congressional intent, with citations to John Marshall making that point, and also former 2nd Circuit Chief Judge Bob Katzman's work, among other things. The only person who didn't agree or maybe did, we don't know, was Justice Alito, who didn't participate in the case at all. We don't know why. I don't think. I mean, maybe presumably stock ownership.

Melissa Murray (66:10)

Right.

Kate Shaw (66:10)

He is one of the only Justices who owns individual stocks.

Leah Littman (66:14)

But the Dow, Kate, that's why he didn't participate. But the Dow,

Kate Shaw (66:20)

maybe he could just append that as the explanation because, you know, some of them have started telling us when there is a recusal. Why very conspicuously not. Sam Alito.

Melissa Murray (66:30)

He doesn't have to tell you anything.

Kate Shaw (66:31)

You sure doesn't.

Leah Littman (66:33)

Right.

Melissa Murray (66:33)

All right, on to April preview. So this is the last full month of oral arguments before the court and we have a two week sitting coming up. We are going to preview the cases from the first week of the April sitting. All right, first up.

Leah Littman (66:50)

So I don't know how to pronounce this one. I'll just cop to it. And that is Sripetch maybe versus securities and Exchange Commission. I do know that this is a case about the SEC's enforcement authority and specifically whether the SEC can require a defendant to disgorge, that is to give up profits or benefits without the plaintiff having to show that investors were harmed financially. Federal law provides that the SEC may seek and any federal court may order disgorgement of profits or benefits in a civil SEC enforcement action or proceeding. In the 2020 decision, Lieu v. SEC, the Supreme Court held that the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement in civil enforcement actions if an award does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits and is awarded for victims. Now, some circuits, including the Second Circuit, have interpreted the statutory language through the lens of the Supreme Court's discussion of victims and as a result have required the SEC to show that the investor suffered a pecuniary of lack loss and is therefore a victim before the SEC seeks disgorgement as a remedy. Other circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, have concluded that all that is required is an actionable interference with the investor's legal interests, not necessarily a showing of a pecuniary loss.

Melissa Murray (68:09)

So the petitioner here contends that to secure a disgorgement order against him, the SEC must prove that investors have suffered actual financial loss, not merely a misrepresentation or a manipulation. If the court determines that the SEC must prove pecuniary loss to a judge in order to impose disgorgement, that will surely limit the SEC's flexibility in enforcement actions. And notably, there is an amicus brief in this case that highlights a similar case that is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. SEC vs. Barry. In Barry, the SEC's theory of pecuniary harm is based on this idea of the loss of the time value of money. So basically the argument argument on which disgorgement is predicated is that investors suffer a loss because their money is not being used productively as an investment. It's not about an actual pecuniary loss like dollar amounts. The novelty of the SEC's theory could heighten for the court the skepticism they may have about expanding the scope of disgorgement as a remedy. And if the court is skeptical, it might might further limit the agency's enforcement ability. So recall, this is coming on the heels of SEC vs. Jarcase, which made it a lot harder for the SEC to bring enforcement actions within the agency in administrative tribunals.

Kate Shaw (69:32)

Next up is TM versus University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp. Federal courts Hive rise. It is time to get risen information because it is Rooker Feldman time.

Melissa Murray (69:44)

Oh yeah,

Kate Shaw (69:48)

talk about cause all this conversation Felman does Rooker.

Melissa Murray (69:53)

I don't even know her.

Kate Shaw (69:54)

Felman.

Melissa Murray (69:56)

Who knows?

Kate Shaw (69:57)

Oh so good. Okay, so Rooker Feldman, if you're not already intrigued, is a doctrine that prevents litigants. I know you are. Obviously I want to know prevents litigants. Listen up. Draw an earth who lose in state courts from going to federal court to challenge injuries caused by state court judgments. So the specific question here is whether that doctrine can be triggered by a state court decision that remains subject to further review in state court. Facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner here TM has a gluten sensitivity condition that can trigger psychosis. She was involuntarily committed to the Baltimore Washington Medical center, where she claims that staff ignored her advance medical directive and sought to forcibly medicate her in ways contrary to that directive. After multiple state filings, she entered a consent order for her release under conditions like monitored medication. She appealed that consent order in state court, where the action has been stayed, and she also sued in federal court, alleging duress and constitutional violations and seeking an injunction.

Leah Littman (70:55)

I have a love hate relationship with this case, so I love intricate federal courts doctrines. Oh, I know courts. This might absolutely right. Okay. Favorite class to teach on one hand. On the other, this is going to be a case where I think the Supreme Court is going to say Rooker Feldman applies, which is greatly going to undermine the lesson I attempt to import to Fed court students, which is the answer is never Rooker Feldman. Indeed, the Supreme Court in earlier opinions has said Rooker Feldman basically applies only if your name is Rooker or Feldman Feldman. Literally. That's a line in a Supreme Court opinion. Because people, you know, unearth this doctrine and they think, oh, that's what's happening in this case. But it's never happening. Except maybe here it is. Anyways. The federal court dismissed this suit under Rooker Feldman on the view she was seeking federal review of a state court order she said injured her. The fourth Circuit affirmed. On appeal, the petitioner gestures to that earlier case that suggested Rooker Feldman really ain't no thing. ExxonMobil Corp. Vs. Saudi Basic Industries to argue that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is is confined to cases where the losing party in state court filed suit in federal court after the state proceedings ended. She further argues that the fourth Circuit's decision below expands what was supposed to be a narrow exception to federal jurisdiction and the heir of confirmed is likely to disadvantage pro se litigants. I'm sure a majority of justices on this court will care deeply about that. That was a joke. For its part, the University of Maryland Medical System counters that the ruling below is correct and the petitioner was seeking appellate review in federal district court of a state court decision exactly the circumstances where Rooker Feldman would apply.

Melissa Murray (72:36)

Also on the docket for the first week in April is Federal Communications Commissions versus AT&T. And this is a case that has been consolidated with Verizon Communications versus Federal Communications Commission and it will be heard on April 21st. This case might be understood as a follow on to SEC versus Jarkesy. So that was definitely Jarkesy was the 2024 case holding that when the SEC seeks civil penalties, that is money damages or other legal remedies against a defendant. The case has to be brought in federal district court rather than in an agency tribunal in order to comply with the seventh Amendment's requirement of a civil jury trial for all suits at common law. In this case, the court has to determine whether Jarkesy's logic extends to the fines the Federal Communications Commission levies for violations of federal communications. The case stems from two consolidated appeals involving two telecommunication giants, AT&T and Verizon. In two agency proceedings, the FCC determined that AT&T and Verizon had violated a provision of the Telecommunications act of 1996 that requires telecom carriers to protect confidential consumer data here information about customers locations. The agency informed AT&T and Verizon of the violations and issued an order advising the company companies of the resulting penalties. 57 million for AT T and 46.9 million for Verizon. Both companies had an opportunity to respond in writing to both the determination of the legal violation and the order to pay the penalty. However, on appeal, the companies argue that these procedures don't comport with the seventh Amendment's requirement of a jury trial in a matter involving civil penalties. AT&T appealed its case to the Fifth Circuit. Wonder what happened there with regard to the agency?

Leah Littman (74:28)

What a mystery.

Melissa Murray (74:31)

In any event, they argued at the fifth Circuit, among other things, that imposing the fine in an in house FCC proceeding violated the seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. And shockingly, the fifth Circuit agreed, throwing out the fine. Writing for the majority, judge and friend of Stanford Law School Stuart Kyle Duncan characterized the process as quote, unquote, completely in house with the agency acting as prosecutor, jury and judge.

Kate Shaw (74:58)

But twist or really just circuit split. Verizon's appeal was 2nd Circuit. Turns out we got a lot of these courts. The fifth went one way. The second Circuit upheld the fine against Verizon. Writing for that court, Judge Allison Nathan said that nothing about the Commission's Proceedings transgress the 7th Amendment's jury trial guarantee. So at oral argument, we predict that the Justices will focus on the FCC's argument that an in house proceeding that leads to the forfeiture order is not a lawsuit, much less a lawsuit seeking money damages for purposes of the seventh Amendment. The SG who is arguing on behalf of the FCC maintains that there is no money at stake and therefore no obligation to have a jury trial. Because the FCC actually can't require a carrier to pay a single dime. The only obligation to pay would come if the DOJ brings a lawsuit to enforce the forfeiture order and wins, and the carrier then does have a right to a jury trial. And that's something that sour emphasized in the brief and that I imagine will feature prominently in the oral argument. The telecom companies disagree. They say that just because there is this like after the fact possibility of a jury trial, that is not enough to satisfy the seventh Amendment. They say that the Supreme Court has never approved this basically penalty now, but have a trial later. Approach the seventh Amendment. They want a jury trial before the FCC issues a forfeiture order, full stop.

Leah Littman (76:21)

So AT and T and Verizon, they focus more on the forfeiture orders, which they say are basically the agency's determinations that there has been a violation and that they're not, you know, just like an initial preliminary, such, some might say interim, tentative suggestions. And they also kind of suggest that carriers treat the forfeiture orders as final in that they're not usually waiting around to see if the DOJ will attempt to enforce them. And the FCC argues that a ruling in favor of AT&T and Verizon would seriously disrupt the Commission's administration of federal communications laws. Forfeitures, it says, quote, are among the FCC's most important enforcement tools. Without them, quote, many vital rules, such as those protecting privacy, combating robocalls, and regulating broadcasting, would go effectively unenforced. End quote. And Neil Gorsuch says, don't threaten me with a good time. More seriously, when Jarcassee came out, I had an article in the Texas Law Review, that new substantive due process that basically described how the Court was refashioning the Seventh Amendment together with removal law based on this free floating idea of liberty that kind of resembled the old individual rights line of substantive due process cases. And this case seems like another kind of opportunity to take that and run with it. I do hope that this case will at least generate another iconic oral argument clip in Jarkassee. That was the Justice Kagan telling the Advocate no one has ever had the chutzpah to make this argument before.

Melissa Murray (78:00)

And he then put it on his website. Like Justice Kagan says, no one has ever done this. Yep, I loved that for him. All right. On April 22nd, the court will hear oral argument in Blanche vs. Lao. This case used to be captioned Bondi vs. Lau listeners. I just read that as Bondi vs. Law and I, I have to say, a little Freudian.

Leah Littman (78:25)

It did. Yes, indeed.

Melissa Murray (78:28)

Anyway, it used to be called Bondi vs Lau. But because Pamela Joe Bondi's legal career took a trip over the Rainbow Bridge, it is now captioned Blanche vs Lau. But don't get too used to this, Todd. By the time we get an opinion here, the case will likely be captioned Schmidt vs Lau or Zeldin vs Lau or Franzia vs Lau. Anything could happen. It's all out there anyway. This is a crimmigration case and specifically the question presented is whether to deport a lawful permanent resident, I. E. A green card holder who has committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense, but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, whether the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last reentered the United States. Lawful permanent residents in the United States are exactly what that term suggests they are non citizens. You have been granted lawful status to stay here in the United States permanently so long as they observe relevant domestic laws. And once they have been granted that green card status, LPRs are permitted to travel in and out of the United States and a lawful permanent resident who is returning to the United States after a trip abroad is generally not regarded as seeking an admission into the United States because they have the green card, they have the permanent status. They have already been admitted to the United States in a permanent way.

Kate Shaw (79:54)

So here Mook Choi Lau is a lawful permanent resident who has been living in the United states for almost 20 years. In 2012, he took a short trip out of the country and then returned to New Jersey. Under the relevant immigration statute, he says he was not seeking admission. When he returned, he had already been admitted to the United States. The problem is that prior to his trip he had been charged with trademark counterfeiting, to which he later pled guilty and received a two year probation sentence on that basis. When LA returned to New Jersey, an immigration officer allowed him to re enter but said he was being, quote, paroled, which is a discretionary decision to let immigrants into the country rather than just being admitted without any strings because he was the subject of pending but not yet proven criminal charges. When he later pled guilty, the government sought his removal as inadmissible because he had been paroled in rather than the government pursuing the deportation procedures that are are totally different and that would normally apply to a lawful permanent resident. So Lao contends that a lawful permanent resident returning to the United States after a trip abroad is not seeking admission and the immigration officer therefore should not have paroled him into the country but admitted him as with any other lawful permanent resident. The government, on the other hand, contends that the pending criminal charges were enough to render him inadmissible when he returned. The LPR statute states that an LPR who has committed a criminal offense cannot claim the general not seeking admission rule, and both sides agree that a clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to the parole determination.

Leah Littman (81:20)

So Lao lost before an immigration judge and before the Board of Immigration Appeals. But on appeal, the 2nd Circuit ruled that because all the immigration officer at the airport knew when he marked Lao as paroled was that some criminal charges were pending, the officer should have applied the not seeking admission rule. This means that at oral argument, the justices will likely be focusing on whether, at the time Lau returned to the United States from his trip abroad, the immigration officer had enough evidence to not admit him. The Solicitor General argues that the government met the statutory standard both at the airport in 2012 and now, such that LA may be removed Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Babbel why do most of us want to learn a new language? Well, it's probably not about memorizing grammar tables or topping a leaderboard. It's because we want to speak it out in the real world with real people and Babbel gets you there fast. Plus additional bonus, you can understand without translations what foreign leaders are saying about Pete Hegseth and Trump. You do not want to miss out on that. Learning a language with Babbel is all about small steps, big wins and progress. You can actually track and out figure feel. Their bite sized lessons fit easily into your daily routine and are also easy to remember. Just 10 minutes a day is enough to start seeing real results. Babbel recognizes that real world connections are at the heart of language learning. Their courses are designed by over 200 language experts, real human beings to teach you relevant words and phrases you'll actually use so you can start speaking with confidence in as little as three weeks. Babel lets you practice real life conversation step by step, step without the stress. You'll build the confidence to speak up when it matters, from ordering a coffee to chatting with new friends abroad. And Babbel's more than just lessons. They even offer a large collection of podcasts where Babbel experts reveal language secrets and offer an inside look at local cultures. However, you learn best by listening, speaking, reading or writing. Babbel adapts to your style and keeps you motivated with personalized learning plans. Real time feedback and progress tracking make fast, lasting progress with Batch Babel, the science backed language learning app that actually works. Babel has over 25 million subscriptions sold worldwide and with 14 languages to choose from, every course comes with a 14 day money back guarantee. Here's a special limited time deal for our listeners right now. Get up to 60% off your Babel subscription at babel.com forward/strrict. Get up to 60% off at babel.com forward slash strict. That's spelled B-A-B-B-E-L.com strict rules and restrictions may apply.

Grainger Ad Voice (83:53)

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

Leah Littman (84:58)

Okay, tradition that we haven't always adhered to, but I'm just going to invoke here. And that is the clip without context. So wanted to play for you a recent moment during an oral argument that happened last week. Here you go.

Kate Shaw (85:14)

I don't know what's radical left about being anti Nazi, do you? Your Honor, this is not about. There's nothing left about being anti Nazi.

Grainger Ad Voice (85:24)

Right?

Steve Vladeck (85:25)

Your Honor, this is not about whether

Kate Shaw (85:26)

anyone is nothing radical left about being anti Nazi.

Leah Littman (85:29)

Judge Millet, this is not about being. That's what you said. This arose in the Media Matters case challenging the retaliatory investigation of Media Matters. Alleged retaliatory investigation after Media Matters called out the Nazi ads on Twitter. You will notice that the lawyer for the FTC didn't exactly answer the question of whether there was anything radical about being anti Nazi.

Melissa Murray (85:55)

Is that a T shirt? There's nothing radical about being anti Nazi.

Leah Littman (85:58)

Yeah, it could be. It's a little long, but I think it would be good. Okay, favorite things. You know we are in the market for a new summer drink. Some people in the Crooked Friends of the Pod Discord have suggested there is a dictator smasher drink that includes Ukrainian vodka, sweet vermouth and a little bit of orange bitters for an anti Putin, anti Orban, anti Trump Trump, you know, cocktail. I liked that. But a member of the Trump administration actually floated another possibility that we wanted to give him credit for here.

Steve Vladeck (86:40)

The streets of Vermouth have not been completely reopened.

Leah Littman (86:44)

Yes, the Strait of Vermouth. Interesting little Freudian slip there, but at

Melissa Murray (86:52)

least it wasn't the straight of heroin off a toilet seat. Or wait, wait, penis. Because it wasn't heroin. You can't do heroin on a toilet seat.

Kate Shaw (87:00)

It's the cocaine.

Melissa Murray (87:01)

This again. I'm like showing my ignorance.

Leah Littman (87:04)

Yeah, but another one of my favorite things was going to be a story described in the book RFK the Fallen Rise, which is by journalist Isabel Vincent, who relies on a series of alleged Kennedy diaries. And she maintains that RFK Jr once removed a dead raccoon's penis to study later while his wife and kids waited in the car. So according to the book Kennedy wrote in a 2001 entry, I was standing in front of my parked car on I684 cutting the penis out of a road killed raccoon, thinking about how weird some of my family members have turned out to be. End quote.

Melissa Murray (87:47)

By some of my family members, he meant himself.

Leah Littman (87:50)

You know, I wasn't totally sure. For those of you listening who might be affiliated with Georgetown the day this episode is released on Monday, I'm doing an event at Georgetown Law School with friend of the POD Professor Steve Vladek about my forthcoming article in the Georgetown Law Journal, the Passive Vices. So excited about that. Come see it. Also wanted to give a shout out to the student editor whose great comments definitely have improved the piece. I hope my updated revised version will post on SSRN shortly. Also, one last favorite ish thing. And that is so I joined a casebook for Constitutional Law a few years ago and we are about to start revisions for a new updated edition. So if you use what was the Stone sidemen et al Constitution Institutional Law Casebook, I would love to hear from you. Whether one you teach the second Amendment in your Con law class and if so, how you use it. Like does it illustrate interpretive theory or are you doing it as a substantive area of law? And also whether and to what extent you teach the first Amendment in that Intro to Con Law class. All of that would be super helpful. So feel free to email me.

Melissa Murray (89:01)

Yes, interpretive method and no.

Leah Littman (89:05)

Okay, super helpful. Thank you.

Melissa Murray (89:06)

But I don't use your book. So what girl?

Leah Littman (89:10)

Sorry. Maybe the new revision will entice me.

Melissa Murray (89:14)

Maybe the new revision will entice me. We'll see. All right. My favorite things include the book Lady Tremaine by Rachel Hawkhouser. And if you've listened to my book recommendations in the past, you know, I love a book where they take a well known story but tell it from someone else's perspective. Like Longbourn was told from the perspective of the servants and Pride and Prejudice. So Lady Tremaine is the Cinderella story told from the perspective of the evil stepmother who. Twist is not that bad. And I kind of love that. So I'm enjoying it a lot. I also had the pleasure this week of going to a concert with my dear friend Kate Shaw and some other friends. We went and saw West End Girl and we really wanted you to be there, Leah. We had our fans with your head on it, like, with us. So you were there in spirit.

Leah Littman (90:05)

But I have to say, like, Kate

Melissa Murray (90:08)

is gonna say more about it, but the show really slapped. Although I have to say, if I were Lily Allen, I don't know that I would love spending a whole half a year going on tour reliving the breakup of my marriage. And I think that may have been why her demeanor was a little. Kind of like she was fucking over it. I think she's over him and the songs. But she gave a great show. It was a great show, but it wasn't a Beyonce show.

Kate Shaw (90:32)

Like, there was no flying car.

Leah Littman (90:33)

I actually, when you listen to this episode, I will have gone the night before and I got my nails done for the show. I don't know if you can see.

Melissa Murray (90:41)

Okay, kind of.

Leah Littman (90:42)

I can see that there's black tennis ball.

Kate Shaw (90:45)

Oh, there's a tennis ball on your accent.

Leah Littman (90:47)

And then the other hand is like silver and accent nail with the tennis ball. I wanted a Duane Reade bag, but I just didn't think the details. Details would really come through.

Kate Shaw (90:54)

That's hard.

Melissa Murray (90:56)

It's gonna be hard. That's okay. I also saw another concert last week. I went to Symphony Spaces big annual gala event. And it turned out to be in honor of symphony spaces 50th anniversary, they decided to have Broadway singers sing the entire Rumors by Fleetwood Mac album. And it's one of my favorite albums. I fucking love it. It's such a good album. Like, there's so many great hits on it. Fleetwood Mac was absolutely fantastic. And there was all of this great trivia in the middle, like, so at one point they noted that Rumors has gone platinum like 26 times or something crazy. Like, it's sold more copies than both Revolver and Abbey Road, two huge Beatles albums. And this was the best, best bit of trivia. While rumors was being written and recorded, there were five break breakups in Fleetwood Mac. But Fleetwood Mac only has five people. Think about it.

Kate Shaw (91:55)

Think about it.

Leah Littman (91:56)

The math.

Kate Shaw (91:56)

Isn't it four? There's five.

Melissa Murray (91:58)

Yeah, I think there are five.

Kate Shaw (91:59)

Oh, are they?

Melissa Murray (92:00)

For some reason, there's Lindsay, Christine, Stevie, Nick, and then Christine's husband.

Kate Shaw (92:07)

Oh, there are John.

Melissa Murray (92:08)

John, I think. I don't know what his name is.

Kate Shaw (92:10)

Oh, yeah. I thought they were just two and two.

Melissa Murray (92:13)

One more thing I just want to say. I went to USC out in Los Angeles for a workshop. I did the paper that Kate and Leah and I have that's going to be forthcoming in the Northwestern Law Review. Got great comments from the USC faculty. Thank you so much to all of the faculty members who showed up for that. And I got to meet some stricties in the wild. Claire and Bernadette, who introduced themselves. So thanks so much for supporting the pod. And then finally, my last favorite thing ever. And I know this actually happened two weeks ago, but I wasn't on last week's episode, but I wanted to just. I didn't know if you guys mentioned it, but I was so buoyed by the sight of Victor Glover, astronaut, moisturizing in space. And as a black mom, I'm like, yes, sir. Exactly. Because there was once this time when I was at a law professor conference, and Ellie Mistahl, friend of the pod, shouted my name across the.

Kate Shaw (93:06)

The.

Melissa Murray (93:06)

Like, the auditorium or wherever we were. And he's like, melissa Murray. And I'm like, what? What? He comes over to me. He's like, do you have lotion in your bag? And I was like, of course I do. He's like, I knew you would. You're a black mom. And he was right. Like, we moisturize. Like, I'm always carrying lotion in case my kids need to be moisturized.

Kate Shaw (93:23)

And Victor brought his own to space.

Melissa Murray (93:25)

He brought his. He was like, nothing's gonna stop me from moisturizing. And I'm like. I'm like, I feel you, Victor. I get it. I get it now.

Leah Littman (93:31)

Just an additional favorite thing. No, he doesn't. An additional Artemis 2 thing is the video of the astronaut Christina Rio uniting with her dog.

Kate Shaw (93:40)

Oh, so adorable. All Artemis 2 content was just, like, the best thing, really, like, since January of last year, I think it's like, it has sparked the most joy. That crew is totally incredible. And also a reminder that government actually can do pretty incredible things. It's like the antidote when they use,

Melissa Murray (93:58)

especially when they use dei.

Kate Shaw (93:59)

Especially when they do because like, you know what? Like, yeah, there's a lot of people could be astronauts and like. Yeah, it's. Yeah, this like diverse crew like, like delivered. Wait, I don't want to cut you off then. Melissa. Are we good? I'm done.

Melissa Murray (94:12)

Now I'm done. Now I'm done. I just wanted to talk about lotion. Totally.

Kate Shaw (94:15)

And Victor Glover and the rest of that crew. Okay. So I want to. Plus one. The West End girl experience with Melissa. The fans were amazing. I agree that Lily Allen seemed. I didn't know if she was like just a little tired or like a little just over it. I couldn't quite tell, but it was like. It was. It was an understated performance. But the songs are great and the fans were amazing. And they were not understated.

Melissa Murray (94:39)

No.

Kate Shaw (94:39)

The call in response at the end of the West End Girl, like this first song in the album when she's doing this one sided phone conversation. There was a lot of gap filling by energetic members of the audience that I love.

Melissa Murray (94:51)

He doesn't deserve you. Stranger things sucks.

Kate Shaw (94:54)

Yes. Both of those things were uttered in Radio City Music Hall. It was great. Okay, a couple other things. The song what I Want, which Leah, you recommended on the emergency episode that you did with Shannon Minter by Muna, is that who the band, who the artist is? Oh my God, that song is so good. And so is the entire catalog of Muna, which I did not know. And thank you for bringing that into my ear holes. The novel Playground by Richard Powers. I read and Melody and I have had a back and forth about it and I feel like I can't really say anything about it because like it's almost impossible to talk about it without. Without doing some spoiling. But it was fascinating and people should read it. Japan. I was just there for my kids spring break and was. Had the most amazing time and absolutely loved it. Had never been to Japan, had never been to East Asia at all. Like, I just really want to go back asap and we.

Leah Littman (95:44)

I.

Kate Shaw (95:44)

So because I missed two episodes. Did you guys talk about the Times? I think I've listened to every minute. But then maybe I missed something that reporting completely bananas. Reporting on the investigations into sexual misconduct at the Labor Department. Okay, this is maybe a weird favorite things, but I will say that I definitely read it more wrapped than any other investigative reporting since the Times broke some of the aspects of the Kristi Noem, Corey Lewandowski scandal. I mean this is just like a new set of completely bonkers allegations. Of misconduct, including sexual misconduct at the Labor Department like so we already knew that there had been a number of departures from the Labor Department, including of the Secretary's director of advance and a member of her security detail with whom she was accused of having an affair. But new revelations suggest that there has been inappropriate text messages sent by the secretary's both husband and father, including to the same young female staff member. So this is just an allegation of multi generational sexual harassment of a sort that I was personally not not familiar with and I just like there is no bottom I think is the takeaway. So people should definitely read that truly jaw dropping story from the Times if they haven't. That's a rough note to end on. Also all Artemis 2 content.

Melissa Murray (97:06)

Let's do more Artemis.

Leah Littman (97:07)

Let's try to add some some actual potential favorite things slash exciting content.

Kate Shaw (97:13)

Do you have any idea ideas?

Leah Littman (97:15)

I mean I do so as we have mentioned before, June is bad decision season and so we are launching a copium which is of course going on the road as part of the Bad Decision Tour. So we will be live at the historic Gramercy theater on Saturday, June 20th in New York City as part. And the tickets are on sale now. Tour and the tickets are on sale now. Grab them while you can@crooked.com events. For those of you who don't know, I bring special custom shirts to our live shows as part of the VIP meet and greets. We always love meeting stricties that time is just sure to be a wild time at the court. So.

Melissa Murray (98:01)

And you can also get books signed. You can order your copy of the US Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader. If you're not modern, don't buy it. Not for you.

Leah Littman (98:16)

If you know not modern people maybe get the book for them anyway if

Melissa Murray (98:21)

you're aspiring to modernity.

Leah Littman (98:23)

Exactly.

Kate Shaw (98:23)

That works.

Leah Littman (98:24)

This is the book for you. That's also the. Yes, that's actually also the week that the paperback version of my book will be out. So so you can get it freshly signed and yeah, so be sure to get those tickets and come to the show.

Melissa Murray (98:45)

Struck Scrutiny is a crooked media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, me, Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. We get our our music from Eddie Cooper and production support from Katie Long and Adrienne Hill. Matt De Groat is our head of production and we are really grateful for our digital team, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffitt and Eric Schutt. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. And if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube at strict scrutiny Podcast so you never miss an episode. And if you really want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.

Grainger Ad Voice (99:39)

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters, but when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time to for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

Grainger Ad Voice (100:09)

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

Grainger Ad Voice (100:39)

When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters, but when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.