The Legal Battles Over Trump’s War on Blue Cities

Summary

Strict Scrutiny — Episode Summary

Podcast: Strict Scrutiny
Episode: The Legal Battles Over Trump’s War on Blue Cities
Date: November 3, 2025
Hosts: Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray

---

Overview of the Episode’s Main Theme

This episode unpacks the escalating legal and constitutional conflicts sparked by President Trump’s intensifying efforts to militarize law enforcement in American cities—particularly so-called “blue” cities like Chicago and Portland. The hosts analyze ongoing federal court challenges, the limits of presidential authority to deploy federal forces (including the National Guard), the manipulation of statutory powers, and the Supreme Court’s response to these high-stakes legal battles. Additional segments include case previews for the Supreme Court’s November sitting, developments in fringe constitutional arguments (such as third-term fantasies), and the fractured dynamics among Supreme Court dissenters.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Administration’s Use of Federal Force in Cities

Chicago—Operation Midway Blitz & Court Orders

• The 7th Circuit paused a district judge's order requiring daily in-person reporting by a Border Patrol commander after alleged ICE misconduct during protests (temporary restraining order forbidding use of tear gas, etc.).
• Despite this, other aspects (e.g., mandatory body cameras for agents) remain intact. (06:36–08:16)
• Mandamus sought—rare and only granted for “wildly out of line” district courts.
• Ongoing skepticism about both the credibility of government claims and the criminalization of protest activity.

Memorable Quote:

“The administration is still seeking mandamus in the 7th Circuit... only when district courts are really, truly and wildly out of line...”
—Kate Shaw [07:15]

Criminal Charges Against Protesters

• New spate of indictments against Democratic politicians and protest leaders in Chicago for alleged property damage during demonstrations, widely criticized as retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights.
• Even opponents within the Democratic party denounce the prosecutions as “creeping tyranny” (10:55–11:18).

Memorable Quote:

“It’s an attack on anyone sickened by masked men roaming our streets and shoving our neighbor into unmarked cars. It’s a threat to everyone willing to call this what it is: creeping tyranny.”
—Read by Leah Lippman [11:18]

2. Presidential Power to Deploy the National Guard

• Supreme Court Asks for Supplemental Briefing: Key question—does the relevant statute permit the President to federalize the National Guard only when “regular forces” (i.e., military) are insufficient, or does it also include non-military forces like ICE or CBP?
• Analysis that the Court’s request suggests a lack of consensus and perhaps even internal skepticism of the President’s claimed authority. (14:48–17:50)
• Concern that a ruling here could, if not carefully delineated, open even broader powers via the Insurrection Act.

Memorable Quote:

“Are they actually going to deny the stay request?... Or are they just pushing [the President] into the arms of the Insurrection Act in ways I find really scary?”
—Kate Shaw [17:02]

3. Government Litigation Tactics & Factual Misstatements

• In Oregon, DOJ “gaslighting” on actual deployment numbers used to justify federal action; claims of 115 redeployed officers exposed as grossly inflated (“math is hard—boy math,” quips Leah) (20:46–22:05).
• The panel’s decision was based on erroneous government assertions—demonstrates unreliable factual predicate for emergency powers.

4. Access to Federal Benefits & Judicial Oversight

• District courts rule against Trump administration’s effort to suspend SNAP (food stamps) payments during the government shutdown, rebuking attempts to let millions go hungry despite available funds (23:26).
• Noted pattern of lower courts attempting to hold the administration accountable, sometimes undermined by appeals courts.

5. Supreme Court Watch: Behind the Scenes

• The justices requested additional briefing in the Kim Davis case (same-sex marriage licensing post-Obergefell). Thomas and Alito remain hostile to Obergefell; states like Texas enable judges to refuse same-sex marriages on religious grounds (29:38–31:24).

6. Judicial Personalities and Internal Divisions

• Discussion of NYT article on strategic and emotional differences among the three Democratic-appointed justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson) [32:46–37:13].
• The contrast between being “tactical” and speaking frankly for the record; Pam Karlan’s advice emphasized the danger of normalization and the need for open dissent (36:18).

Notable Quotes:

“The problem with waiting to speak frankly is… over time you normalize what’s going on… by the time that [the ‘cataclysmic case’] happens, it may be too late.”
—Pam Karlan, quoted by Leah Lippman [36:18]

7. Expanding Presidential Power Abroad

• Trump’s boat-bombing campaign in the Caribbean and now Pacific, with expanding lethal force and undeclared war threats against Venezuela, possibly motivated by a desire for conflict and/or oil (40:25–42:25).
• Comparison to the film “Wag the Dog”—manufactured foreign crises to distract from domestic issues (42:30–42:40).

8. Fringe Arguments: Third-Term Trump?

• Discussion of Senator Tuberville entertaining scenarios for third-term Trump in violation of the 22nd Amendment, and Trump’s own coy statements (43:14–44:02).
• Hosts warn not to take any claimed acceptance of constitutional limits at face value (44:02–45:12).

9. Supreme Court Case Previews (November Sitting)

RICO v. United States

• Whether the “fugitive tolling doctrine” can extend supervised release periods when a defendant absconds (46:03–47:00).

Hensley v. Fluor Corp

• Can government contractors who violate contract terms claim federal immunity from state tort actions? (47:38–50:29)
• Supremacy Clause immunity implications—especially re: state attempts to hold federal officers liable for rights violations during federal law enforcement actions in cities.

Memorable Quote:

“Supremacy Clause immunity is such a big question right now... This is really about whether states can prosecute federal officers when they tear gas protesters or... shoot non-lethal weapons at journalists.”
—Melissa Murray [51:59]

Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton & Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist

• Technical civil procedure and jurisdictional questions, but with implications for access to courts and balancing state vs. federal oversight. (55:26–58:11)

Learning Resources v. Trump (Tariffs Case)

• Challenges the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose widespread tariffs on purported emergency grounds. Does “regulate” = tariffs? Does the major questions doctrine apply as a check on presidential power in this context? Notable for the cross-ideological coalition of amicus filers (60:10–66:30).

10. “Favorite Things” & Cultural/Feminist Notes

• Recommendations include the new Lily Allen album, Judith Resnik’s book on prison democracy, ProPublica’s reporting on the NC Supreme Court, and legal scholarship on executive/war powers.
• Updates on hurricane impacts in Jamaica and calls to action for support (69:44–71:31, 72:15–75:56).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Legal Gaslighting:

  “This is the kind of slapdash hasty, make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach to law and governance that this Supreme Court has apparently endorsed and could continue to endorse.”
  —Melissa Murray [22:54]

• On Supreme Court Dissenters’ Ordeals:

  “It’s an impossible task that the three dissenters have…they all seem really committed to staying the course… empathy and gratitude for them and the impossible position they’re in.”
  —Kate Shaw [36:09]

• On “Kavanaugh Stops” and Judicial Tone:

  “Calling these Kavanaugh stops gets where Justice Kavanaugh lives. He does not want to be the guy for whom these stops are named.”
  —Melissa Murray [19:20]

• On Big-Picture Danger:

  “There’s a kind of normalizing exercise to this whole challenge that we should really surface and make clear.”
  —Melissa Murray [17:50]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 06:36–08:16 – Chicago court orders on Border Patrol/ICE activity
• 10:55–13:06 – Political protest indictments & government overreach
• 14:48–17:50 – Supreme Court signals in National Guard deployment case
• 20:46–22:05 – DOJ’s inflation of facts in Portland litigation
• 23:26–25:55 – SNAP benefits case, judicial pushback
• 29:38–31:24 – Kim Davis/Obergefell and Texas judicial religious exemptions
• 32:46–37:13 – NYT exposé on differences among Supreme Court dissenters
• 40:25–42:25 – Expansion of bombing campaign and Venezuela escalation
• 43:14–45:12 – Third-term Trump talk; undermining constitutional limits
• 46:03–58:11 – Supreme Court case previews for November sitting
• 60:10–66:30 – Learning Resources v. Trump (Tariffs case) preview and analysis

---

Language and Tone

Consistently incisive, irreverent, and accessible, with the hosts mixing legal analysis and cultural commentary. The episode is peppered with sharp critiques, humor, and exasperation—particularly at executive lawlessness and enabling by the judiciary.

---

Conclusion

This episode weaves together a tapestry of the complex, rapidly evolving legal resistance to the current administration’s aggressive use of federal power in blue cities—and the often lackluster or self-interested response from federal courts. The hosts deliver a sharp, witty, and often sobering account of how federal authority is deployed against dissent, how courts (especially the Supreme Court) are contorted to fit political ends, and the crucial stakes for democracy, judicial independence, and civil rights.

For those seeking to understand not just the specifics of today’s legal battles, but what they portend for the rule of law and American civic life, this episode offers rigorous analysis—and, critically, a sense of what vigilance and solidarity may require in the present moment.

Transcript

[Melissa Murray]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Smalls. As you know, I am a dog person, not necessarily a cat person. But you know what I don't want? I don't want cats to have terrible food. Which is why whenever one of my friends comes home with a new baby and that baby happens to be a feline baby, I recommend that they get their baby Smalls. If you want your fur baby to be healthy to not have gut issues, give them a diet upgrade with Smalls for and for a limited time, you can get 60% off your first order of smalls plus free shipping when you head over to smalls.com strict. Smalls Cat food is protein packed with recipes that are made with preservative free ingredients that you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. And starting off with Smalls is really easy. You just share information about your cat's diet, health and food preferences. And Smalls puts together a personalized sampler just for your cat. So there's no more picking between random brands at the store. Smalls has exactly the right food to satisfy any cat's cravings. And Smalls doesn't just have great food made with great ingredients that you would keep in your own fridge. It also has other things that that your cat will love like treats and snacks. You can add them all to your Small's order and they can be delivered to your house. So there's no stopping at the pet store, lugging a bag of kibble home and everything else. It all just comes straight to your door where your cat is waiting to receive it. The team at Smalls is so confident that you will love their product that they are going to let you try it risk free. That means you order it, it shows up at your door, and if your fur baby does not love it, they will refund you. So what are you waiting for? Give your cat the food that they deserve for a limited time. Because you are a strict scrutiny listener. You can get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com forward/strict. That's 60% off your first order plus Free Shipping when you head over to smalls.com forward slashstrict.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

Mr. Chief justice, please report. It's an old joke, but when I argue man argues against too beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.

[Kate Shaw]

She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity.

[Leah Lippman]

She said, I ask no favor for my sex.

[Kate Shaw]

All I Ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.

[Leah Lippman]

Okay.

[Kate Shaw]

I might just, like, open as this, as though things are normal.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah.

[Leah Lippman]

Or you cannot open or the things are normal and this can just be the cold open.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, I'm gonna just try with a straight face and voice to begin this journey. All right, and in 3, 2, 1. Hello, and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast and the legal culture that surrounds it. We are your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw.

[Leah Lippman]

I'm the Portland frog.

[Kate Shaw]

She's in a full frog suit. If you're listening and not watching, she is in a full frog suit. It is glorious. Go to YouTube if you haven't, and see this with your own eyes.

[Melissa Murray]

And I'm still an adult. Melissa Murray.

[Leah Lippman]

Fashion is not fashion.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm sorry, I hate to break it to you. All right, just to recap, we are Kate Shaw, an inflatable amphibian, and Melissa Murray, and we are your hosts of Strict Scrutiny. And per our last episode, per as usual. Now we are going to talk about some legal news, much of which concerns the ongoing challenges to the President's attempts to militarize law enforcement in American cities. And the. That is why Leah is here in this costume. It's also Halloween. Look at the hands.

[Kate Shaw]

I haven't seen the flippers.

[Melissa Murray]

Oh, my God. It's very hard to work under these conditions.

[Kate Shaw]

I just want everyone to know, for.

[Melissa Murray]

All of us, some more so than others. Kate. Anyway, again, we are going to be covering the ongoing challenges to the President's efforts to. To militarize law enforcement and to turn the American military against ordinary Americans, specifically those who are dissenting, protesting, inflating, all of them, really. And then we're going to switch to previewing the cases the court is going to hear during the first week of the November sitting. So, Leah, is that enough of a lead in for you to exit the suit?

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah, I'm going to do a costume change, get into some real fashion.

[Kate Shaw]

No break. This Taylor Swift style. No break. You're just going to. It's going to take. You're going to jump into a pit and like, one second later, you're going to be in your law professor. Oh, Leah, that was really.

[Melissa Murray]

There she is.

[Kate Shaw]

I also just like. It's just such an amazing demonstration of, like, this is what these guys are triggered by. They're triggered by that suit. The suit is the predicament.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm triggered by that suit.

[Kate Shaw]

Just the unit.

[Leah Lippman]

I just wanted to point out that you all were also triggered by it.

[Kate Shaw]

We're not Responding with near lethal force, though.

[Leah Lippman]

We're just squatters and looks can kill.

[Kate Shaw]

That is true.

[Melissa Murray]

We are all Bon Vino. Now, what is his name? Bon Vino or Bovino?

[Kate Shaw]

Bon Vino. Sounds like a good.

[Melissa Murray]

I know it does.

[Leah Lippman]

There's also Bongino.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, I can't get anything out.

[Melissa Murray]

There are a lot of. I genuinely think the Bovino guy looks like the guy in Whiplash, the music teacher. Did you see that movie, Kate?

[Kate Shaw]

No, I didn't.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay, never mind.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay. I think. I think she's another YouTube. Let me just say what else we're gonna do in the episode, and then we'll come back to Leah's. We should just start over.

[Leah Lippman]

Is this fashion?

[Kate Shaw]

No, this is fashion. Come on, Melissa.

[Leah Lippman]

It's not.

[Melissa Murray]

It's feathered. No.

[Leah Lippman]

I would like to see the episode in this outfit.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay. That we will. I will. Wow. I don't know about this.

[Melissa Murray]

Honestly. The outfit is such that you're blocking your own light. But continue.

[Kate Shaw]

I think it looks great.

[Leah Lippman]

I am my own light.

[Kate Shaw]

It's the sparkle it emanates. Yes. Okay, so we are somehow going to get through a conversation about this hellacious timeline with Leah in her showgirl get up.

[Melissa Murray]

First up, the news. We are going to start with some developments from the Windy city first. The 7th Circuit has granted the administration's request for an administrative stay, pausing Judge Sarah Ellis's order requiring Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bevino to meet in person with her each day. Judge Ellis's order was issued after a hearing on October 28th. The hearing was about ICE's alleged violation of the judge's temporary restraining order prohibiting the use of tear gas and other riot control measures against journalists, clergy, and other protesters during what has become known as Operation Midway Blitz.

[Kate Shaw]

The administrative stay gives the administration a temporary reprieve, but, you know, just of this daily reporting obligation. The administration is still seeking mandamus in the 7th Circuit, challenging that aspect of the order. Although, interestingly, the administration isn't challenging other aspects of the order, including that the agents on the ground in Chicago wear body cameras, which they had not been. But mandamus, just for folks who aren't familiar with it, is an extraordinary remedy. It is typically available outside of the normal appeal process for orders and decisions that aren't normally appealable, but only when district courts are really, truly and wildly out of line, is mandamus ever supposed to be appropriate. So the administrative state is not granting mandamus. That request is still pending. And while it is still pending, the litigation challenging, you know, the rest of ICE's conduct in Chicago is proceeding. And even with the temporary restraining order in effect, the conduct.

[Leah Lippman]

Am I allowed to say some things?

[Kate Shaw]

Melissa?

[Melissa Murray]

I'll allow it.

[Leah Lippman]

I just wanted to point out that I was not allowed to speak for the first page of this episode. I think it's punishment for celebrating Halloween.

[Melissa Murray]

That was inadvertent.

[Kate Shaw]

Uh huh.

[Leah Lippman]

Uh huh.

[Kate Shaw]

Floor is yours, showgirl.

[Leah Lippman]

Okay. So even with the temporary restraining order in effect, the. The conduct of ICE and other federal officers in Chicago has left state officials to resort to these kinds of pleas.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

I've sent a letter to Kristi Noem and to the Department of Homeland Security leadership asking them to pause all of their federal agent operations for the entirety of the Halloween weekend. I'm asking for basic human decency. I think their response will be revealing. They've disrupted everything for more than two months already. Give the children and the families of Illinois a break.

[Leah Lippman]

Krispy Noem, of course, has announced that she is utterly lacking in human decency that Pritzker was appealing to. She says immigration enforcement will be happening in full force.

[Melissa Murray]

We're going to be out on the streets in full force and increase our activities to make sure kids are safe. Every day in Chicago, we're arresting murderers, child pedophiles, those who have perpetuated assault and pornography against children. We're going to be out there to make sure that they can be safe. Enjoy the holidays, spend some time with their families and their neighbors and their communities, and they don't have to be the victim of a crime. Okay. Having a normal one, I see. Also, out of Chicago, we saw a spate of additional charges against regime opponents, specifically Democratic politicians and political candidates, including Kat Abogazalia, who is running for Congress, as well as five others, including a ward committeeman and a candidate for Cook county commissioner. All were arrested for their involvement in the protests at the Broadview Immigration facility, where there have been regular protests for many weeks now.

[Kate Shaw]

So the indictment alleges that these individuals blocked the path of a nice vehicle, which seems possible and also maybe not criminal, but also that they banged on the hood of a car, that they broke a mirror, that they scratched the word pig in the side of a police vehicle, which honestly sounds like to me, maybe someone did that. But these five individuals running for Congress and serving as local elected officials in Chicago, I highly doubt they did that.

[Leah Lippman]

Also, they often livestream.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Leah Lippman]

Their protests.

[Kate Shaw]

So I doubt they're also keying the word pig into the side of official vehicles. And at this point, I don't know why we should Believe a word that comes out of their mouth.

[Melissa Murray]

I can't believe anything that comes out of their mouth.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

And of course, the individuals charged have said that these charges are all retaliation for protected First Amendment activity.

[Leah Lippman]

So I want to come back to the possibility that this might be bullshit. But, you know, among those condemning these charges are the people running against Abu Ghazalia, which feels like an important demonstration of the value of solidarity. So, quote, this unjust prosecution is an attempt to intimidate and silence those who stand up for their rights and beliefs. It's an attack on anyone sickened by masked men roaming our streets and shoving our neighbor into unmarked cars. It's a threat to everyone willing to call this what it is, creeping tyranny. Fine. Said today it's cat. Tomorrow it could be any one of us. End quote. So, you know, along the lines of, should we even believe these allegations? We wanted to note what has become of some of the federal charges that have been filed against other people for allegedly assaulting or impeding ICE or Homeland Security investigation officers. So a district court in the Western District of Texas recently granted a defendant's motion to dismiss in that case. You know, the court noted that it was the government agent that had smashed the defendant's car window, even though they indicted the defendant for using force against the officer. You know, the court's opinion went on to explain that the government's seizure and scope of the arrest and use of force were all unreasonable. You know, they broke the defendant's car window because they said he didn't roll down his window. And just to quote one passage of the opinion, quote, viewing the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the GU Government's conduct in this case has been outrageous. And the court noted the feigned concerns for safety as well as affidavits based on inaccurate assumptions and blatant misstatements and more. And so, given that this is the government's conduct, you know, we should, I think, view the broad view indictment with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Melissa Murray]

Speaking of inaccurate assumptions and misstatements, the Supreme Court has asked for supplemental briefing on the National Guard case out of Chicago. So just by way of background, the court's request arises from a challenge to a district court order effectively enjoining the president and the administration from deploying the National Guard in Chicago. I will just note that even in the absence of the National Guard as a federal police force, the government still has a panoply of options for terrorizing the denizens of the Windy City. They have ice, they Have Customs and Border Patrol, they've got lots of things so you don't have to sweat the National Guard here. But in any event, the 7th Circuit declined to stay the district court's ruling. And so predictably, the administration decided to rush off to the shadow docket to ask Daddy court to please stay the lower court's order blocking the President from deploying the National Guard against fellow Americans in Chicago.

[Leah Lippman]

Poor widow baby, please sir, make some more justice.

[Kate Shaw]

But.

[Leah Lippman]

Government, you know, when they went off to the Supreme Court, they did that, but they had also first consented to the extension of the district court's temporary restraining order that they are purporting to request a stay of. Make it make sense. You know, the government's litigation behavior in this case and others has been appalling. You know, it is making district court judges lives so much more difficult with the disrespect, lack of candor and this manipulative, abusive of litigation conduct because they running off to the Supreme Court saying, you need to free us from this order, which we have consented to the.

[Kate Shaw]

Extension of back to SCOTUS's request for the supplemental briefing that we got last week. So specifically, the justices asked for more information about the following question, quote, whether the term Regular forces in 10 USC section 124063 refers to the regular forces of the US military or non military forces. And that matters because this statute, 12406, which is the statute that the President relies on on to federalize and deploy the National Guard, says the President can only do that right, can only call them into federal service in circumstances where the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

[Melissa Murray]

And President Trump maintains that he needs to federalize the National Guard in Chicago because he isn't able to execute the laws of the United States using just ice, CPB and DHS officers. However, the issue the court is going to resolve here is whether that is even a prerequisite for deploying the National Guard under this law, or whether the President is is only permitted to call up the National Guard if he's unable to execute the laws of the US Using quote, unquote, regular armed forces. That is why SCOTUS has asked the parties to brief whether regular forces refers to the armed forces or non military forces. So ladies, what do we think?

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah, so I'm not sure exactly what to make of this. Like on one hand, I'm worried it's like a dare to dream situation. Are they actually going to deny the stay request? You know, on one hand, the supplemental briefing order suggests there aren't five, five votes right now for the administration's positions, like the President's determination is completely unreviewable by courts. On the other hand, it could also suggest there aren't five votes to just straight up deny this day for the reasons explained in the district court's order. Namely, the President isn't struggling to execute federal law in any meaningful sense that would provide him emergency powers. So a part of me is also, like, a little concerned about going this route because it evades the court, having to like, frontally confront what courts can and should do when the factual basis for the President's claim of authority is bullshit. And it tees up this question of like, can the President deploy regular militarized forces when. And that seems to push us closer to the Insurrection act question. I don't know. What do you think?

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, I mean, I think starting from when the President first used this statutory provision in la, we, you know, noted that some of the legal questions presented by this invocation are not presented if he simply invokes the Insurrection act, which feels like enormous escalation, but would not require the sort of like a showing that the regular forces or can't, that he can't execute the law with the regular forces. And so, yeah, I'm. I think there is some short term optimism. They're not gonna, like tomorrow or like today ruin Halloween by just allowing them to be unleashed even further in Chicago. And yet I worry that they'll somehow just push him if they don't allow him to go this route. That just pushes him into the arms of the Insurrection act in ways that I find really scary.

[Melissa Murray]

The idea that we are going to applaud this court for, for now, holding the line. I mean, that to me is the scariest part of, like, there's a kind of normalizing exercise to this whole challenge that we should really surface and make clear. You know, part of this is the administration now becoming like the Fifth Circuit, a way for this court to exercise some good PR for itself.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, yeah.

[Leah Lippman]

I am bracing myself for the. Isn't the Supreme Court great now takes, you know, in the event that they deny this state application, because those are inevitable.

[Melissa Murray]

An opinion written by Amy Coney Barrett.

[Leah Lippman]

Right? Exactly. Neutral. Exactly. Exactly. I did want to shout out like, this request for supplemental briefing definitely derives from an amicus brief that was filed by Professor Marty Lederman at Georgetown Law School. Obviously hat tip to him for flagging an argument that flew under the radar and actually getting the Supreme Court to potentially dive into it. I also did want to add a renewed shout out to Anil Kalahan, the professor who coined the phrase Kavanaugh stop, because I do think that helped create conditions in which the court feels at least some pressure to not continue just being yes men to the president. And this is also kind of a reflection of the work that people have been doing documenting conditions on the ground in Chicago and elsewhere, you know, where the National Guard and other excessive federal law enforcement deployment has occurred.

[Melissa Murray]

I have to give it to Anil. Calling these Kavanaugh stops like gets where Justice Kavanaugh lives. He does not want to be the guy for whom these stops are named. And it's so funny that he doesn't want to be that guy, but he felt like it was a good idea.

[Kate Shaw]

To write that concurrence which thus making him that guy.

[Melissa Murray]

Thus making him that guy.

[Leah Lippman]

But.

[Melissa Murray]

But here we are anyway. Yeah, so those are the developments in Chicago. We also got developments in Portland, Oregon this week. So when we last spoke to you, we mentioned that a 9th Circuit panel with two Trump appointees in the majority issued a stay that blocked a district court order preventing the deployment of the National Guard in Portland. Well, now the full 9th Circuit has vacated that panel order and the issue is headed for full on bonk review before the 9th Circuit. This now means that the district court order blocking deployment of the National Guard is again in effect at least until the full Ninth Circuit resolves this issue. I will just remind listeners that in that first three judge panel decision, Judge Susan Graber dissented and she encouraged those who were losing faith in the judicial system to just hold on so that the system would have the chance to work itself out completely. And it seems like she was talking about exactly this, the full 9th Circuit vacating that decision and then now going to en banc review. So we shall see if our faith.

[Leah Lippman]

Shall be restored as we did with the, you know, cases concerning indictment of individuals for allegedly impeding federal officers. Here too, we wanted to highlight some of the Department of Justice's conduct in this particular litigation to underscore again the intense gaslighting and bullshit that really lies under the President's claims to authority. So in this litigation involving Oregon plaintiffs challenged one of the assertions that the government made to the 9th Circuit and that the three judge 9th Circuit panel, or at least the two Trump appointees in the majority, had relied on in order to stay the lower court's order. So specifically, the panel stated that the actions of the Portland Frog and Portland Chicken had forced the redeployment of nearly 25% of federal protection services officers, about 115 officers. But the government was a little evasive about the exact number at oral argument and in discovery they admitted that There were never 115 officers redeployed to Portland. Rather the number was in the 20s. Except for one month back in July when it was 31.

[Melissa Murray]

Still seems like a big difference.

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah, math is hard. Is this boy math?

[Kate Shaw]

It's also like we saw the frog and freaked out math. And so it felt like a big number.

[Melissa Murray]

So because of the inflation. Right.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, so DOJ responded to this revelation by saying, oh that error, that is no big deal. That's harmless. It didn't matter to the panel opinion. And we never meant to say that 115 Federal Protective Services officers were deployed at the same time, just like overall across several months. But oh, also here are some other whoopsies we uncovered upon reviewing our own claims. And it actually wasn't 115 total officers, even if you put them over the course of several months, then it was more like something in the 80s. And also we might have said that it's undisputed that nearly a quarter of the entire service had to be redirected to Portland during a relatively short time. But really it was only like half that. But really no harm, no foul.

[Melissa Murray]

Anyway, we are just emphasizing this listeners, because these are the kinds of facts slash falsehoods on which these claims of emergency authority rest. This is what the Department of Justice is presenting to federal courts to justify this administration's actions. And this is the kind of slapdash hasty, make it up as you go along approach to law and governance that this Supreme Court has apparently endorsed and could continue to endorse. So just wanted to flag it for you.

[Leah Lippman]

But lower courts are still doing their part to see through the bs. So after we wrapped recording and were about to go trick or treating, some district courts gave us some real treats. Although there is unfortunately a trick wrapped up in there. Anyways, so two district courts concluded that it is illegal for the Trump regime to withhold SNAP benefits, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that provides people with sustenance who aren't able to afford food. Snap includes about 41 million people and as part of the shutdown, Trump announced that he was just not going to pay out funds for snap. So let people go hungry and starve, even though money had been appropriated and put into multi year contingency funds to ensure the people wouldn't go hungry in the event of a shutdown. And yes, he's doing this as he is constructing himself a new ballroom. One district court gave the regime until Monday to inform the court if it was going to use contingent funding to proceed with reduced benefits in November. But a second judge immediately restrained the suspension of SNAP benefits. So it seems like under that ruling, SNAP benefits should immediately go out. So one other treat, the latest ruling against another Trump administration policy, this one, a policy of systematically detaining any immigrant facing possible deportation, reached something of a milestone. So now more than 100 federal judges have ruled that the efforts to just detain everybody as part of immigration enforcement are illegal. Unfortunately, as I said, there was also a trick in store. So the U.S. court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit marked spooky season by granting the Department of Justice's mandamus request. Finding that the district judge's order that required Border Patrol official Greg Bevino to provide the court with daily reports about compliance with the district court's temporary restraining order, the Seventh Circuit concluded that infringed on the separation of powers and put the district court in a position of inquisitor. The good news, however, is that the temporary restraining order itself remains in place. This is the order that restricted the government's ability to arrest and deploy non lethal munitions against journalists and protesters. So that order remains in effect. It's just that the district court's additional precaution to ensure the government's compliance with that order, unfortunately no longer is.

[Melissa Murray]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Aura Frames Aura Frames, I swear to God is the one gift that never gets old. Whenever I wrap this up and give it to someone for the holidays, for a birthday, they love it and act like I am the smartest person in the world. I am smart because I know that everyone loves an aura frame. Why? Because who doesn't want to have wonderful pictures of friends and family just scrolling constantly on your brand new aura frame that hooks up to your computer, hooks up to your phone and allows you to download all of the best pictures, all of the latest pictures in real time. It's absolutely fantastic. It's a great gift for new parents. It's a great gift to share with grandparents who maybe are away from their grandchildren. Literally. It's the perfect foolproof gift. Everyone you give this to will absolutely, absolutely love it. You can upload unlimited photos and videos. You just download the Aura app to your phone, connect to Wi Fi and boom, you're in business. No hidden fees. You can preload photos on the Aura frame before it ships. So when it arrives to your chosen recipient, they are ready to not only receive this wonderful gift, but they have at their fingertips all of these wonderful photos of you and your family that they have been missing. You can personalize your Aura Frame by adding a message before it arrives and going forward, you can share your photos and videos effortlessly straight from your phone all year long. I'm telling you, I just gave it to one of my friends for his birthday and as he said, you are a great gift giver. Mm. And I'm like, that's correct. Aura Frame was named number one by Wirecutter and you can save on this number one Wirecutter perfect gift by visiting auraframe frames.com for a limited time. Strict scrutiny listeners can get twenty dollars off their best selling Carver Matte frame with the code Aura20. That's a U R a frames.com promo code Aura20 and you can support strict scrutiny by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions may apply. Ah, the sounds of an Etsy holiday.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

Now.

[Leah Lippman]

Thank you. That's special.

[Melissa Murray]

Want to hear it again? Get original and affordable gifts from small shops on Etsy for gifts that say I get you shop Etsy. Shifting gears, we wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things that are going on at the court, not necessarily in oral arguments, but behind the scenes. So currently pending in the court cert pool is a petition from Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of Court who refuses to issue marriage licenses because in the wake of Obergefell versus Hodges, she would have to issue them to same sex couples and opposite sex couples. And she says that issuing them to same sex couples violates her religious beliefs. Her cert petition asks the Supreme Court to review a 6th Circuit decision holding that because she was functioning in her position as a state actor rather than as a private citizen, her actions are not protected under the First Amendment. However, in addition to making that request, Davis has also asked the court to wait for it. Overrule Obergefell vs Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same sex marriage across the nation. She argues that a right to same sex marriage has no basis in the Constitution. I hope no one tells her about executive privilege, which is also not in the Constitution. Constitution, but whatever. It's going to be a real hard day for her when she gets that news. But this is where we are, folks. Obergefell versus Hodges in the crosshairs, apparently.

[Kate Shaw]

So this is not Kim Davis's first SCOTUS rodeo. She is something of a repeat player, having petitioned the court for review in 2020 at an earlier stage of the litigation there, the court denied Cert. But notably Justices Thomas and Alito took that personally, issuing a statement respecting the denial of cert. They didn't dissent from the denial. That is, they wouldn't have heard Kim Davis case. But they had some things they wanted to say about Obergefell.

[Leah Lippman]

And what they wanted to say was a broadside against Obergefell. So the two justices accused the Obergefell majority of quote, altering the Constitution and quote, having ruinous consequences for religious liberty. So this is the first conference at which the Court will consider Davis's latest challenge. Because the court doesn't grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences. That's become the practice. So there would have to be a second conference before we hear about any cert grant if they stick with again past practice. So if the justices deny review, however, we could hear about it as soon as Monday, November 10, and again to.

[Melissa Murray]

Underscore that there are no new ideas. In related news, on Friday, October 24, the Texas Supreme Court amended its judicial code of conduct to permit justices of the peace to refuse to perform same sex sex marriages based on their religious beliefs. This follows a years long legal battle involving a McLennan County, Texas judge who faced sanctions and public warnings for doing so. In 2019, the court's new rule states, quote, it is not a violation for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief. End quote. I will also note that you could have sincerely held religious beliefs that people of different races should not be married. And this would seem to be okay here too.

[Kate Shaw]

Moving on. Justices in the Wild. We had a lot of Justice Barrett in the Wild sightings when she was in the first couple of weeks of her book publicity tour. But we saw in the last week Justice Sotomayor and Jackson actually out and about in Massachusetts. Justice Sotomayor appeared at Boston University Law School where she was in conversation with her former clerk, BU alumnus and current counsel at oric, Cesar Lopez Morales, the Justice who appeared in a pair of red and white Nike Dunks.

[Melissa Murray]

Fashion and comfort.

[Leah Lippman]

That's fashion.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. What's on your feet, Leah? Not Nike dunks, all birds. That's great comfort for sure. Anyway, so she encouraged the audience to keep the faith and to keep fighting. As she said, quote, I refuse to be a bystander. I get up every morning ready to fight every morning to dissent this vehemently as I humanly can and to scream from the mountaintops. No.

[Melissa Murray]

Justice Jackson was a little more opaque in her conversation with Danielle Hawley, the president of Mount Holyoke College. This took place at the Springfield Public Forum in Springfield, Massachusetts. Justice Jackson told the audience, quote, anything worth doing takes effort, which was ostensibly about her path to the bench and the hard work that it required, but could also have been a meditation on her efforts to save this court from itself.

[Leah Lippman]

Speaking of efforts to maybe save this court from itself, the New York Times. Jodi Cantor is now officially on the Supreme Court beat for the Gray lady, and she has a new piece about the tensions between the three Democratic appointees about how to approach their time in the jurisprudential wilderness. What did you all think of the piece?

[Kate Shaw]

Well, I had great quotes from both of you.

[Melissa Murray]

So that's 10 out of 10, no notes.

[Kate Shaw]

Look, I mean, I think that we are not the audience for this piece because we have been talking about these dynamics so much. Like, it's just, we are kind of obsessed with this. Like it's impossible to do what they're doing. They're taking very different tax in dealing with the collapse of the constitutional order, their colleagues, how to speak to the public and to try to persuade at the same time. And I think at different moments, we've had different kinds of sympathy for different approaches, or at least I have. I did learn a few things from the piece. One, this made me so furious. So, so we know on the bench, Justice Jackson sometimes gets side eye from her colleagues. I didn't realize that's also true in conference, which the piece suggested. Like, they don't like that she talks for a long time in conference and that she brings detailed notes. And I was just like, as a compulsive over preparer myself. Like, you know, I would have pages and pages of detailed notes to be sure that I had really thought through everything I wanted to say. And I would show up and do that and they're like, somehow that's offensive or unserious.

[Melissa Murray]

You know, the first black woman on the court is really just there to get the door until the end of time, or at least a new justice in the court consume all the time.

[Kate Shaw]

Don't expect her to happen with your, with your ideas and conference.

[Leah Lippman]

The idea that they go to conference to ostensibly speak with their colleagues about how to resolve these cases, maybe have a debate, explain their reasoning just in like freeballing. It is insane. Right?

[Melissa Murray]

Like, well, do you remember Justice Barrett at her confirmation holding up the note. Oh, yeah, no notes.

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

You know who has lots of notes? Ketanji Brown Jackson.

[Leah Lippman]

You know, I have been teaching for 10 years and like said, I, I still go to class with pages and pages of notes, like detailed notes, including like a one page sheet that is like a densely packed outline of everything. And it's just.

[Melissa Murray]

Can I just say this? This actually again, she is the only black woman on the court. People routinely, even before she became the only black woman on the court, talked about was she qualified, was she smart enough. They still continue to do the this under those conditions. Wouldn't you over prepare? Like, if you want her to stop coming with notes, stop having your little minions out in the world tell her that she's stupid constantly.

[Leah Lippman]

Right.

[Melissa Murray]

Like, shut up. Like, this is every black woman who ever worked at a job.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Like, you just show up because you have no safety net and you have lots of notes. The end.

[Kate Shaw]

And then that's held against you too, right? Yeah. Yeah. So that was pretty enraging. Yeah. I mean, it's an impossible task that the three dissenters have. And I do not envy them. They all seem really committed to staying the course and pursuing in their own different ways, like, what they think is the kind of like, right way to try to either keep things from going radically off course or to help the country they already are. And so I guess I felt like a lot of empathy and gratitude for them and the impossible position they're in. I think that was my big takeaway.

[Melissa Murray]

I loved Pam Carlin's drop the mic.

[Kate Shaw]

That was a good last line. Oh my gosh.

[Melissa Murray]

Friend of the pod, Pam Carlin.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Telling it like it is.

[Leah Lippman]

So what she said is, quote, the problem with waiting to speak frankly is that, quote, over time you normalize what's going on. End quote. And she said it might be tempting to hoard influence and leverage for a, quote, cataclysmic case, end quote. But by the time that happened, she said, quote, it may be too late.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, and this is sort of the anti Jackson position. Like, instead of speaking freely and publicly and forthrightly, you kind of hedge because you're trying to maintain equanimity with your colleagues and just like, maybe there's no time for that right now. Yeah, that's what we've been saying, I think.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Leah Lippman]

And like I can imagine a world in which this is like a. Both and Right. Like some people try one course, like some people try another. But. But I am very sympathetic, obviously, as the peacemaker to the Pam Carlin view of what exactly are you waiting for? They have so allowed the president to just demolish so many aspects of our constitutional system. What, again, are you waiting for?

[Melissa Murray]

So I was talking to a friend about this and one of the things that he noted, and I don't know that Jodi meant for this to be sort of the tenor of the piece, but there is this kind of setup where you have Kagan the tactician and then Sotomayor and Jackson the emotive, like, forthright speakers. And my friend, I think rightly mentioned, like, sometimes speaking forthrightly and to a particular audience is a strategy and it's also tactical. And I wish that had come across more clearly to all audiences.

[Kate Shaw]

I thought Sotomayor, though, came across as like somewhat between the kind of Kagan and Jackson polls.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I actually thought she came off as like, she was very much like that when Justice Jackson wasn't on the court. So I think about her intervention and Dobbs as like, you know, I'm not convincing these guys. Let me talk to you. People like, will this institution stand the stench? Blah, blah. And now Justice Jackson is maybe taking it on even further. So it's not that Sotomayor has moved. Maybe it's just the moment has moved even beyond where she was.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

This episode of strict scrutiny is sponsored by Better Help. The days are getting shorter. There's less sunshine. And you know what that means. It's time for the seasonal blues. But don't worry, shorter days don't have to be so dismal. It's time to reach out and check in with those that you care about and to remind ourselves that we are not alone. BetterHelp is prepared to help you handle all of the winter blues and blahs that are coming your way. Better Help therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and they are fully licensed in the United States. BetterHelp does the initial matching work work for you so you can just focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and better helps 12 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means that they typically get it right the first time. And if you're not happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is one of the world's largest, largest online therapy platforms, having served over 5 million people globally. And more importantly, BetterHelp works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. So this month, don't wait to reach out. Whether you're checking in on a friend or reaching out for a therapist for yourself, BetterHelp makes it easier to take that first step and strict scrutiny. Listeners can get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com strict that's betterhelp.com strict.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn [e-mail] partners foreign.

[Melissa Murray]

Shall we turn from Article 3 to Article 2 for more hope and aspiration?

[Leah Lippman]

Yes.

[Melissa Murray]

Excellent. Okay. In additional Article 2 news, we should note that the President's bombing campaign against Caribbean boats continues apace and ostensibly in the absence of law. The only difference now is that the campaign to decimate these boats has no longer been confined to the Caribbean. It has expanded to the Pacific Ocean and again seems to be predicated on totally unsubstantiated claims of drug trafficking.

[Leah Lippman]

So the administration has acknowledged even more lethal strikes on boats in the Eastern Pacific. This time four boats. These attacks left 14 people dead and one survivor. And this is apparently the first time multiple strikes were announced in a single day.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, which did feel like a genuine escalation. And it just seems more and more apparent that this president badly wants a war with Venezuela.

[Melissa Murray]

Could it be because of oil, maybe?

[Leah Lippman]

Or maybe he just like, wants a little war? Like, I just don't know.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, it just seems like a fun thing. I mean, you know, he obviously has had a lot of antipathy to the Maduro regime. So I think this, again, could be a both. And there are multiple reasons, but they all seem in confluence to be moving us in this direction of the strikes, turning into something that begins to look more like full scale war. And on Friday, in that vein, we got news that the administration's aggression towards this, you know, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, was likely to escalate into actual full scale military campaigns, including striking military targets inside Venezuela. This is according to reporting by both the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal. And you know, they're, they're, they are trying to suggest this is just ordinary drug interdiction to bomb boats, which it is very much. But you cannot make a plausible argument that bombing inside a sovereign state, whatever your relationship with that government, is not war. Like, that would be essentially launching a war with Venezuela. And it feels like we could be on the precipice of that.

[Leah Lippman]

You can't make a plausible argument. And yet I wouldn't put it past Brett Kavanaugh to try.

[Melissa Murray]

So did any of you see the 1997 movie Wag the Dog?

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

This is Wag the Dog.

[Leah Lippman]

Yes, yes.

[Melissa Murray]

Right. So in Wag, that's why I said.

[Leah Lippman]

Like, he just wants a little more.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I mean, Wag the Dog, they start a war with Albania to distract from a sex scandal in the administration. The jokes write themselves. Anyway, in addition to what is happening in the Caribbean and now in the Pacific, we wanted to also acknowledge the percolating effort to ignore the 22nd Amendment and install Donald Trump into a third term at as president. So here is noted constitutional law scholar and former football coach Senator Tommy Tuberville on this issue.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

If you read the Constitution, it says he's not. But if he says he has some, some different circumstances that might be able to go around the Constitution, but that's up to him. We got a long way to go before that happens.

[Melissa Murray]

The president, for his part, has been reading the Constitution, it would seem, and, and although it seems he's not reading the polls, but he also had this to say.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

I have my highest numbers that I've ever had. As I should. I ended eight wars and we have the greatest economy in history. I have the best numbers for any president in many years, any president. And I would say that if you read it, it's pretty clear I'm not allowed to run. Stupid.

[Melissa Murray]

I missed it.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

But we have a lot of great people.

[Kate Shaw]

So, thoughts on this one? It seems to be an enormous mistake to take Donald Trump just like, offhand seeming to concede that he's not allowed to run as somehow forever resolving the issue like he's done. He's like, seen the light. He's not gonna try to like, further explore this possibility. I think he's. We're gonna see a lot more rounds of this. And I also just think it really matters how we talk about the 22nd Amendment and the two term limit, which is, you know, not the way that that Tuberville is talking about it. But, you know, I do think that there are ostensibly serious people who are like, I don't know, he says he's got a plan. What are the legal arguments that would actually entitle him to run for a third term? And I just feel like a thought experiment, like, if you'll indulge me briefly, is helpful, which is like, what if Trump announced that women wouldn't be voting in the 2026 midterm elections or that he was giving every red state a third senator?

[Melissa Murray]

Or.

[Leah Lippman]

Kate, can I just interrupt you right here because I just want to point out you basically manifested the reconstruction and demolition of the east wing.

[Kate Shaw]

I bet.

[Leah Lippman]

And I'm a little concerned.

[Kate Shaw]

I better not go on like you.

[Leah Lippman]

Are exercising these witch like powers on Halloween.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, I'm done. I am saying that he is. When he says I might have the ability to run for a third term, he is just saying we are actually going to stop pretending there is a plausible argument and I am going to to announce that I am suspending the Constitution and we absolutely have to talk about it in those terms.

[Leah Lippman]

Agreed.

[Kate Shaw]

If he continues to publicly play with the idea of not leaving office when his second term is done.

[Leah Lippman]

Agreed.

[Kate Shaw]

I won't say anything more.

[Melissa Murray]

All right, speaking of life tenure, let's switch to case previews and talk about what the Supreme Court is going to get its little hands into this week at its first week of the November sitting. The sitting is two weeks long. Just a reminder and as is our practice, we're going to preview the cases that will be heard during the first week. We'll get to the second week in text time. First up though, RICO versus United States.

[Kate Shaw]

So this is one of the many criminal cases on the merits doc at this term. Although it is not a case about rico, which is the federal racketeering statute, it's just a party whose name is rico. So here's what the case is about. Isabelle Rico is the defendant in the case. She was on supervised release after serving time in prison for meth and heroin distribution. While on supervised release, she moved to another county without telling her probation officer. By the time she was rearrested in 2023, the 42 month term for her supervised release expired. However, the district court applied the fugitive tolling doctrine, meaning it did not count as time unsupervised release the many months when she was a fugitive and out of contact with her probation officer. The court sentenced RICO to prison time again with an increased sentencing guidelines range because she had absconded. And the question before the court is whether the fugitive tolling doctrine can be applied in the context of federal supervised release, even though there is no explicit statutory authority for courts to do that.

[Melissa Murray]

It'll be very interesting to hear what noted libertarian Neil Gorsuch has to say about this, especially given his prior embrace of the rule of lenity, that is the rule of statutory construction that says criminal statutes ought to be construed if there is ambiguity in favor of the defendant. It may also be an opportunity, I think, for a strange bedfellows coalition of Gorse, Sotomayor and Jackson coming together. I don't know if that's enough to overcome the law and order crowd, but it'll be interesting.

[Leah Lippman]

Law and order or no law and no order. Just depending on the context.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, depending on the president.

[Leah Lippman]

Exactly.

[Melissa Murray]

Exactly.

[Leah Lippman]

So on the same day that RICO will be argued, the Supreme Court will also hear Hensley v. Fluor Corp. A case concerning the liability of government contractors. Fluorocorp is a government contractor that employed an Afghan civilian who turned out to be a suicide bomber. And army Specialist Winston Hensley was in injured in the suicide bombing, and he sued for a corporation in state court for negligently employing and supervising the suicide bomber. The issue before the court is whether a federal common law defense preempts a state law claim against a government contractor. In these circumstances, if the court answers this question in the affirmative, it will probably be extending a 1988 Supreme Court decision, Boyle vs United Technologies, which immunize a government contractor from suit where the contractor performed the contract according to specifications, to cases like this one, Hensley, where government contractors violate the terms of their contracts, and they would be saying those contractors also can't be sued. So Boyle is a somewhat famous infamous federal courts case written by Justice Scalia. It forgoes bright line rules in favor of a loosey goosey standard for when federal courts can fashion federal common law. Something Justice Scalia was often at pains to say federal courts shouldn't be doing. You know, know, that is like the great man was of the view that federal courts shouldn't be acting like common law judges.

[Kate Shaw]

I had always gotten the impression that he had, like, quietly noted some misgivings about his opinion.

[Leah Lippman]

Oh, absolutely.

[Kate Shaw]

After the fact.

[Leah Lippman]

But like, when you interviewed with Justice Scalia and they asked you, like, what opinion of his do you disagree with? You basically weren't allowed to say Boyle after a certain period of time because it was just so boring.

[Kate Shaw]

And everyone's like, yeah, I know. Yeah, get over it. Who is fond of saying that?

[Melissa Murray]

So it should be noted that the federal government is weighing in here as an amicus, and it has asked the court to leave aside the question of whether Boyle should be extended and simply establish a rule of constitutional immunity under the Supremacy clause. So that's kind of an escalation. Not surprisingly, Fluor Corporation would be absolutely fine with this option as well. Interestingly, there are a number of different groups, surprising groups really, who are not in favor of this option, who are arguing in favor of Hensley and against this kind of immunity. And it includes states of a wide variety of ideological postures. So red states like Alabama and Mississippi and blue States like Minnesota and Oregon and purple states like New Mexico and North Carolina are all weighing in here to say that they do not want this kind of immunity for government contractors and circumstances like these. So this may actually be the judiciary's version of the Epstein files. Apparently saying no to government contractor immunity when the government contractor defies the terms of their contract is the one issue that unites all facets of our polarized country.

[Leah Lippman]

So the Supremacy Clause question could have important implications for some current events and some questions that people have been raising over the last few months. Months specifically about the potential for state imposed liability against federal officers who violate state law. So supremacy Clause immunity is the doctrine that limits states power to impose legal liability on federal institutions or federal officers. And the doctrine arose from a state's prosecution of a deputized federal marshal after the marshal shot a person trying to assassinate Justice Field. Supremacy Clause immunity is also related to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which goes back to McCulloch versus Maryland, which is where the Supreme Court said Maryland couldn't tax the national bank and instrumentality of the federal government.

[Kate Shaw]

So the basic gist of the doctrine is that state laws, and specifically criminal laws can't be enforced against the valid actions of a federal officer who is acting with federal authority. But the standard has a lot of wiggle room built into it, like determining when an act is authorized by federal law. The doctrine also limits immunity to actions that are no more than necessary or needed to perform whatever the federal function is is. Supremacy Clause immunity is implicated where state law is trying to limit or hold liable the federal officer from doing something that's pretty integral to functions and duties that federal law authorizes. So there is something that makes a lot of sense to this doctrine of immunity. But the question is, can it totally disable states from pursuing federal officers if they exceed the bounds of their authority under federal law?

[Melissa Murray]

And if you're picking up what Kate is putting down, it should be clear to you listeners why Supreme Court clause immunity is such a big question right now. Should also be clear why this administration is pushing it at the Supreme Court and why so many states of differing ideologies seem to be resisting it. This is because Supremacy Clause immunity will affect whether states can potentially impose criminal liability on and prosecute federal officers who are part of this militarization of American cities. And that means whether they will be immunized for abuse of innocent bystanders and protesters who are simply exercising protected constitutional rights. This is really about whether states can prosecute federal officers when they tear gas Protesters or body slam people or zip tie kids or shoot non lethal weapons at journalists, protesters, et cetera. So this is a big deal. And Stephen Miller, this is the vice vice president of the Trump administration, says that of course the state should not be able to do this. So let's roll that tape.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties. And no one, no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist adjutant or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, so insofar as he's making this confident categorical claim, he's wrong. But it is definitely unclear exactly what the scope of Supremacy Clause immunity is. And the fact that we right now have the federal government asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on this really important question in a case that is flying under the radar, although not if we have anything to say about it, is I think, quite significant.

[Leah Lippman]

And just stepping back for a second, like, part of why we are talking about the prospect of state liability against federal officers is because of the limited availability of federal remedies against federal officers who violate people's constitutional rights. So you can sue federal officers to get an injunction that would stop unconstitutional conduct, but the Supreme Court has vastly limited your ability to sue federal officers for damages if they violate violate your constitutional rights. So you can sue to prevent future violations, but not hold liable officers who engaged in past violations. There's a 1971 case, Bivens versus six unknown named agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. And that case recognized the ability to sue federal officers for damages for violating fourth Amendment rights. And this court, that is the modern court, the Roberts Court, has predictably been hostile to that precedent. It is from the 1970s. Cases from the 70s really aren't entitled to stare decisis effect. When you think about it, that was a joke. Anyways, so this court has vastly.

[Melissa Murray]

Is it a joke?

[Leah Lippman]

Right? Is it? Yeah, no, I know a little problem with manifesting there. But modern court, Roberts Court has really narrowed the ability to sue federal officers for damages with some justices included noted libertarian Neil Gorsuch and his buddy Clarence Thomas calling for Bivens to be overruled. And so the fact that you can't sue federal officers for damages under federal law is part of why people are talking about, you know, state liability for federal officers who violate, you know, state.

[Kate Shaw]

Law and why there is a real fear that this court will find another way to shut any potential doors that remain somewhat open. So this is a case we're going to be watching very closely and obviously not just for what it's going to say about federal common law and defense contractors. All right, on to the next Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited versus Burton will be argued on Tuesday. This is a civil procedure case and specifically it asks whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Procedure 60c1 imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. As a general matter, Rule 60 sets forth the circumstances under which a litigant can receive relief from a judgment order. 60C1 specifies that a motion for relief must be made within a reasonable time. And Coney Island Auto Parts didn't file its Rule 60 motion to vacate a default judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction until six years after that default judgment was entered. The company argues that the summons notifying it of the judgment was improperly addressed and so it was defectively served, a point the 6th Circuit acknowledged even as it ruled against the company for failure to comply with the reasonable time requirements. So Civ pro mavens will love this case.

[Melissa Murray]

Actually, Civ pro mavens are going to love all of the cases that are being heard on Tuesday because Tuesday is Civ pro day at scotus, because that's the day that the court also hears Years Haynes Celestial Group versus Palm Quest. And this is a case that considers state court removal, a final judgment and diversity jurisdiction. So if you are into civil procedure, you should be tingling right now. And I know that you are. The facts are very interesting. Sarah and Grant Palmquist, residents of Texas, sued Whole Foods and Hane, the makers of Earth's Best Baby food, which is sold at Whole Foods stores, in a Texas state court alleging judging that heavy metals in the product caused their son's autism. Citing diversity jurisdiction which allows federal courts to take up cases involving parties from different states, Hain, which is based in Delaware and New York, removed the case to federal court. In doing so, Hayne argued that Whole Foods, which is based in Texas, was immunized from suit under a Texas law as a, quote, unquote, innocent seller of the product and therefore they never should have been included as a party to the suit.

[Kate Shaw]

The Palmquist amended their complaint to add new claims against Whole Foods and tried to have the case remanded back to state court. A federal district court denied that request and dismissed Whole Foods from the case and two years later, after a trial, the district court entered a ruling in favor of the company. The Palmquist appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit, which concluded that the district court had improperly dismissed Whole Foods and lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the Palmquists. The appellate court then sent the case back to state court with instructions to do the whole thing over and Palmquist may be an opportunity for the court to side with corporations while also potentially bench slapping the 5th Circuit to great tastes.

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Sony Pictures Nuremberg as the world grapples with the unveiled horrors of the Holocaust, the Allies, led by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, create an unprecedented international tribunal to hold the highest ranking Nazi officials account accountable. Among them, US army psychiatrist lieutenant colonel Douglas Kelly is assigned the extraordinary task of assessing the mental state of Hermann Goring, the notorious former Reichsmarschall and Hitler's second in command. During this trial of the century, Dr. Kelly becomes locked in a psychological duel that reveals a sobering ordinary men can commit extraordinary evil. Nuremberg, written and directed by James Vanderbilt, starring Russell Crowe, Rami Male Malik, Leo Woodall and Michael Shannon, starts Friday and is only in theaters. Tickets are on sale now at nuremberg-film.com that's N U R E M B E R G-Film.com There's a reason Chevy.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

Trucks are known for their dependability. It's because they show up no matter the weather, push forward no matter the terrain and deliver. That's why Chevrolet has earned more dependability awards for trucks than any other brand in 2025, according to J.D. power, because in every Chevy truck, like every Chevy driver, dependability comes standard. Visit Chevy.com to learn more. Chevrolet received the highest total number of awards among all trucks in the J.D. power 2025 U.S. vehicle Dependability Study Awards based on 2022 models. Newer models may be shown. Visit J.D. power.com awards for more details. Chevrolet Together, let's drive.

[Melissa Murray]

All right, so those cases are obviously interesting, at least for Fed courts and Civ Pro Stans. But of course, the main action in the first week of the November sitting is the case the court will hear on Wednesday. Learning Resources vs Trump, aka the Trump.

[Leah Lippman]

Tariffs case the case is actually two.

[Melissa Murray]

Consolidated cases, both challenging the President's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers act, or iepa. The court has fast tracked these cases, which I don't know about you ladies, causes me to stare in Jack Smith Presidential Immunity and Classified documents, but whatever.

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah, so we are going to be covering the oral argument in the tariff cases in much more detail at our live show at CrookedCon on November 7th. We will just note that there has been a ton of amicus activity in this case, including amicus briefs from small businesses and states that are siding with the plaintiffs challenging the President. Also, if you are going to be joining us at Crooked Con, we are going to have some I think pretty fun tariff related games in store, none.

[Melissa Murray]

Of which requires the costume.

[Kate Shaw]

Leah won't be wearing a frog suit to my knowledge, but the tariff games I think will be really cool to my knowledge. You'll have to show up and see.

[Leah Lippman]

Surprise.

[Kate Shaw]

Back to the Tariffs case. So the case involves two different kinds of tariffs. So the first category is the trafficking tariffs. So these are ostensibly imposed on some products from China, Canada and Mexico because those nations allegedly failed to do enough to stop the flow of fentanyl. It is just quick editorial note. Tough to keep track of everyone who is to blame for the flow of fentanyl. We are bombing Venezuelan, Colombian and Ecuadorian fishing boats because they are responsible for fentanyl, but also tariffing all of these nations because it's also their fault anyway. So that's one category of tariffs. The President has also been imposing worldwide or reciprocal tariffs on a bunch of countries because of of trade deficits.

[Leah Lippman]

So IPA authorizes the President to take action to, quote, deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the US to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. End quote. But the statute only authorizes such action if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat. And when there is a national emergency, the President under IIPA can, quote, regulate importation of property in which any foreign country or national thereof has any interest in. End quote. So obviously a question here is whether a trade deficit constitutes a national emergency or merely a cyclical economic phenomenon that has been part of our country's economy for several decades. Another related question is whether the trafficking tariffs deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat or instead part of a long term phenomenon that is just part of ordinary federal law enforcement.

[Melissa Murray]

I predict a big part of the oral argument will focus on the question of whether the statutory language actually authors the imposition of the tariffs, since the term tariff is not explicitly used in the statute. Instead, the statute speaks of the authority to, quote, unquote regulate, which prompts the question. Is regulate a synonym for tariffs? The Strange Bedfellows coalition of Warren G. Merriam Webster and Textualism would like to know.

[Leah Lippman]

The case also presents the thorny question of whether the Major Questions doctrine applies with full force to Republican Presidents or Is it just for Democrats to start from that? We do have some indications of that on the shadow docket. But the major questions doctrine recall is the Republican appointees made up judicial doctrine that says statutes that authorize administrative agencies to adopt certain regulations have to be construed basically against the agency in cases of major economic and political significance. Basically a carve out from the statutes and what powers they grant to agencies. Again, at least when it's Democratic presidents who have appointed the heads of said agencies. But I do want to propose a possible reconceptualization of all Supreme Court case law on executive power. So the foundational executive power case is Youngstown. Youngstown asks whether the president is acting in agreement or disagreement with Congress. If he's acting in agreement with Congress, the president has more power. If in disagreement, he's acting less. You know, Youngstown, again, three zones. But I actually think there's like a Youngstown step zero, which is, is the president Republican? Is the president waving their hands and saying foreign affairs? Because we have some indication, you know, from the AIDS vaccine advocacy coalition, stay in the foreign aid funding case that when Republican presidents get up and say foreign affairs, all of a sudden the president gets to exercise Congress's powers like the spending power or act in violation of congressional statutes. Even in areas of congressional.

[Melissa Murray]

But you know, it's a little like hocus pocus. That's a deep cut for Halloween.

[Leah Lippman]

It is. So another part of this case is the challengers are raising non delegation doctrine as a way of challenging the tariffs. And that is really going to be a tough one for Neil Gorsuch because it will pit his fervent desire to make it 1939 again against the Trump agenda to make it 1839 again.

[Melissa Murray]

So which, what a difference those hundred years made, right.

[Leah Lippman]

Which date to pick? We just don't know.

[Kate Shaw]

It's true.

[Leah Lippman]

Good time.

[Kate Shaw]

Either way, though, we're, we're dialing the clock back in some fashion. The question is just. Yeah, like where are we stopping the dial? So we're going to have much more to say about this case after the argument and we will do it on stage at CrookedCon and then in your ear holes for our regular Monday episode. Let me just say one more thing about the amicus involvement in the case. Leah mentioned at the outset that you actually had a lot of small businesses on the side of challenging the tariffs. It's also like kind of wild to look at how lopsided the amicus activity in this case is. So you have very few supporters of the federal government and just an enormous number on the other side, including the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce. Those are more often fellow travelers with the administration, but they are very much on the other side. You have conservative law Professor Michael McConnell who's part of the team challenging the tariffs. I, you know, still think they find a way to rule for the administration, but I don't think this is going to be an easy one for them to do that. So they're gonna have contort themselves, which they are all too willing to do.

[Melissa Murray]

The Pretzel Court.

[Kate Shaw]

Exactly. Much more to come. And that is the news. Let us end as always with our favorite things. This week.

[Melissa Murray]

I will start.

[Leah Lippman]

I have kind of a long list. So on the like less substantive front, I've been watching task. I know I'm a little late to this train. It's phenomenal. Would definitely recommend. Mark Ruffalo is just fantastic. Also listen to Lily Allen's new album West End Girl.

[Kate Shaw]

Listen to it once, not like 50 times. Start.

[Leah Lippman]

Many, many, many times. Also recommend to our listeners. Sorry, Melissa, did you want to.

[Kate Shaw]

She's gonna pick it up.

[Melissa Murray]

No, I have things to say.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Leah Lippman]

Okay. Okay. Well, I'll leave that to you. Chris Geidner over at Law Dork wrote a piece, The Kavanaugh stop, 50 days later, just surveying like all that has happened, you know, since Brett Kavanaugh declared that ice stops are no big deal. Very much worth checking out. Steve Vladek has a new paper, the Court Supreme Supreme Court's Self Defeating Supremacy, that is available on SSRN. Also would recommend that ProPublica had a story, God's Chief justice that is a long profile of the chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. And given the importance of that court, it is well worth the read. So the chief justice is the one that spearheaded the North Carolina court, immediately reversing course once the court flipped to a majority of Republican nominees the court's recent pro voting rights decision. So overruling the decision invalidating the state's voting voter identification law and overruling the decision limiting the state's ability to engage in a partisan gerrymander. The piece is just wild. So to give you a quick flavor quote, when ProPublica emailed questions to the chief justice's daughter, the North Carolina Republican Party's communications director responded, writing that ProPublica was waging a, quote, jihad against North Carolina Republicans, which would not be met with dignifying any comments whatsoever. Quote, I'm sure you're aware of our connections with the Trump administration and I'm sure They would be interested this in matter, the spokesperson said in an email. Anyways, the piece is really worth your time. It's an in depth exploration of a man who seems to have just vastly transformed state institutions and law in North Carolina. And it is deeply alarming. Two other things. So the organization People's Parody Project has organized a Lawyers March for democracy on November 15th from 1 to 3pm that will be a protest that will start outside at the Supreme Court or be a outside the Supreme Court. If you are in D.C. or able to get to D.C. definitely worth checking out. Again, it's Lawyers March for democracy on November 15 and there will be a note on the show. Notes as always with our favorite things. One last favorite thing I don't actually have, but I know I would love the Jodi Cantor piece in the Times which we were talking about. You know, the opening anecdote discusses a version, a non public version of Justice Kagan's dissent in the student debt relief case. So apparently she deleted the most heated passages before signing off and releasing the dissent. My favorite thing is the uncensored version of this dissent which I really need in my life.

[Kate Shaw]

Elena's version, please.

[Leah Lippman]

Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

I mean, even the when she got.

[Melissa Murray]

Her master's back from John Roberts.

[Leah Lippman]

Yeah, yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, can't wait for that.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay, so I will start with my least favorite things. And one of my least favorite things is a hurricane. Hurricane. A hurricane that is named Melissa that hits your family home in Jamaica. Absolutely rude. First of all, I thought hurricanes were supposed to have out of circulation names, not names that are used by people who are still walking around breathing and being young. Okay, you do not name a hurricane Melissa. Melissa has young girl energy. She will mash up your coat. You need to name your hurricane Mildred, Mercy, Matilda. These were all there. These were all available.

[Leah Lippman]

What about Millicent?

[Melissa Murray]

Millicent also, I mean, like FYI, Jamaican people have such a hard time pronouncing Melissa in the first place. All my Jamaican relatives cannot say my name. They're like, Melissa, Melissa. It's just like, it's too much like. And so it was wild to hear the reports from Kingston about Hurricane Melissa coming and having all kinds of negative effects on the coast line. Absolutely terrible. So this was horrible. Second, if you like me, love this island and I do, and you want to help the wonderful people who are right now really suffering in Jamaica. Because this storm, although it did not hit the capital Kingston, it did decimate Montego Bay, which is a huge site for tourism, which is a major, a major industry in Jamaica and will be very will make it very challenging for the nation to come back from all of this. If you want to help us out, there are a number of great organizations that are trying to get aid to the beleaguered island. They include the Walk Good Jamaica Relief Fund and their website is bio site S I T E Walkgood Jamaica all one word. The American Friends of Jamaica are also doing great work. You can look them up on the Internet. Global Empowerment Mission, Mercy Corps and Food for the Poor Jamaica are also doing relief efforts. So those are for fantastic. Please help out if you can. Jamaica is fantastic. Not just for vacations, but just for being from there. It's awesome and they deserve our help. In addition to helping out Jamaica, One of my favorite things is impermissible Punishments. How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy by Yale Law School's Judith Resnik. Judith is one of the nation's foremost experts on prisons, on litigation related to prisons. And this is truly a tour de force on how the prison and became not just an American fixation, but a real problem for American democracy. And then finally, also another feminist icon not unlike Judith Resnick is Lily Allen and her amazing tour de force album West End Girl. Such a fantastic album. Great songs, like sort of toggles between a kind of retro vibe and an electronica vibe. But I loved Reading, Relapse, Madeline, Sleepwalking, definitely second Madeline.

[Leah Lippman]

Also Tennis.

[Melissa Murray]

Tennis is great, but I also love that she's so petty that she did it right before Stranger Things. And also the song Pea palace takes the Stranger Things theme. Like she's working on many different levels, but all of them are petty.

[Leah Lippman]

Yes.

[Kate Shaw]

It's also just the monomania. Right? Like, it's just every single song is about him and it's so detailed. And, you know, there's obviously, like, lots of, you know, like, sort of revenge tracks on albums, but not like the full. Every single word of every single song. It's pretty epic.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I think Lemonade was there.

[Leah Lippman]

Some of the songs.

[Kate Shaw]

Sure. Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

No, Lemonade was. It was an arc. She got to forgiveness. Lily never gets to forgiveness, and I.

[Leah Lippman]

Love that for her.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, so there's like, whatever. Becky with the good hair. There's like some explicit detail, but most.

[Melissa Murray]

Of it is like, I'm sorry, Kate.

[Kate Shaw]

But it's metaphor. It's obviously suggestive. Like, here is the stuff I found in the bag. Here's the bag it was in. Like, here's what's very granular.

[Melissa Murray]

It's very doing textualism. This is textualism.

[Kate Shaw]

It's a textualism album.

[Leah Lippman]

In the debate between airing public grievances and dirty laundry versus being diplomatic, we know which side Lily Allen came down.

[Melissa Murray]

Another thing, too is it has caused me to go back and look at all of their sort of public stuff that's on the Internet.

[Leah Lippman]

Like.

[Melissa Murray]

Like their videos. Like, what an absolute jerk he was when she did the. The Olivier Award. She was nominated for an Olivier Award for this play. That is, you know, what eventually starts off this album, West End Girl. He's such a dick. Like. Like he cannot be happy for his wife's professional success. Like, such a dick. Anyway, so I love this. I hope the video for Pea palace will be a parody of their Architectural Digest tour of their Brooklyn brownstone, where she's like, this is what I thought was a dojo, but it actually turned out to be the place where he cheated on me like a million times.

[Kate Shaw]

I was also going to mention the Lily album, but in that kind of granular detail. I think we've covered the topic. I will just mention two more things, which is I started George Packer has a new book called the Emergency, which is a novel, and Michelle Goldberg actually features it in a recent column. And it's great. I will report back when I've read more of it. And then actually, brand new, Beck Ingber and Jessica Thibodeau have a piece in Just Security that was just released, I think, on Friday that they think makes really crystal clear that as of November 3, under a statute called the War Powers act, the administration's use of force against the suspected drug cartels, which we have been talking about, including on today's episode, will be categorically illegal. No question. The only question is, is Congress going to do anything about it? And last we had a terrible storm in New York that, you know, felt like a little bit like the after effects, maybe of Melissa. Like Melissa, yeah. In the city, in the streets of New York, I mean, a couple people died, like, just a really shocking amount of water. And in my Brooklyn neighborhood, there were so many random New Yorkers, like, getting their shoes and pants soaking wet, like digging with their hands or sticks leaves out of the drains in various parts of the city and keeping, I think, the streets from even worse flooding. So, anyway, thanks for.

[Melissa Murray]

So there will be a cholera.

[Kate Shaw]

Thanks for coming, fellow citizens. Maybe. Maybe that is the cause.

[Leah Lippman]

But.

[Kate Shaw]

But the basements were spared.

[Melissa Murray]

All right. We also have some notices of stricties in the wild. So I was recently in Berkeley, California, for a former law student's investiture as a judge, and I ran into some strict I knows. So nice. I'm very proud of her and I ran into some stricties who are big fans of the show, so I wanted to shout out Kristen, Kristen slash Kiki and Anya who are longtime listeners but first time callers, at least to me. And we should also thank Maeve in Cambridge for writing in and telling us all of the things that she learned from the show that she's now applying in a class on the Supreme Court.

[Leah Lippman]

So some housekeeping before we go. Once again, CrookedCon DC Stricties have you gotten your Crooked tickets yet? This Friday, November 7th, we will be closing out the day with a live pod at the Ronald Reagan Center. Perfect place to discuss tariffs. Head to crookedcon.com to get tickets before they are gone and if you can't catch us there, good news. We are heading to the west coast for the best time ever. So you can join us at the Herbst Theater in San Francisco on March 6, 2026. Then at the Palace Theater in Los Angeles Angeles on March 7th. You can get your seats [e-mail] events.

[Kate Shaw]

Strict scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, Melissa Murray and me, Kate Shaw Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our Associate producer, Jordan Thomas is our intern. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Katie Long and Adrienne Hill. Matt de Groot is our head of production, and thanks to our digital team, Ben Hethcote, Joe Matosky and Johanna Case, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to strict scrutiny on YouTube. To catch full episodes, find [e-mail] strictscrutinypodcast if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.

[Guest/Advertiser or External Speaker]

Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last. It can be pretty stressful. Now imagine a Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up [e-mail] that's o d o.

[Leah Lippman]

O.Com being an American right now is a wild ride. The headlines come fast, but what do they actually mean for people's lives. Lives. I'm Alex Wagner, and on my new crooked media podcast, Runaway Country, I'm talking to people across the nation to uncover how political chaos is shaping their everyday realities. Join me and some of the smartest thinkers in politics to ask how we take back the reins of a runaway nation. Listen to Runaway country with Alex Wagner every Thursday, wherever you get our podcasts or watch full episodes on YouTube.