Trump’s Onslaught of Executive Orders

Summary

Strict Scrutiny: Episode Summary – "Trump’s Onslaught of Executive Orders" (Released January 27, 2025)

Introduction In this incisive episode of Strict Scrutiny, host and constitutional law experts Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray delve into the tumultuous first days of the Trump administration's executive orders. The discussion navigates through the complexities of the new administration's policies, their implications for the Supreme Court, and the broader legal culture in the United States.

Observations from the Inauguration The episode opens with the hosts reflecting on the recent inauguration, noting its indoor setting which became fodder for memes referencing historical figures like William Henry Harrison (03:00). They highlight the strategic seating of key figures, such as oligarchs seated above cabinet nominees, signaling the administration's power dynamics. Melissa Murray points out the significant presence of the Supreme Court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson swearing in Vice President J.D. Vance—a connection that raised eyebrows due to Jackson’s previous clerkships for both Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts (04:17).

Trump Executive Orders: Analyzing the Onslaught The core of the episode dissects several of President Trump's executive orders (EOs), emphasizing their potential constitutional challenges and societal impacts.

1. Denial of Birthright Citizenship (09:37 – 12:10)

   • Overview: The Trump administration announced an EO aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and lawful visa holders.
   • Constitutional Concerns: Leah Litman underscores the EO's blatant conflict with the 14th Amendment, which clearly states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens (10:32).
   • Judicial Response: The hosts discuss Judge Coffner's immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order, criticizing the DOJ lawyer's assertion of the EO’s constitutionality (11:30).
   • Quote: Judge Coffner remarks, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles the mind” (11:31).

2. Rolling Back DEI Initiatives (14:25 – 22:23)

   • Overview: Two EOs aimed at ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) measures within the federal government and among federal contractors.
   • Implications: Kate Shaw notes the administration's broader intent to dismantle civil rights advancements, pushing for a "merit-based" system that ignores beneficial diversity initiatives (15:37).
   • Quote: Melissa Murray observes, “They are sort of pigeonholing this in order to appeal to the most inflammatory sectors of their base” (21:39).

3. Transgender Policy EO (22:58 – 27:04)

   • Overview: An EO that denies the existence of transgender individuals by enforcing binary gender markers on government-issued IDs.
   • Impact: Leah Litman emphasizes the symbolic and material harm, such as hindering transgender individuals' ability to travel or access services (24:48).
   • Quote: Melissa Murray summarizes, “The federal government does not plan to extend or apply Bostock vs. Clayton County to any other anti-discrimination laws besides Title Seven” (22:09).

4. Crypto and Energy EOs (35:46 – 38:03)

   • Crypto Regulation: An EO establishing a working group to recommend regulatory changes on cryptocurrency, coinciding with the administration's own crypto initiatives.
   • Energy Emergency: Trump declares an energy emergency, an unprecedented move given U.S. status as the world's top oil and gas producer. The hosts critique the timing and purpose, suggesting it's a tactic to hinder renewable energy advancements (36:28).

5. Miscellaneous EOs (38:03 – 42:00)

   • Renaming Landmarks: An EO to rename Denali back to Mount McKinley and the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which is largely symbolic and met with resistance from major media outlets (38:03).

Court Culture and Case Analyses The hosts transition to discussing the Supreme Court's recent oral arguments, highlighting the bipartisan involvement of the United States as a party or amicus in all cases heard during the January sitting.

1. FDA vs. R.J. Reynolds (50:49 – 54:56)

   • Issue: Procedural question on whether tobacco manufacturers can file petitions for judicial review in circuits other than their principal place of business.
   • Oral Argument Highlights: Chief Justice John Roberts challenges the FDA's stance on venue, questioning the government's expectations of retailers as merely bystanders.
   • Quote: Roberts states, “It is simply unlikely that Congress would have expected such a person to be able to challenge the order within 30 days after it's issued” (53:20).
   • Justice Thomas's View: He emphasizes the distinction between jurisdiction and venue, hinting at potential biases towards convenience (54:37).

2. McLin Chiropractic vs. McKesson (57:17 – 59:33)

   • Issue: Whether district courts must accept the FCC's interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
   • Oral Argument Highlights: Justice Clarence Thomas criticizes district judges for deferring to the FCC without authority, questioning the practicality and fairness of such deference.
   • Quote: Thomas asks, “So does it have anything to do with your [Roberts'] not winning in the Fifth Circuit?” (59:00).

3. Barnes vs. Felix (60:39 – 62:34)

   • Issue: Application of the moment of threat doctrine in excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment.
   • Oral Argument Highlights: Justice Brett Kavanaugh defends the doctrine, emphasizing officers' split-second decisions during perceived threats.
   • Quote: Kavanaugh asks, “What do you tell an officer who pulls someone over for a traffic violation?” (61:12).

4. Cunningham vs. Cornell University (62:51 – 66:22)

   • Issue: How plaintiffs can establish claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
   • Oral Argument Highlights: The courts grapple with the scope of ERISA in regulating employer practices and retirement plans.

Court Culture Q&A and Listener Engagement The episode features responses to listener questions from the Crooked Discord, particularly regarding the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the TikTok case. The hosts dissect concerns about data security and content manipulation by TikTok, addressing the implications of the Court's stance and comparing it to broader issues of executive overreach (67:29).

Good News: Supreme Court Decisions Amidst the critical analysis, the hosts highlight a rare win for habeas corpus in the case of Brenda Andrew. The Supreme Court vacated her death sentence, emphasizing that prosecutors cannot introduce prejudicial evidence based on sex stereotypes. This decision sets a significant precedent and underscores the Court's role in upholding constitutional protections (72:00).

Passing of Cecile Richards The episode solemnly commemorates the passing of Cecile Richards, former leader of Planned Parenthood, acknowledging her impactful advocacy for reproductive rights and women's equality. The hosts honor her legacy and contributions to the movement (75:00).

Conclusion The episode concludes with the hosts reflecting on the chaotic first week of the Trump administration's policies, affirming their commitment to providing honest analysis and supporting listeners through the legal and political upheavals (76:08).

Notable Quotes:

• Justice Clarence Thomas: “So what's, what's this all about?” (54:56)
• Chief Justice John Roberts: “It had good reasons to do that.” (55:42)
• Judge Coffner: “It just boggles the mind.” (11:31)
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “What do you tell an officer who pulls someone over for a traffic violation?” (61:12)

Key Takeaways:

• The Trump administration's executive orders present significant constitutional challenges and aim to reverse critical civil rights advancements.
• The Supreme Court is actively engaging with cases that test the boundaries of executive power and regulatory authority.
• Court culture remains influenced by the internal dynamics of its justices, impacting decisions on pivotal legal questions.
• Despite the administration's aggressive policies, there are moments of judicial integrity and significant rulings that uphold constitutional mandates.

Further Resources: Listeners are encouraged to engage with Strict Scrutiny through their Crooked Discord community and support initiatives like Vote Save America to combat the administration's extreme agenda.

Transcript

[Melissa Murray]

2025 is here and Mint Mobile has a resolution for you. You can skip the gym, you can skip the fad diets. You can skip all the BS resolutions that you know you're going to forget about next month. Instead, make a real resolution that you can keep. Make a resolution to save some serious cash by making the switch to Mint Mobile. And right now you can get half off of Mint's 3 month unlimited plan. Cricket staffer Nina ditched her old wireless plan for Mint and here's what she had to say. According to NINA I'm saving $40 a month and I love love love this service and I recommend it to everyone I know. Sounds good Nina. It's time to leave your overpriced wireless plans jaw dropping monthly bills, the unexpected overages and all of the other BS in 2024. Don't we have enough to worry about? Mint Mobile is dropping huge savings for the New year by offering any three month plan for only 15 bucks a month, including their unlimited plan. And all plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the Nation's most expansive 5G network. You can even bring your current phone and your current phone number to it. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. And you can even bring your current phone and your phone number. Ditch Overpriced Wireless With Mint Mobile it's so easy. You can sign up online and get three months of premium wireless service for just 15 bucks a month. Switch to Mint and you customers can get half off on an unlimited plan until February 2nd. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month and get the plan shipped to your door for free, go to mintmobile.comstrict that's mintmobile.comstrict. a $45 upfront payment is required, equivalent to $15 a month new customers on the first three month plan. Only speeds are slower above 40 gigabytes on the unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees and restrictions apply. C Mint mobile for details Mr. Chief justice, please the Court.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

It's an old joke, but when I.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Argue man argues against two beautiful ladies.

[Melissa Murray]

Like this, they're going to have the last word.

[Kate Shaw]

She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity.

[Leah Littman]

She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is.

[Melissa Murray]

That they take their feet off our necks. Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Where are your hosts? I'm Melissa Murray.

[Leah Littman]

I'm Leah Littman and I'M Kate Shaw.

[Kate Shaw]

And we have another jam packed episode for you today. We will start off with some observations from hate watching the inauguration. We will also discuss some of the executive orders that the new administration has issued. We will then recap arguments from the January sitting of the Supreme Court and we will turn to some court culture, including answering some listener questions, including from the crooked discord about TikTok.

[Leah Littman]

First up, hate watching the inauguration. So as you all know, it was indoors, which led to some pretty awesome memes invoking William Henry Harrison. Always here for that.

[Melissa Murray]

That was a deep cut. It's a very cute.

[Leah Littman]

Another benefit, very deep cut. It's what we call a callback. Another benefit of the cold front is since the cold snap, we haven't heard that much about annexing Greenland or Canada. So plus small blessings. Yeah. Oh, also broligarchs, they were given prime seating at said inauguration, even over cabinet nominees, which is kind of wild. I think they were conveying something important about who has the pants and power in this administration. And the seating choice wasn't just completely superficial. As we'll touch on when we get to the executive orders, the Trump administration literally announced they are interested in stockpiling crypto, handing over public money to private companies. A government of the broligarchs by the brologarchs and for the brogar.

[Melissa Murray]

The brogar also made clear not only who wears the pants in this administration, but who wears the bra. And we'll get back to that in a moment. It was notable that SCOTUS was there in full force. Coach Kavanaugh had a really big role. He was tapped to swear in the new vice president, J.D. vance. And it occurred to us as we were watching that Usha Vance, the new second lady, actually clerked for Coach Kavanaugh when he was a judge on the D.C. circuit as well as for Chief Justice Roberts at the Supreme Court. And it made us wonder, I don't know if Don Jr. And Eric, who were the proponents of J.D. vance as a running mate, understood or knew about those connections between the court and the Vance's and maybe that tipped the scales in Vance's favor, but it does, I think, warrant maybe a little discussion or at least thinking about, because it had not quite occurred to me until I saw him swear J.D. vance in that there were all of these connections that might have made him even more attractive. It's not just sofas with that guy.

[Leah Littman]

Well, another reminder that when you think of and see all of the things this administration does, it is deeply connected to the Supreme Court like these Things are not totally separate. You cannot divorce what is happening from what the court has done and will do.

[Kate Shaw]

Another thing, in addition to these kind of webs of connection that stood out to us at the inauguration was really the distinct chill between the new old first couple. If there was like warmth between the Vance's and Coach Kavanaugh, there was less warmth evident between newly inaugurated President Trump and his wife. So when Trump went in to kiss Melania, as he came out actually to deliver his remarks after taking the oath of office, he leaned in maybe for a kiss, maybe to just share some airspace, but there were like six inches between them. And then they just hung there for a minute, not getting closer to each other. And it felt like time stopped.

[Melissa Murray]

To me, real love and then kissing might be extra.

[Kate Shaw]

What? There was some speculation to that effect. That was weird.

[Melissa Murray]

Part of it was her ensemble. So Melania Trump was in a very high fashion look. It was giving Spy versus Spy in collaboration with Carmen Sandiego, in collaboration with Mary Poppins, in collaboration with V for Vendetta. I mean, just a lot of references here.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, my God, Melissa, you could write a fashion column about Melania's hat.

[Melissa Murray]

Actually, it was.

[Kate Shaw]

Why have you not been commissioned?

[Melissa Murray]

It was flattering, but also it seemed very purposeful because the brim of the hat was so wide that he could not actually physically get close enough to kiss her cheek. So she basically closed the southern border of her face. She built a wall, and it was a hat. That wasn't all the fashion that we should know. There were a lot of real callbacks and references here. So Ivanka Trump, once and again, the first daughter was channeling Serena Joy from the Handmaid's Tale with a teal ensemble with a little cloche hat. Barron Trump was calling back to 1980s bond traders, you know, very Bret Easton Ellis, Lauren Sanchez, who is the fiance of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Bezos was wearing suffragist white and a kind of bustier underneath that was visible in her ensemble. And I can only think that this was a call out to feminism because it's obviously easier to burn your bra when it's right there.

[Leah Littman]

Helpful tip. So as Melissa noted, you know, the court was out. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attended wearing a very distinctive statement necklace of cowrie shells. And this triggered some people. So law professor Josh Blackman took that personally, writing in the Volup conspiracy over at Reason that Justice Jackson had engaged in the appearance of impropriety and thus should be recused in all cases involving the Trump administration, because said necklace Is some African symbol of warding off evil, or so he claimed. Like, are they giving out ketamine at the Federalist Society now? Like, what is going on?

[Melissa Murray]

Something is wrong with the men's because I wore a Tucker necklace on msnbc and, like, my mentions were literally flooded with MAGA types yelling at me for wearing a racist slave necklace. And I was like, this is from Tucker Nug. Like, Tucker Nug is not a revolutionary radical left brand. It's for ladies who go to lunch. And I don't know where they're coming from, but the men's are not. Okay. And they're definitely not reading all the Vogues, just some of the Vogue commentary, for sure.

[Leah Littman]

We'll leave you with those questions as we turn to surveying some of the Trump executive orders, because I think they carry through to these as well. So America is officially in its finding out era now that Donald Trump has returned to the scene of the crime, and he greeted us with a bunch of executive orders to lower the price of eggs. That's a joke about the eggs.

[Melissa Murray]

There were no. There were no eos about eggs.

[Leah Littman]

No, there were, unfortunately. Unfortunately, a lot of eos. Honestly, a pretty stunning number, from the cartoonishly cruel and unconstitutional to the ridiculous. We can't possibly talk about all of them, but we did want to cover a subset.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, so first up is the executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship prospectively to the children of undocumented immigrants, and for good measure, the children of lawful visa holders living in the United.

[Melissa Murray]

States, like Kamala Harris and Usha Vance.

[Kate Shaw]

Right. It's not retroactive, except for for just a couple of instances. It's not retroactive to apply it retroactively to Kamala Harris. No, that is a joke. It is prospective. So it, by its terms, would not apply to anyone living in the United States today. But whether it's retrospective prospective is completely immaterial to the bottom line unconstitutionality of this thing, which we cannot say clearly enough. This order is patently unconstitutional. It conflicts by its terms with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which says in its first sentence, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdict jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, clear as day.

[Leah Littman]

I'd just like to point out that they announced this executive order on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, literally commemorating Dr. King's birthday by attempting to repeal the 14th Amendment by executive order, trying to make Dred Scott great. Again, none of this is subtle. You know, many state attorneys General have already filed suit to challenge the order. There are at least three separate lawsuits challenging it. And in one of those cases, Judge Coffner, a Reagan appointee, heard about 25 minutes of mind blowingly stupid arguments before issuing a temporary restraining order against it. I think this executive order is like the Matt Gaetz of executive orders. It didn't even last a Scaramucci. It didn't even go into effect. It was so obviously lawless. But that's a plus. The negative is it's soaking up so much airtime. The other EOs have a chance of getting through, just like the other nominees have a chance, a good chance of getting through, even though they too, are wild.

[Kate Shaw]

That's a good comparison.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, the Seattle Times reported that when the Trump DOJ lawyer actually stood up before Judge Coffner, he was asked, in your opinion, is this EO constitutional? To which the lawyer said, yes. And Judge Coffner responded, quote, frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles the mind, end quote. Which is like, hey, mfer, you just failed con law. Oh, yeah. What on earth? Lawyers have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution too. And yeah, not putting our best people forward.

[Kate Shaw]

Let's just say that no, Judge Kofner was, according to reporting, totally unsparing in his continued questioning of this DOJ lawyer and noted that, quote, there are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say, where were the judges? Where were the lawyers?

[Melissa Murray]

What were those times? Where, what were those times people were like, where were the people charged with defending the rule of law?

[Kate Shaw]

Could it be so other moments of the kind of ascent of authoritarianism? He seems to be drawing a distinction between the crazy shit that political leaders and actors might engage in and the distinct set of obligations that lawyers and judges have to defend the rule of law. So he's like, I'm not even saying anything about, like, what political actors can try. I am talking about your obligations as members of the bar and my role as a judge. And. And that I found, like, really bracingly clear.

[Melissa Murray]

This is no liberal squish of a judge. Like, this is an octogenarian who was appointed by Ronald Reagan himself. No liberal squish. Like, this is just someone who is very clearly saying, hey, everyone, this is totally outside of the mainstream. This is completely off the wall. Do not normalize this.

[Leah Littman]

So I wanted to say two things, Kate, particularly bringing up this ascent of authoritarianism, because for whatever reason, I have recently been spending time reading a lot about the role of courts in authoritarian regimes. And I think we should expect that Judge Kofner's order in joining this or temporarily restraining it, like that's gonna stand. This Supreme Court is going to strike down the executive order. But we shouldn't take from that that this court is an independent, meaningful check on authoritarianism. Because courts in autocracies, they will oftentimes rule against the state, at least sometimes in order to give themselves like a window dressing of independence and thereby lending more credibility to the regime when they don't rule. And I agree with you that lawyers obviously take an oath and they have an independent obligation to not make ridonkulous, obviously incorrect arguments. But I also don't think this is the unique province of lawyers. Like, we shouldn't just say, you know, oh, the lawyers are saying this is wrong. No, everyone can read the first sentence of the 14th amendment. This is obviously unconstitutional.

[Kate Shaw]

I think that's a great point. And also, lawyers don't just come into play when there's a challenge that ends up in court. Right. Lawyers reviewed the draft of this thing, I presume, because they do in every administration. So they had an obligation too, and seem not to have really adhered to it.

[Melissa Murray]

There were also two separate and significant executive orders that purport to end DEI diversity, equity and inclusion measures. There was one focused on the federal government, and one that also included federal contractors and members of the private sector more generally. The second order involved rescinding a 1965 executive order that President Lyndon Baines Johnson actually put in place to address the blatant race discrimination that had been occurring in the awarding of federal contracts. And we're just raising all of this to make clear that this executive order is nominally about ending so called DEI initiatives and getting back to a quote, unquote, merit based federal government. But what it's really intent on doing is rolling back the civil rights movement, the gains made by the civil rights movement, and simply leveling the playing field so people who previously had been excluded could finally have a shot.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, no, we are interested in just yanking that playing field right out of whack once again, both in the federal government and in the private sector. So that second EO that Melissa was just talking about goes well beyond federal contracting in the federal government and actually instructs the federal government to look into private sector DEI initiatives. So each federal agency is instructed to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations. Then they're supposed to identify the most egregious ones. So as in so many of these executive orders, there is just both vile substantive content and like, sort of stupidity.

[Melissa Murray]

Like, why not one for each justice. One for each justice. One employer for each justice.

[Kate Shaw]

Sure, maybe that's why. But it's just they decided to throw a number at it and. But certainly seems as though it's designed to incentivize actually generating some, you know, positive hits that these agencies can come back to the White House and say, here we identified some potential violations. But again, nine, no idea where that comes from, but I like the theory.

[Leah Littman]

Also, pernicious is another section that requires agencies to include in every contract or grant that the contractee or grantee, quote, agrees that its compliance in all respects with all applicable federal anti discrimination laws is material to the government's payment for purposes of the False Claims Act. So what does that mean? The False Claims act allows private parties to sue government contractors for treble damages if they are defrauding the government. And here the federal government is saying, if you aren't in compliance with our unhinged vision of anti discrimination law, like, you're defrauding us, because that's a material term. And that opens up a field season for ideological lawyers to go after federal grantees and contractors.

[Melissa Murray]

There's no getting around the fact that, that this EO is a ticking time bomb. Like, the threat of liability to these companies is enormous. And because of that threat, it seems that some companies are already moving to change their practices to avoid this kind of scrutiny.

[Leah Littman]

And the federal government is in many ways pushing them to do so. So it has also set up a narc hotline where people can and are encouraged to report anyone suspected of nefarious DEI activities by which they seem to mean hiring minorities and women or treating them as people. So the acting director of the Fed's HR Department, the Office of Personnel Management, kind of insinuated that federal employees should rat out their DEIA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility colleagues by emailing D E I a [e-mail] like, this is real French Revolution Soviet Russia. Report your neighbor tactics. And as we were saying, like, so much of this is about rolling back the civil rights revolution and movement, like trying to repeal part of the 14th Amendment, undoing anti discrimination protections in federal contractors. You know, a part of me wonders if they think they're the Supreme Court, which read out section three of the 14th amendment in Trump versus Anderson. But. Sorry, sorry, it's just.

[Kate Shaw]

No, that's right. They learn from watching you, dad situation.

[Leah Littman]

Thank you, Kate.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, my God, I'm learning thank you. I feel trainable.

[Melissa Murray]

Oh, my gosh.

[Kate Shaw]

But when you were saying French Revolution or sort of Soviet Russia, I was also remembering that. You remember that movie, Great movie. Some years ago, the lives of others, like East German Stasi and like reporting on your neighbors. Like that does seem like that's the climate they want to create inside the federal workforce, so.

[Melissa Murray]

Sounds like a great place to work.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, it seems as though making it intolerable is part of the point. So there are other instances that seem to support this general theory that they're not actually interested in ending dei. Really, the goal is much more ambitious, which is to roll back the civil rights movement writ large. And additional evidence of that is pretty clear in the administration's directive to the DOJ Civil Rights Division to halt all its investigative activity and not pursue any new indictments or cases or settlements. One of the executive orders we were just talking about has this Orwellian title, quote, ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit based opportunity, which is a very rich title for the administration nominating Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense.

[Melissa Murray]

DEI is definitely working for him.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, New DEI in town. It's like dicks and dudes in each and every institution.

[Melissa Murray]

Dick's ex husbands. Imbeciles.

[Leah Littman]

Yes. Yep.

[Melissa Murray]

As Kate suggested, these EOs are really diabolical. One of the things they do is they frame DEI initiatives as, quote, unquote, dividing Americans by race. As though the initiatives that they are now rolling back are just about imposing racial preferences. And they're not. Many of these initiatives that the federal government has over the years undertaken involve measures to simply track and document the recipients of government contracts in order to avoid privileging certain networks and disadvantaging those who are outside of those networks. They also include measures to end sex segregation in government jobs. So women are not consigned to jobs in the secretarial pool and only the secretarial pool. They also include measures that are aimed at providing accommodations to federal workers who have disabilities. So it's framed in the language of race. But obviously DEI is about more than that. But they are sort of pigeonholing this in order, I think to appeal to the most inflammatory sectors of their base. And also it's not entirely clear how they intend to determine who is a so called DEI hire or when DEI initiatives have been used. Yeah. So it just seems like anytime someone who is a person of color or a woman gets a job, it's obviously dei, which to me.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, a good high ranking job, some.

[Melissa Murray]

Jobs, some are good for them. Like what are black jobs again? I don't know, but it just, again, it feels literally like this is about reinstating race and gender hierarchy, not about actually focusing on the question of merit. Because newsflash, and I hate to tell some people there are people of color and women who are qualified for things.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, that's dei.

[Melissa Murray]

I know. Woke warrior here.

[Leah Littman]

Another thing the administration kind of did in this bucket is they purported to suspend women's history. And Black History Month, like it was.

[Melissa Murray]

Only February is the shortest month ever. Anyway, we'll just talk about it some other time.

[Leah Littman]

Right? So that's one executive order, and we're gonna, after we tick through a few others that are related, I think, talk about some coping strategies or maybe things to do with them. But another related one is an executive order that is about transgender people. So this EO purports to deny that trans people exist by defining them out of existence. And just as an executive order cannot repeal the Constitution, an executive order cannot erase people's existence, though it can do a ton of symbolic and material harm.

[Melissa Murray]

So, as Project 2025 urged, this executive order announces that it is the policy of the U.S. to, quote, unquote, recognize two sexes, male and female, unquote, and that this recognition is grounded in, quote, fundamental and incontrovertible reality, end quote. It promises that this principle will guide the executive branch enforcement of federal law, which probably means that they will not be enforcing federal laws for the purpose of protecting trans people. And indeed, it says explicitly that the federal government does not plan to extend or apply Bostock versus Clayton county to any other anti discrimination laws besides Title seven. So if you were wondering about that, it stops here. It ends with us.

[Kate Shaw]

The EO also directs agencies to require government issued IDs, including passports, to reflect sex assigned at birth. The State Department has already moved to freeze all applications, which it had previously allowed for passports with X sex markers or applications to change sex on passports. And pursuant to this executive order, which, you know, thinking about the kind of material harms that Leah just alluded to, like, this is like trans people not being able to travel, like, not being able to leave the country, people have actually booked vacations. Like people plane tickets, people have family, other places. And so, you know, it's not an abstraction. Like, the stakes are so real and they're only getting started. In addition to this kind of document piece, the executive order also has a vague promise to, quote, take all necessary steps to end the federal funding of gender ideology, whatever that means. There's no operative provision of this part just necessary steps. It is clearly designed, I think, to send the message that the rest of the Executive Order does, which is just this really retrograde, binary, heteronormative conception of the world and push it out into every corner of the federal government.

[Leah Littman]

So we'll get to conception in a second. In another pernicious passage, this Executive Order says, quote, the Attorney General shall issue guidance to ensure the freedom to express the binary nature of sex and the right to single sex spaces and workplaces and federally funded entities covered by the Civil Rights act, end quote. In other words, they are signaling they want to use federal law as a weapon against trans inclusive practices and insist that it is a civil right to deny trans people their civil rights.

[Melissa Murray]

Predictably, the order is biologically illiterate and incoherent. So it defines a female as, quote, a person belonging at conception to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell, end quote. And a male as a person, quote, belonging at conception to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell, end quote.

[Leah Littman]

There's just like a slight problem with this, which is, at conception, we're all fucking female. Like, this Executive Order is written by posters. It's an executive branch full of posters. And of course, the reference to conception was probably just inserted so they could do a nod to fetal personhood and the idea that fertilized eggs are people that theory recall would require abortion to be prohibited nationwide and jeopardizes certain forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization and other reproductive health care. They just are doing it all immediately.

[Kate Shaw]

And we're talking about these sort of sequentially. But this executive order, which, you know, you can think of, is similar to the military trans ban from the Trump administration, you know, part one. But for everything should be read together, I think, with the anti DEI executive orders, which are structured in ways that threaten the private sector with investigations and litigation unless they shut down an inclusive and accessible set of practices. So some companies, like Walmart, have already decided to stop sharing data with the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit that tracks LGBTQ inclusive policies. And Walmart did not have to do that. Sharing data would pretty clearly not violate any kind of federal law or directive. But it's clear that the effect of the executive orders, and I'm sure the intent of these executive orders, is even beyond their terms just to lead a lot of companies to modify their practices to be less inclusive.

[Leah Littman]

So suggested some advice, slash thoughts, you know, on all of this.

[Melissa Murray]

The Meltzer center on Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging has shared a guide for corporations to sort of think through some of these things, identifying, you know, sort of the scope of these EOs and also like noting what their limits are. And we can include a link to that guide in the show notes. But I think a really important thing here is that you don't necessarily have to go gently into this. You know, some of this stuff is challengable and should be challenged. And yeah, that's why you have GCS and outside counsel.

[Leah Littman]

Two other small things. I mean, one is obviously these executive orders are, as we were saying, going to have huge symbolic and material harm on people's lives. So to the extent you can like look for ways to support people who are going to be disproportionately affected, like whether that is offering, I don't know, to do like meal trains, family care or just like other things you can do to try to take some of the burden off. And then also law firms, many of them have developed practices related to dei, like actual practice areas. And given that they are now apparently going to be absorbing a bunch of DOJ lawyers into law firms to the extent that they can offer services to defend obviously legal DEI policies, I hope I kind of see that happen.

[Melissa Murray]

In the meantime, Costco is still good. You can do that instead of Walmart and Amazon, right?

[Kate Shaw]

Their shareholders just recently something like 99% voted to retain DEI policies. So go Costco.

[Melissa Murray]

Go Costco. And you get free samples. What's not to love? Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Boox. I love flowers. I just love having fresh flowers around. Especially in the winter when everything is so gray and dreary. Which is why I absolutely love books. And it's why I especially love books right now. Because you know what's around the corner. Valentine's Day. And Valentine's Day always has my husband wondering, what do I get her for Valentine's Day? Guess what, friend? You don't even have to stress. I already have the answer. I always have the answer. And the answer is a solid game plan. By going to Boox, because your wife, that's me, loves fresh flowers, you can send foolproof flowers from the Boox Company and wow your Valentine me and get 25% off your entire purchase. Boox makes it incredibly easy. Just choose the Quickie Bouc and with the click of a button, you can get their best selling bouquet right on time for Valentine's Day. It's the quickie she'll be bragging about for weeks. Or you can pick from their collection of unique modern designs or go for their flower subscription. That's the number one husband life hack. You can be a hero every single month. You really cannot go wrong. Because books aren't just any flowers. Their flowers are cut fresh from where they grow best, so you get bigger, brighter blooms that last longer. Some are even grown on the side of a volcano, so you'll be absolutely blown away by how stunning they are. Valentine's Day is February 14, right after some big game, I'm told. But you don't have to fumble the ball on this one. Don't fumble the ball. Get the flowers and get your order in. Now just head on over to boox.com and use my promo code STRICT for 25% off. That's B O U Q S.com promo code STRICT.

[Ted Danson]

This podcast is supported by Comedy Central's Emmy Award winning series, the Daily Show. Jon Stewart and the Daily show news team are kicking off 2025 with brand new episodes covering a brand new administration and a not quite brand new president. While it may feel like we've all been here before, it's never been covered like this. With Jon Stewart behind the desk kicking off every week. Comedy Central's the Daily show, new tonight at 11 on Comedy Central and streaming next day on Paramount Books.

[Melissa Murray]

Promo code strict for 25% off. And being a hero on Valentine's Day, y'all, we are not even done covering these eos. There's more. There is absolutely more. There's the invasion executive order. This is where President Trump has declared the situation at the border, quote, unquote, an invasion under Article 4, Section 1 for. And we just want to give credit where credit is due. This is actually Judge Jim Ho's idea. Jim Ho of the Fifth Circuit, because he invoked this idea, and I'm using the term idea generously in the context of birthright citizenship to say that unauthorized migrants were invaders and therefore their children were in part of this invasion at the border and could not be citizens here. Donald Trump is like, let me put a gloss on that. And is inside instead invoking Article 4, Section 4, which says that the US shall protect the states against invasion. So it's nice that you can repurpose crap and try it out in a new context. So upcycling, I guess.

[Leah Littman]

Right. So let's be clear what Trump is using it for, because it's not here right to deny citizenship to people born in the United States. Instead, he's saying like, I declare an invasion at the border and therefore that gives me the president, these constitutional, really extra constitutional sources of authority that allow me to suspend federal immigration law or at Least the parts of it I don't like to prevent people from entering the United States and giving them permission to do so. Not how this works. Again, obviously illegal. But, like, that is what he is claiming here.

[Melissa Murray]

He's like, jim, there's something good here.

[Leah Littman]

Let's go bigger. Let's go bigger on it.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm gonna noodle on it.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, some nits. Some nits.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, so speaking of ignoring federal law, let's now turn to the tick tock executive order. So in this executive order, the president tells his attorney general not to enforce the federal law levying fines and penalties on U. S. Companies that host or service tick tock, because what is law anyway? The executive order, which doesn't actually propose a foreign divestment of TikTok, but instead a hybrid 5050 partnership between ByteDance and some US company, also flagrantly violates the ban, which was passed with bipartisan support and upheld by a unanimous supreme court.

[Melissa Murray]

And so while you're just giving the middle finger to two coordinate branches of the federal government, why not just go whole hog and tell the attorney general to send companies letters explaining that they won't face liability for 75 days under the TikTok ban, while Donald Trump, the nation's consummate dealmaker, attempts to work something out with TikTok? More on that later. So there are levels to this.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, but because these are not the smartest lawyers in the world, or even in Bethesda, they forgot to remove the boilerplate language in executive orders which says, quote, this order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States. States, that is, you can actually use this executive order to create a right against fines levied by the United States.

[Melissa Murray]

Details. These are just details.

[Leah Littman]

It's.

[Melissa Murray]

We're doing broad brushstrokes here. These are details.

[Kate Shaw]

And I think some people who saw the executive order were like, hang on, I don't understand. It seems like it says two things that are totally at odds. But you're right, Leah. It's just there is this boilerplate language that is in the template you pull up to draft an executive order. And I don't think anybody paid attention to the actual content of that language, but does textualism.

[Leah Littman]

Textualism, Right, right.

[Kate Shaw]

Who has time to read when you're trying to turn out this many executive orders in the first 72 hours? So it was also a little bit rich. I think that the day after the administration announced this executive order, the federal Government argued to the Supreme Court, which we're going to talk about in a couple of minutes, that when an agency announces a non enforcement policy that does not quote in any way alter the fact that it is illegal for a private party to violate federal law. That was in the R.J. reynolds case. So it seems like the left hand, right hand are not necessarily in the greatest of communication.

[Leah Littman]

Speaking of left hand, right hand being like a little disjointed. I mean, remember, I don't know, was that last week we were talking about whether Biden saying ratifying the era did something or had force and people are like, no, no, no, no. Right. He can say that it doesn't like mean anything. But now Donald Trump is just like suspending federal law and people are like, yeah, like, you know, yeah, he's doing it. So I guess there's nothing, nothing for us to do here.

[Kate Shaw]

But as you're often in the position of reminding us, he is Republican president, Leah. And that's, that's what makes all of.

[Leah Littman]

The executive power is vested in Republican presidents. I always forget. I assume that. Okay, but you know, this, this TikTok thing, whatever, wasn't the only thing the administration did for the boligarchy. As we noted up top, they issued a crypto executive order that establishes a working group to recommend regulatory changes on cryptocurrency. How convenient, given that the Trumps released not one but two crypto ish coins. And the working group is, as again noted, tasked with advising the federal government on stockpiling crypto, which is just a transfer of public wealth to crypto bros.

[Melissa Murray]

There is another executive order. This one declares a quote unquote energy emergency and authorizes the federal government to take extraordinary measures in response to said emergency. Just want to note, this is the first ever federal energy emergency we have ever had. It's true that in the 1970s, amidst the gas shortage, President Carter authorized state governors to suspend some environmental regulations to address the shortage of gas. But he did urge them to act with due care because of the implications for public health. And he advised them to suspend only some of the rules and only as a last resort. This is obviously not that. It is obviously much more expansive, but I just want to note some incongruencies here. First, it's weird to declare an energy emergency at a time when the United States is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas. Just going to put that out there. Also really weird to declare an energy emergency at the same time that you are trying to stall production of other forms of energy, particularly renewable sources of energy like wind and solar. So what exactly is going on here? Well, according to experts who spoke on the record to the New York Times, some of this is about halting the Biden administration's very significant efforts to transition to renewable energy sources and decreasing the country's dependence on fossil fuels as an energy source. So apparently it's not just the Berlagarchs who are getting over here. The oil and gas industry also. Good stuff here for them, too.

[Kate Shaw]

Okay, so there is also an executive order halting the promulgation of federal regulations until they can be reviewed. And for good measure, there is one. You know, we suggested that some of these are ridiculous. This, I think, is Exhibit A. And the ridiculous ones, there's an executive order that is titled Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness, that purports to rename both the Alaskan mountain Denali, to restore its previous name, Mount McKinley, and most ridiculously, to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Although at least with respect to the Gulf, the executive order seems mostly to direct some, like, printing of maps to change the name. But it doesn't seem to have any, like, echo, actually enforceable law in it. Otherwise, it's kind of a weird document. But seems as though lots of press outlets, including the ap, have said they're not going to change their style. It's still going to be called the Gulf of Mexico. I think this is actually a helpful illustration. We don't all have to take at face value and amplify the most extravagant claims that Trump makes about what he has done, like, let's actually read the documents and then report on them.

[Leah Littman]

So in addition to issuing all of these crap executive orders, Trump also got busy pardoning the January six rioters like just a mass pardon, including those who were convicted of assaulting federal officers. For a few individuals, he commuted their sentences rather than pardoning them, but you know, back the blue forever, I guess. You know, there are some open questions after these pardons and commutations, including whether state Prosecutors could charge Jan. 6 participants for preparations, you know, that happened in their states. Also whether, you know, federal judges can impose penalties for violations of supervised release, for example, you know, in cases where individuals had their sentences commuted but weren't pardoned. So, you know, these issues aren't really going away.

[Melissa Murray]

The J6 pardons obviously attracted a lot of attention, but we wanted to highlight two other pardons that were issued last week. Last Wednesday, Trump issued full and unconditional pardons to two Washington, D.C. police officers who were convicted after a chase that killed Karen Hilton Brown, a young Black man, in 2020. The first officer, Terrence Sutton, was sentenced last year to more than five years in prison for second degree murder and obstruction of justice in the unauthorized pursuit. He was the first D.C. police officer to be convicted of murder for actions undertaken while on duty. The other pardon recipient, Lieutenant Andrew Zabowski, was sentenced to four years in prison, not directly for the killing of Mr. Hilton Brown, but for conspiring with Sutton to cover up the deadly police chase. The two had been set free pending the outcome of their appeals. And now, obviously, those appeals are a moot issue.

[Leah Littman]

So those weren't the only pardons going around. Trump also pardoned people who had been convicted of violating the Face act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances act, the federal law that prohibits breaking into, blockading, or obstructing access to abortion clinics. Among those pardoned was Lauren Handy, who was found to have not one, not two, but five fetuses in her home. Tim Waltz tried to warn us, these people are weird. And of course, these pardons are likely to embolden anti abortion demonstrators. So those are just the formal executive orders and pardons. He also froze civil rights cases at the Department of Justice, ordering the Civil Rights division, you know, not to continue with any investigations or settlements in that section.

[Kate Shaw]

And we could go on just to take through a couple of additional things. The government appears to have cancelled or at least paused all of the research, grant reviews and travel and trainings for scientists inside nih. And these are some like clinical studies, including cancer research, that are already underway. Some of them are almost done, but if the grants are frozen, they can't be completed and written up. This is also true about an enormous amount of grant expenditure happening at the State Department that also seems to be frozen and maybe impossible to actually complete projects like just in addition to the chaos and cruelty, it is just shockingly wasteful to decide to let all of this largely spent money be for not because you think there is this ideological axe to grind and it extends to all of scientific research and all foreign aid as far as I can tell. I mean, it's really, truly stunning and kind of closer to sort of our neck of the woods. The administration also appears to have rescinded all DOJ honors offers. So these are law school 3L's typically who are going to graduate and thought they had entry level jobs inside the Department of Justice and have now been told the jobs that they had already been offered and accepted are no longer available. So they're all scrambling for work. So there's going to be a crop of very promising 3L's all of a sudden on a late job hunt for people, people looking to hire young attorneys.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. And if, you know, listeners with job leads or jobs for 3Ls now facing the prospect of restarting job searches have ideas, you know, please share them. And we are more than happy to share them on social media and amplify them.

[Melissa Murray]

Thoughts on the first week? I'll just say I think we're lucky that it was a short work week and like day one was basically only a half day for them.

[Leah Littman]

Small blessings, you know, it was horrible. It was as bad as I expected. And in trying to again, find a way to cope with and deal with this, I found myself coming back to the idea that the fact that it was bad in ways I expected is a reminder to kind of trust myself. And if you found yourself thinking the same, like, trust yourself. Right. Like, you were right. This is not a normal administration. They are doing outlandish, cruel things. And so, I don't know, I found that in some ways, like affirming and. Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Am I a hysterical woman? Nope, nope.

[Leah Littman]

No.

[Melissa Murray]

Right on the nose. I'm actually, I'm actually catching everything they're pitching. Correct?

[Leah Littman]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. One observation, and I'm not trying to be naive or to minimize. This is like an absolute horror show. But I also think it feels like these kind of scattershot efforts to find and eliminate these pockets of potential resistance and push back inside the executive branch and outside come from a place of fundamental weakness. Like, I just think you are not this concerned that there will be people inside the administration who disagree with you. If you're really confident about the power.

[Melissa Murray]

Of your idea, your mandate, as it were, you're not intentionally. Mandate. Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

Like, I actually think the fund the things that they want to do, you know, beyond lowering the price of eggs, which actually it would be popular, the things they actually want to do are not popular. And so they have to do everything they can to neutralize pockets of resistance because the American people actually don't think want what they are doing. And so I do derive some comfort from that. Although it is not at all offered to minimize the suffering that is going to follow from many of these actions.

[Melissa Murray]

The older I get, the more I find myself wanting to be more intentional about the way I live, either eat and take care of my body. And I know you've all heard the old saying, you are what you eat, but it really rings true for all of us in the modern day and I'm always looking for an on the go protein snack that satisfies me but also helps me to live intentionally. And now I found the perfect one. Mosh Bars Mosh, which you may have heard about on Shark Tank, was founded by Maria Shriver and her son Patrick Schwarzenegger with a simple mission to create a conversation about brain health through food, education and research. Maria's father, Sergeant Schreiber, the founder of the Peace Corps, suffered from Alzheimer's and since then Maria and Patrick have dedicated themselves to finding ways to help other families dealing with this debilitating disease. Mosh joined forces with the world's top scientists and functional nutritionists to go beyond your average protein bar. So with eight delicious flavors including a plant based one in peanut butter and chocolate, each mash bar is made with ingredients that support brain health like Ashwagandha, lion's mane, collagen and omega 3s. And now mash bars come with a new look and a new formulation featuring a game changing brain boosting ingredient you won't find in any other bar. Mosh is now the first and only food brand boosted with Cognizant, a premium nootropic that supplies the brain with a patented form of cine. But here's the best part to make you feel good, Mosh donates a portion of all proceeds from your order to fund gender based brain health research through the Women's Alzheimer's movement. Why gender based? Well, 2/3 of all Alzheimer's patients are women and Mosh is working closely to close the gap between women and men's health research on this topic. I've tried Mosh bars. I really love them. My favorite is the white chocolate lemon. It tastes a little bit like a kind of cheesecake bar. I like a little sort of tart and sweet. So delicious and so great on the go. So if you want to find ways where you can be good to yourself, be good to your brain and give back to others. While you're fueling your body and your brain, Mosh bars are the perfect choice for you. Head over to moshlife.comstrict to save 20% off plus free shipping on the bestsellers trial pack. That's 20% off plus free shipping on.

[Ted Danson]

The Best this podcast is supported by Comedy Central's Emmy Award winning series the Daily Show. Jon Stewart and the Daily show news team are kicking off 2025 with brand new episodes covering a brand new administration and a not quite brand new president. While it may feel like we've all been here before, it's never been covered like this. With Jon Stewart behind the desk kicking off every week. Comedy Central's the Daily show new tonight at 11 on Comedy Central and streaming next day on Paramount.

[Melissa Murray]

Plus sellers trial pack at M O S H-L-F E.com strict. Thank you, Mosh, for sponsoring this episode.

[Kate Shaw]

So we're going to now turn to the cases that the court heard argued last week. It heard four cases over two days. And interestingly, the United States was either a party or an amicus in all of those cases. So the political heads of the solicitor general's office. So Elizabeth Prelogger and her deputy Brian Fletcher are out. Right? They're the kind of political appointee that turns over at the end of an administration. And there's a new acting solicitor general, former Thomas Clerk and Williams and Connolly partner Sarah Harris. But the assistants arguing the cases last week were the same ones who were there before. There have been no insane changes in the position of the United States in the first couple of days. And I weirdly found that comforting in this week of just absolute shit show chaos.

[Leah Littman]

I appreciate that that was your take. I have to say, like, hearing you describe it in some ways made me a little concerned. Like, there's this, like, veneer of normalcy and everyone is acting like things are fine and this office is just going to march on continuing doing the work of defending what the federal government is doing as the federal government changes. I don't know. I mean, like, I hope you're right that there, you know, is some, there's.

[Kate Shaw]

Some stability or continuity. The veneer might be dangerous. That's totally, totally right. But I just, in my mind, I was like, right, well, if they wanted to say we're going to cancel all the Supreme Court arguments the way we cancel all the civil rights investigations, they can't because the Supreme Court has already scheduled them. So it's. Maybe this is a tiny comfort, but there actually is another institution that if.

[Leah Littman]

I'm not sure I want the court.

[Kate Shaw]

To be deciding cases, but it could constrain the executive branch if it wanted to. Whether it will is, of course, a different question, but it is it. The office is different than other parts of the executive branch in some ways. Now, is it better? I don't know. But, but, but that was one, one observation. But onto the case.

[Melissa Murray]

You can't spell Kate without take. That was quite a take. Okay. All right. The first case was FDA versus R.J. reynolds. And that case involved a challenge under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control act, which gives the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. It also requires tobacco manufacturers to obtain the FDA's permission before putting a new tobacco product on the market. And if the FDA denies that permission under the statute, any person adversely affected by the denial can therefore file a petition for judicial review of such regulation or denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for the circuit in which such person resides. That's important. And generally for corporations, that would usually mean that they would bring this suit in the circuit where they are incorporated or where they have their principal place of business.

[Leah Littman]

So listeners will recall that the court heard oral argument in December in the case FDA vs. White lion, which addressed whether the FDA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in allegedly changing the standards for how and when it approved flavored E cigarettes. That's the underlying substantive issue in this case as well. But it's not the question the court is addressing here.

[Kate Shaw]

Rather, the court is addressing a procedural question. So RJR Vapor is incorporated in and has as its principal place of business, North Carolina. North Carolina is in the 4th Circuit, which has rejected manufacturer challenges to the FDA's denial of e cigarette applications. But instead of filing its challenge in that court, RJR Vapor filed its petition in wait for it, the Fifth Circuit, where the petition was joined by AIL Vapor, which does business in Texas and also a trade association for Mississippi retailers that sell RJR Vapors products. And Texas and Mississippi are in the 5th Circuit.

[Melissa Murray]

The plot thickens accordingly. The question here is whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit other than the D.C. circuit where it doesn't reside or have its principal place of business. If the manufacturer's petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer's product that is located in that circuit. And because retailers are everywhere, this would essentially allow corporations to choose their preferred circuit in which to litigate these challenges.

[Leah Littman]

And the Supreme Court is actually going to be hearing another case that raises similar questions, but about the EPA later this term and whether regulated entities can sue the EPA outside of circuits that are designated by statute and elsewhere, like the Fifth Circuit, regulated entities want to go to the Fifth Circuit for a good time.

[Melissa Murray]

It's like the Fifth Circuit is only fans for corporations.

[Leah Littman]

Yes.

[Melissa Murray]

Anyway, at oral argument in this case, much of the action focused on whether the retailers were, quote, unquote, adversely affected by the agency's denial of the petition to go to market and therefore authorized under law to seek review in their home circuits as opposed to the manufacturer's home circuit. The lawyer representing the FDA insisted that the adversely affected language was intended to encompass only manufacturers who were negatively impacted by the FDA's denial of an application. Retailers, on this logic, were just bystanders to the application process. Not all of the justices, however, agreed. So here's a clip from a colloquy between the FDA's lawyer, Vivek Suri, and the Chief Justice.

[Chief Justice John Roberts]

It is implausible that Congress set up a system in which someone, the retailers would have a right to challenge an agency order, but wouldn't have a right to be notified of the order in the first place. It's simply unlikely that Congress would have expected such a person to be able to challenge the order within 30 days after it's issued. They don't even know that it's been issued in the first place.

[Leah Littman]

But just.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Well, I, I think they probably do in terms of what they're following. I think it's a bit much to call them bystanders. I mean, they're business depends upon this or in other circumstances, whatever the retailers are. And the whole purpose of the proceeding is to either overturn a decision preventing retailers from doing what retailers do with respect to the particular product. I mean, if that's the whole point of it, from the government's point of view, the regulatory point of view, and what's harmful to the public, it's whether or not these products are going to be sold, I don't know why the retailers aren't the most likely people to bring in action.

[Kate Shaw]

Justice Thomas, who definitely seems sympathetic to RJR Vapor's position, focused on the issue of venue and specifically why it even mattered to the FDA where these challenges were litigated. So let's roll that clip.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

We're definitely not talking about jurisdiction here. We're merely talking about venue. And when I think of venue and normally think of convenience to the parties as a practical matter, why is it inconvenient for the government to litigate in one circuit versus another?

[Chief Justice John Roberts]

It's not inconvenient for the government.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

So what's, what's this all about?

[Chief Justice John Roberts]

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

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

Seems like it's convenient for you then.

[Chief Justice John Roberts]

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

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

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

[Chief Justice John Roberts]

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

[Leah Littman]

So the the venue issue that Justice Thomas is alluding to is a separate second issue in the case. The first question is whether any person adversely affected includes downstream retailers. The second is about if there are multiple persons filing the petition for review, can you file where any of them reside or is venue more limited?

[Melissa Murray]

One person seemed amenable to the government's position here, and that was Justice Jackson who emphasized that the retailer's interest here seems to crystallize only once the product is approved by the FDA and then placed on the market. So here's a clip from her Let.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

Me ask you about the pre market assumption that retailers and manufacturers actually stand in the same shoes. I guess I'm not sure I understand that because it would seem to me that retailers really get their interest from marketed products. Again, it's once the product is on the market, the retailers come in, they buy it up, they do whatever and they're ready to sell it to customers. I'm not sure that they have the same interest as a manufacturer in pre market pre development. Is it going to be approved or not? So can you say more about why you're just assuming that retailers and manufacturers have the same interest interest in the.

[Melissa Murray]

Pre market scenario under RGR vapors logic, Justice Jackson pressed. If the retailers were interested parties, that would open the door to lots of other people being interested parties, including consumers who may have an interest in vaping products or in challenging the denial of any other kind of authorization involving e cigarettes. So we'll see where that goes up in a puff of smoke, as it were.

[Kate Shaw]

All right. And on to the next. The court also heard oral argument in McLin Chiropractic vs. McKesson. The central question here is whether the Hobbs act requires a district court to accept the Federal communication Commission or FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection act or TCPA. If a district court did have to accept the FCC's interpretation, that doesn't mean people can't challenge the FCC's interpretation. It just means they have to do so via a petition for review in the Court of Appeals once the FCC actually issues an order.

[Melissa Murray]

In the specific context of this case, the question arose as to whether a district court could impose liability on McLaughlin for alleged violations of the TCPA, even though the FCC had concluded that behaviors like McLaughlin's alleged behavior didn't actually violate the TCPA. So here McLaughlin allegedly sent unsolicited ads via online fax machines. And the FCC has said that online fax services don't fall under the ambit of the TCPA's prohibition on unsolicited messages via telephone facsimile machine.

[Leah Littman]

In some ways, this case could be understood as part of the Loperbright hangover. You know, it implicates the question of agency interpretation of a statute it administers and poses the possibility of conflicting judicial interpretations of the statute. And that's kind of how Justice Thomas seemed to approach the case. Like, what do you mean? Courts can't overrule an agency, as you can hear here.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

So as I understand you, if a case, if this case were to come before a district judge, an order before a district judge, and the district judge says, this is the most ridiculous opinion I have ever seen in my many years on the bench. However, I have no authority to review it. That you don't see a problem with that.

[Leah Littman]

I have to say, hearing this, I felt like saying, clarence, this is how I feel about Texas district court decisions all the time. They are the most ridiculous opinions I have ever seen.

[Kate Shaw]

But Thomas doesn't have a problem with those.

[Melissa Murray]

So moving on, there was also an oral argument in Barnes vs. Felix, and the issue in this case is whether the moment of threat doctrine applies to an exception excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment. The moment of threat doctrine, according to the Fifth Circuit means that you can only evaluate whether an officer used excessive force at the exact moment the officer felt threatened. That would allow you to ignore basically everything that happened before the officer allegedly felt threatened, like whether the officer threatened someone or had already used excessive force or. Whereas here they jumped on someone's car who was suspected of not paying a toll, then got scared when the car moved and shot the driver multiple times, killing him. So all of that could be taken out under this new interpretation.

[Leah Littman]

And indeed, that's what the Fifth Circuit did. On such facts. Blissfully, a majority of Justices seem to agree that the moment of threat doctrine makes no sense and departs from the Court's holistic analysis of Fourth Amendment claims. One justice wasn't so sure. And this justice was really concerned about what the poor police officers would do. And that was Brett Kavanagh, who somehow managed to be or at least sound more pro police than Sam Alito. Which should be a sign, my guy, to take a chill pill. So here's a montage of Brett's interventions.

[Justice Brett Kavanaugh]

What's an officer supposed to do when at a traffic stop and someone pulls away, just let them go? Our officers always prohibited at traffic stops when the car pulls away from jumping on a car, what do you tell an officer who pulls someone over for a traffic violation? But as often or not often, but sometimes happens, that person has done or is planning to do something more serious. And, you know, driving away is one potential indicator of that. An officer does not get the time we've spent here today to make the decision, do I let it go knowing that this person could do serious harm or has done and will never catch the person, or do I jump on the car and they have to make that decision? And about what do you tell them?

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, so. So this case was one of the many so far this term in which once the court took up the question in a case, there was actually some debate about whether the question was even really implicated.

[Melissa Murray]

Right.

[Kate Shaw]

Like there was a question of whether the moment of threat doctrine really does mean only the moment. Or they actually, even under this test, can look at least a couple seconds before. But I think that they are going to stick with the question as framed. And thankfully in this case, they will reject that moment of threat doctrine. And I don't think they're going to say much more than that. That is my prediction.

[Melissa Murray]

I think Justice Kavanaugh will write a dissent and it will be just three words back the blue.

[Leah Littman]

Oh, gosh.

[Melissa Murray]

But weirdly, he will have nothing to say about these pardons. So, you know, finally, the court heard a case, Cunningham vs. Cornell University, which is about how a plaintiff can make out an eris. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security act, and that is the federal law that establishes standards for retirement and health plans. And the particular question here is how to make out a case for a claim that the employer has violated that statute. So, listeners, my husband is away for a month long trial in San Francisco, which means, like, I am doing all the householding thing. I am mommy so hard. I just fall into bed and I'm so exhausted. And the one thing I really hate doing when I am momming, as hard as I am right now is meal planning and meal prep because I got picky kids. They're so picky. And I really want to eat healthier and I want them to eat healthier so I'm not willing to just reflexively let them order doordash or whatever. So I really want to cook home meals for them. Cook Unity is the answer. Frees up time and it frees up energy while allowing you to meet your goals to mom so hard, but also mom healthfully and healthily so you can reset your routine this new year with cookunity for an endless variety of vibrant, healthy meals that are made by award winning chefs. I am not an award winning chef. I would like to eat food created by an award winning chef for me and that is what cookunity does. The chefs you see on TV and in five star kitchens are the chefs who craft each small batch meal with you in mind. The meals are made from local in season ingredients that are sent fresh, not frozen and delivered directly to your door. All at a fraction of the cost and more importantly the time. Just head over to cookunity.com forward/strrict or enter the code STRICT before checkout for 50% off your first week of CookUnity. The thing I love about CookUnity is that it's really easy to find dishes that align with your taste and your goals. There are dishes that are under a certain number of calories if you're really focused on that. There are dishes that prioritize protein if you're working on trying to up your protein, as I am as a woman of a certain age. And you can also talk about meals that are more pasta heavy if that's the kind of thing your kids like. So you can do all kinds of filtering and find exactly the kinds of meals you need for your week, all without the meal prep, the planning, the shopping and the rigmarole of cooking and cleaning up. What's not to love? So reset your routine this new year with convenient, mouthwatering meals crafted with local ingredients by award winning chefs. Go to cookunity.com forward/strict before checkout and enter the code STRICT. For 50% off your first week, go to cookunity.com forward/strrict or enter code STRICT before checkout for 50% off.

[Ted Danson]

This podcast is supported by Comedy Central's Emmy Award winning series, the Daily Show. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show News Team are kicking off 2025 with brand new episodes covering a brand new administration and a not quite brand new president. While it may feel like we've all been here before, it's never been covered like this. With Jon Stewart behind the desk kicking off every week, Comedy Central's the Daily show new tonight at 11 on Comedy Central and streaming next day on paramount.

[Melissa Murray]

Plus your first week of award winning meals. That's 50% off your first week by using strict or going to cookunity.com forward slash strict. Thank you for sponsoring this episode, CookUnity. I have to say much of the action this week was outside of the court. So we're going to give it the time it deserves.

[Leah Littman]

Much of it is likely to make its way to the court.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, we're just setting the stage. That's why we spent so much time on those EOs. Like we got to give you the background, but let's turn to some additional court culture. We wanted to answer some questions that we have received in the crooked discord on the once defunct but now again operative TikTok. So if you are not already a friend of the POD subscriber, just want you to know you are missing out. There is a crooked discord, including in that friend of the POD subscription where you can join a community discussion and we can hear directly from you about the topics you would like us to cover. So if you're not already subscribing, you are missing out and you need to get on that. So in the crooked discord, some listeners wanted to know why the opinion in the TikTok case was unanimous or alternatively, what does it mean that it was unanimous. And some wanted to know whether we thought SCOTUS was right here, since it seemed to them that there was actually a real chance that the People's Republic of China was leveraging collected data or engaging in content manipulation which might actually seem like a legitimate security threat. So let's weigh in.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, so I think the unanimity was expected from the argument. Like none of the justices were sympathetic to TikTok's claims. And I think in some respects it was understandable, like given the kind of background considerations, you know, of real concerns about this hypothetical possibility. Also given the Justice's background as executive branch lawyers, you know, accustomed to believing that the federal government is making real, legitimate, valid security determinations and that the executive branch's determinations on those should win out. As to what I think, you know, like the mixed motives in this case give me pause. The fact that conceitedly the federal government had at least two reasons for adopting the ban. One was ostensibly not related to the content of the speech on TikTok. Another was the content manipulation rationale. And what also gave me pause is that there was evidence of even more content based purpose. So concern about pro Palestinian content on TikTok. So that makes me worried. And what also makes me wonder about this is just how over inclusive the law is. And under inclusive, what I mean by that is it doesn't apply to a host of other platforms where we know the content is manipulated like Elon Musk manipulates the algorithm. Facebook shared data with Cambridge Analytica. Facebook and Meta were supposedly in Instagram, you know, vetoing and taking off content about abortion from their platforms, you know, until that was reported. And you can buy Americans data on open markets. And there seem to me to be other means of accomplishing these objectives, like a disclosure requirement or disclosure about data. You know, like if you want to work for the government, you have to disclose you had TikTok or something. But like I understand, understand where some of the justices were coming from. You know, like the looming threat of data harvesting and blackmail based on that doesn't seem out of bounds or outside the realm of possibility. And again, I understand the instinct for courts not to decide all of these questions and letting the executive branch do so, but I was more nervous than the unanimity, I think suggests.

[Melissa Murray]

A quick postscript on what actually happened after the court issued its decision in the TikTok case. First, TikTok initially shut itself down. So it wasn't the case that the ban went into effect and TikTok was no longer being serviced by American platforms, was that TikTok turned it off, turned off the lights, essentially. And when users opened the app, they received a message about how a law banning TikTok had gone into effect. But the message then continued with, quote, We TikTok are fortunate that President Trump has indicated he will work to find a solution to have us reinstated, end quote.

[Kate Shaw]

So that pause was in effect, and I don't know how long it was, 16 hours or something like that. Like less than a full day. And TikTok then issued another statement saying they would go back online. And when they did, users opened the app to see a message that read, welcome back. Thanks for your patience and support. As a result of President Trump's efforts, Tick Tock is back in the United States. You can continue to create, share and discover all the things you love on Tick Tock. This just felt so much like. Do you remember in, like April or May of 2020 when Trump ordered the stimulus check to bear his name? It was like, like that. Except for you don't even have to get the US Printing operation retooled. You could outsource all of it to TikTok. It just felt like a metaphor.

[Melissa Murray]

So I did enjoy those 16 hours where teenagers around New York City were just walking around slack jawed and dead eyed, like not knowing what to do with themselves.

[Leah Littman]

Like, I mean, even though TikTok is back, like they have ruined the app because they have put TikTok in a position maybe where it wanted to be, right where they are just supplicating before Donald Trump and potentially another mass media platform that is just running interference for Donald Trump. And yeah, isn't that all of.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, isn't meta.

[Leah Littman]

It is all of them now. It is. Yes.

[Kate Shaw]

Not blue Sky.

[Melissa Murray]

Not blue sky.

[Leah Littman]

Yes. Yeah. Okay, so we really are going to continue to make a concerted effort to highlight good things occasionally on this show and we have some good culture to talk about. At least two points before we returned to a piece of sad news. But first, some good news. Okay, so the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in the case of Brenda Andrew, the woman who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death after prosecutors sex shamed her for being a bad mother with a sex life. The prosecutor in closing, literally showed the jury the lingerie she took on vacation after her husband was murdered and other just truly gross stuff. And the court's opinion in the case is actually quite good. The court vacated and sent back the lower court opinion that had ruled against Brenda and denied her petition for habeas corpus. Brief Background to understand what the court did, a federal law, the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act, only allows federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to people who are convicted of state courts if their conviction or sentence is contrary to or unreasonably applying some clearly established Supreme Court law. And the lower courts reasoned that it wasn't clearly established that sex shaming someone to death like a prosecutor using sex stereotypes to secure a conviction done sentence was unconstitutional. But by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court rejected that notion and held that it was in fact clearly established that prosecutors cannot introduce super prejudicial inflammatory evidence, including evidence that caters to sex stereotypes. The case will go back to the lower courts which will determine whether the state court unreasonably applied that clearly established law when they rejected Brenda's claims. But the case is a big deal not just for Brenda Andrew, but also in making clear, no pun intended, that it is clearly the law that prosecutors cannot introduce unduly prejudicial evidence. It's also just a super rare habeas win. So hats off to the lawyers at Phillips Black who secured it. Phillips Black is also the law firm that is representing Richard Glossip or one of the law firms representing Richard Glossip, whose captain case is at the court this term.

[Kate Shaw]

I have to admit, I just had a chance to skim the per curium opinion, but a lot of the time. So per curium means we don't know who the author was. A lot of the time the Chief justice writes those. But this was definitely not a robbery.

[Leah Littman]

I agree.

[Kate Shaw]

Right. Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

I talked about ladies.

[Kate Shaw]

Myra Jackson. Yeah. It was not. It was the voice. It was this. This was one of the women on the court, and probably not Justice Barrett, but I don't. I don't. I was really curious who. Who actually drafted it.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah, me too. For sure.

[Kate Shaw]

So the second piece of good news is that the court stayed the injunction the Fifth Circuit had issued against the Corporate Transparency act, which required crypto companies to disclose certain transactions so as to avoid financial fraud and other things. So a while back, we mentioned that the Texas district court decision that concluded that the Corporate Transparency act was unconstitutional was, you know, the result of this galaxy brain move, that the idea of the law which regulates corporations engaged in commerce did not fall within the scope of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause.

[Leah Littman]

The fifth Circuit ultimately upheld the injunction, the Corporate Transparency act, after first staying it, like, really putting on a show for the people.

[Melissa Murray]

The short order claimed that, quote, in order to preserve the constitutional status quo, while the merits panel considers the party's weighty substantive arguments, end quote, the state order would be vacated. Wady was doing a lot of work there.

[Leah Littman]

Yeah. Plaintiff's arguments aren't weighty. And vacating the stay wouldn't preserve the status quo. It would overrule the New Deal. The weighty argument that the fifth Circuit needed to consider was the suggestion that the law regulated inactivity because it required companies engaged in commerce to disclose those commercial transactions. Like, the Fifth Circuit is performance art at this point, and they are the best public relations machine the Supreme Court has ever had.

[Melissa Murray]

All right, typically, when we end on the 5th Circuit, it's a somber note, but this is actually a really somber note to end on. So we just wanted to note the passing of Cecile Richards, who was the poised, impactful, brilliant, and amazingly admirable leader of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 2006 to 2018. She passed away on January 20, the morning of the inauguration, after facing an enormous challenge in the form of a very aggressive strain of brain cancer. After leaving Planned Parenthood and while she was struggling with cancer, Cecile worked to launch Charli, a chatbot that helps abortion seekers find the services that they need, as well as launching Abortion in America, an effort to bring attention to the experiences of those harmed by abortion bans. She was an amazing advocate, an amazing seeker of justice, a daughter not only of former Texas governor Ann Richards, but of the labor movement itself. And she saw labor, sex equality, reproductive access as all parts of a necessary campaign for women's equality. And so we mourn her passing and may her memory be a blessing.

[Kate Shaw]

Passing all right, that's all we have time for today. A couple of announcements before we go first, the next four years are going to be a lot, but there are resources to help you through it all, with honest analysis on what is happening, why it matters, what we can do to push back against an extreme Trump agenda. Supporting Vote Save America is one great place to start. Over the next couple of months, Vote Save America is creating spaces to recharge, find community, take steps to protect those at risk in 2025. You can go to VoteSave America.com and sign up for their email list to learn more. This message is paid for by Vote Save America. You can learn [e-mail] this ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.

[Melissa Murray]

And in case you missed it, I was on the most recent episode of Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams to dissect the impact of all of these moves that the Trump administration is making, from renaming Denali to ending birthright citizenship. Stacy and I explored the threat to the balance of power, why we should be concerned about the new roligarchy that stood behind Donald Trump at his inauguration, and how we individuals can resist and fight back to safeguard our democracy. You can listen to this episode of Assembly Required right now and new episodes drop every Thursday wherever you get your podcasts.

[Leah Littman]

Strict Scrutiny is a crooked media production hosted and executive produced by me, Leah Littman, Melissa Murray and Kade Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our Associate producer. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper Production support from Madeline Herringer and Ari Schwartz. Matt De Groat is our head of production and thanks to our digital team, Phoebe Bradford and Joe Matoski, our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. You can subscribe to strict scrutiny on YouTube. To catch full episodes, find [e-mail] strictscrutinypodcast you can see the cool new T shirt I'm wearing. I'm a fan. Anyways, if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode and if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.

[Kate Shaw]

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.

[Justice Clarence Thomas]

As the same day.

[Kate Shaw]

If approved applications are typically funded the next business day or sooner. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit application subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partners NetCredit credit to the People.

[Woody Harrelson]

Hey friends, Ted Danson here and I want to let you know about my new podcast. It's called Where Everybody Knows yous Name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes doing this podcast is a chance for me and my good bud Woody to reconnect after cheers wrapped 30 years ago. Plus, we're introducing each other to the friends we've met since, like Jane Fonda, Conan O'Brien, Eric Andre, Mary Steenburgen, my wife, and Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. And trust me, it's always a great hang when Woody there, so why wait? Listen to where everybody knows your name. Wherever you get your podcasts.