Trump’s Parade of Clowns, Idiots, and Creeps

Summary

Podcast Summary: Strict Scrutiny – Episode: "Trump’s Parade of Clowns, Idiots, and Creeps" (Released November 18, 2024)

Introduction and Context

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosted by constitutional law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray from Crooked Media, the trio delves into the tumultuous landscape surrounding the potential resurgence of a Trump administration and its implications for the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and broader legal culture. The episode, aptly titled "Trump’s Parade of Clowns, Idiots, and Creeps," offers a critical and in-depth analysis of the chaotic nomination process and the possible repercussions for American jurisprudence and governance.

Trump Administration's Potential SCOTUS Nominations

Reopening SCOTUS Auditions

The hosts kick off the discussion by addressing the immediate aftermath of the presidential election, emphasizing the ongoing uncertainty in congressional race outcomes. Despite these political tremors, the focus remains steadfast on the Supreme Court's activities.

Judge Jim Ho's Controversial Stance
At [02:09], Leah Litman introduces Judge Jim Ho, highlighting his provocative remarks regarding birthright citizenship. Ho, anticipating a Trump administration eager to reshape immigration policies, audaciously stated, “[He] might be wrong” about the entitlement to birthright citizenship in cases involving “war and invasion” ([02:30]). This stance marks a stark departure from his earlier defense of the Supreme Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark (2011), signaling a potential pivot to align with Trump’s hardline immigration agenda.

Recess Appointments and Constitutional Concerns
The conversation shifts to the Trump administration's rumored interest in utilizing recess appointments to bypass Senate confirmation for Supreme Court nominees. Melissa Murray explains, “[Trump] may make recess appointments of members of his Cabinet” ([16:06]), referencing Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Leah Litman and Kate Shaw elaborate on the legal intricacies and the Supreme Court’s fragmented stance on recess appointments, particularly citing the NLRB v. Noel Canning decision, which delineates the limits of presidential power in this realm ([16:04]).

Potential Cabinet Nominees and Their Implications
The professors outline a litany of proposed nominees, each more controversial than the last:

• Susie W.S. – White House Chief of Staff
  Melissa Murray notes Susie W.S.'s potential historic appointment as the first female Chief of Staff ([26:20]).

• Stephen Miller – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
  Known for his aggressive immigration policies, Miller's role could significantly influence the administration's approach to border security and deportations ([26:20]).

• Tom Homan – Border Czar
  Homan, associated with "Project 2025," is characterized as a formidable figure poised to escalate immigration enforcement ([26:59]).

• Lee Zeldin – EPA Head
  As a climate conservative, Zeldin's nomination to the Environmental Protection Agency aims to reverse Biden-era climate protections ([27:54]).

• Elise Stefanik – UN Ambassador
  Melissa Murray critiques the placement of Stefanik in a foreign role, suggesting it sidelines pressing domestic issues ([27:54]).

• Mike Huckabee – Ambassador to Israel
  Huckabee’s nomination aligns with Trump’s foreign policy priorities but raises eyebrows due to his controversial past ([29:00]).

• Marco Rubio – Secretary of State
  Rubio’s shift from previously criticizing Trump to accepting a high-profile role reflects the fluid dynamics within the Republican Party ([29:45]).

• Pete Hegseth – Secretary of Defense
  Described as an "anti-vaxxer Fox News host," Hegseth's nomination raises serious concerns about the possible direction of the Department of Defense ([29:45]).

• RFK Jr. – Secretary of Health and Human Services
  Melissa Murray questions the rationale behind nominating an anti-vaxxer to lead HHS, emphasizing the potential public health dangers ([31:58]).

Constitutional and Political Ramifications of Recess Appointments
Kate Shaw expresses alarm at Trump’s potential use of recess appointments to bypass the Senate: “This is part of asking all of the Republican Party to get in line and genuflect and bend the knee” ([23:04]). The hosts discuss the untested nature of Trump’s proposed adjournment strategy to facilitate these appointments, citing fears of undermining legislative checks and balances ([24:04]).

Notable Quotes:

• Kate Shaw [02:30]: “Maybe just for funsies, as my 12-year-old would say, there's no entitlement to birthright citizenship in, quote, case of war and invasion.”
• Melissa Murray [16:06]: “Under current Supreme Court precedent, some power to make recess appointments.”
• Leah Litman [23:04]: “This is part of asking all of the Republican Party to get in line and genuflect and bend the knee.”

Current Supreme Court Cases and Judicial Culture

Velasquez vs Garland
At [48:47], the discussion turns to Velasquez vs Garland, a case challenging the interpretation of voluntary departure for non-citizens facing deportation. The Supreme Court is poised to resolve a circuit split between the 10th and 9th Circuits regarding whether deadlines falling on weekends or holidays extend the voluntary departure period to the next business day.

Delegati vs United States
Kate Shaw explains that Delegati vs United States questions whether a defendant can be considered to have used physical force through inaction. Justice Jackson's hypothetical involving a lifeguard failing to rescue a child underscores the complex interplay between duty and action ([55:06]).

Nvidia Corp. V. E Omen
The hosts elaborate on Nvidia Corp. V. E Omen, where shareholders allege that Nvidia’s CEO misrepresented the company’s revenue sources, potentially violating the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The case examines the necessity for particularity in pleading fraudulent intent and whether expert opinions suffice ([57:22]).

Notable Quotes:

• Leah Litman [48:48]: "He apologizes, I'm not a doctor."
• Kate Shaw [55:06]: "How do you explain drowning?"

Remembering Ted Olson

In a poignant segment, Leah Litman pays tribute to Ted Olson, a former Solicitor General and prominent conservative lawyer who passed away. Olson's complex legacy includes significant cases like Bush v. Gore and Obergefell vs. Hodges, highlighting his nuanced positions on issues such as marriage equality and DACA ([59:56]).

Notable Quotes:

• Leah Litman [62:03]: "He was really warm and open-minded and spoke so lovingly of his family."

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

As the episode draws to a close, the hosts reflect on the challenging times ahead with the potential Trump administration pushing forward a barrage of controversial nominations and strategic maneuvers to reshape the judiciary and executive branches. They express concerns over the erosion of constitutional checks and the rise of unqualified, extreme appointees poised to destabilize established legal and governmental norms.

Melissa Murray poignantly remarks on the overwhelming pace and extremity of the nominations, stating, “It is impossible to digest how insane any one of these things are when all of them are happening at the same time” ([20:49]). The trio underscores the urgency for vigilance, resistance, and the use of humor and satire as coping mechanisms in the face of political and legal upheaval.

Notable Quotes:

• Melissa Murray [20:49]: “It’s just flooding the zone with absolute crap, make it as crazy and as extreme as possible.”
• Kate Shaw [24:13]: “There’s no facial way to suggest that this whatever scheme satisfies those constitutional conditions.”

Final Remarks

In wrapping up, the hosts encourage listeners to stay informed and engaged, highlighting the importance of understanding the legal shifts and their broader impacts on everyday life. They also touch upon their personal experiences and the emotional toll of the current political climate, fostering a sense of community and shared struggle among their audience.

Key Takeaways:

• The potential return of a Trump administration is poised to unleash a contentious and chaotic nomination process for the Supreme Court and executive branch.
• Recess appointments may be exploited to bypass Senate confirmations, challenging constitutional norms.
• A wave of controversial nominees threatens to undermine established legal and governmental institutions.
• Current Supreme Court cases reflect deep-seated legal debates with significant future implications.
• The legacy of influential legal figures like Ted Olson remains complex and impactful.
• The hosts emphasize the need for resistance, resilience, and informed engagement amidst political turmoil.

Notable Final Quotes:

• Leah Litman [66:18]: “We are struggling, so I’m willing to give up on the Constitution and at least on sort of its broad principles.”

Strict Scrutiny continues to provide critical, accessible, and engaging analysis of the Supreme Court and its surrounding legal culture, ensuring listeners are well-equipped to navigate and understand the evolving legal and political landscapes.

Transcript

[Kate Shaw]

Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy.

[Leah Litman]

More cozy moments and sweet memories in.

[Kate Shaw]

Your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more at Dr. Dr. Horton, America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder. Mr. Chief justice, please report.

[Leah Litman]

It's an old joke, but when I.

[Kate Shaw]

Argue, a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.

[Melissa Murray]

Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Melissa Murray.

[Leah Litman]

I'm Leah Litman.

[Kate Shaw]

And I'm Kate Shaw. And just to be clear, we're all still reeling from the results of the presidential election, and we are somehow still waiting for results in key congressional races. But we are a Supreme Court podcast. The Supreme Court has been at work, which means that we have two. So here's what we have in store for you on today's episode.

[Melissa Murray]

First up, a few dabs of court culture and breaking news that will include covering the ongoing auditions for the role of America's next SCOTUS justice, as well as the fire hose of appointments, news that we've been handed, as well as a few other things. And then we're going to recap the November sitting. But first, let's turn to the auditions. Leah.

[Leah Litman]

Well, with the Trump 2.0 administration on the horizon, the auditions have begun for those ambitious individuals seeking Supreme Court nominations. And specifically, within one week of the election, one judge, Jim Ho, decided to just get out there and say, you know what, that whole birthright citizenship thing, it might be wrong.

[Kate Shaw]

And since there was no pending case in which he could opine on the topic, he offered these views in an interview with the Vol Conspiracy, specifically conducted by law professor Josh Blackmon. And he proclaimed in that interview that maybe just for funsies, as my 12 year old would say, there's no entitlement to birthright citizenship in, quote, case of war and invasion, that is an invading occupying army that gave birth to children, those children might not have a claim to birthright citizenship.

[Leah Litman]

But then he proceeded to apply this rule to, quote, the children of invading aliens, end quote, who he likens, to be clear, to an invading occupying army this claim is upside down, ridiculous, gross, and not remotely serious. It is theater. But this is the kind of law that's air quotes law that gets you a judicial appointment in the Trump administration, or at least you think would get you a judicial appointment in the Trump administration. At an earlier point in time, Judge Ho had actually defended the Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark. That was way back in 2011. Obviously that had to change or at least be ridiculously manipulated so as to grease the wheels for the Trump administration to treat the children of unauthorized migrants as non citizen. But he didn't stop there. He also found a case in which he could offer up some views. He released an opinion where he wrote separately to decry how, quote, our culture increasingly accepts, if not celebrates, racism against whites. End quote. He is working hard for that money.

[Kate Shaw]

And that was one quote. But there were a number of similar utterances throughout the opinion.

[Leah Litman]

It's all over.

[Kate Shaw]

It's, it's, it's a lot, but we're not going to subject you to all of it. So shifting from Judge Ho, who got an early start in the competition for America's next Supreme Court justice, and maybe he does have an early lead, but.

[Melissa Murray]

Not everyone early days, Kate. Anything could happen.

[Kate Shaw]

Anything could happen. Things are, we don't know just how bad it could get, although we're beginning to get a sense. But specifically on the Supreme Court nominee front, not everyone is conceding that Ho has won the race just yet. So Judge Joe Justin walker on the D.C. c Circuit decided to ask whether the government could say that courts couldn't reopen final January 6th cases. Let's play that clip here. I wonder, you know, there's been, and.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm expressing no opinion of whether this is a good thing or bad thing, but there's been talk in the news that there could be a reconsideration of.

[Leah Litman]

The January 6th prosecutions.

[Kate Shaw]

If there's a new administration, let's imagine that that is the case.

[Melissa Murray]

Would it be appropriate for the U.S. attorney's office, under orders from the Attorney General, to file a Rule 48, a motion in all closed January 6 cases that are post appeal and tell the district Court you have no discretion whether.

[Leah Litman]

To dismiss these cases.

[Kate Shaw]

To be clear, this was not a January 6th case. This was just a case in which someone had to get a word in edgewise about the J6ers, and Justin Walker was there to do it.

[Melissa Murray]

So those are the stakes of who will be America's next top Supreme Court justice. But we actually have some real justices who are on the bench and folks have some things to say about them. So in the bucket of more of this bullshit, I bring to you this as the Democrats do their election postmortems, some folks are reprising an argument that we heard earlier this year. And that of course is the argument for Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign her seat so that President Biden might replace her with a younger liberal. Because Republicans always play fair. And RBG and Amy Coney Barrett and obviously. Right, of course. Again, are we really doing this again some more? Apparently I get the anxiety around all of this, but one Justice Sotomayor is not the same as Justice Ginsburg. Justice Sotomayor is 70 and is a type 1 diabetic, which she has been since she was a child. But justice ginsburg was an 81 year old 3 time cancer survivor. Like just not the same and not fair, I think to treat them the same. Also, has anyone looked around at the Senate? In what world do you think that newly independent Joe Manchin and nominally Democrat Krysten Zenimo will vote for the chosen SS replacement, even if the Republicans would actually allow that nominee to have a hearing and a floor vote as they prepare for the regime change?

[Leah Litman]

Well, and just to pipe in here like this ship has sailed, right? Like we have less than two months, right? Or about two months before the Trump administration takes over. There are all of the lower court nominees who have already been nominated. They need to be confirmed now. And yes, Democrats control the Senate. But just do that, right? Like if Justice Sotomayor was going to retire, it would have already happened. Maybe it already should have happened. But like again, that's over. Focusing on that now is just not productive.

[Kate Shaw]

No, there's no way she would get through and it would eat up all of the Senate floor time so that none of the lower court judges, which we should say there has been movement this week. They actually have gotten a couple of judges confirmed. But they really do need to stay very, very focused on it to get through the backlog.

[Melissa Murray]

So those are very real practical concerns. But since I wasn't on the podcast last week and couldn't register my own grievances about the election, I'm going to take this opportunity. Please go deep. Let me tell you where I yes, I hear all of you people singing this particular chorus and I recognize that the court being hopelessly imbalanced for the foreseeable future is your Roman Empire. But if that was the case, then why didn't you really, really do the work of convincing folks to vote on the court and not the price of eggs. And I just want to point out over 50% of white women voted for Donald Trump. Over 50% of white women literally could not give a fuck about the court when it was go time. And so you're going to have to miss me with this new logic about how one Latina is going to give up her job to save us all. Because if this was so important, somebody needed to have stepped the fuck up like two weeks ago. And that is where I'm ending this rant. Thank you.

[Kate Shaw]

You can continue the rant. We got to rant last week, so if you've got more ranting to do.

[Leah Litman]

Let it out again. Yeah, I feel like we're gonna be working this out for a while.

[Melissa Murray]

So this is left the country last week like, Jesus, that was a good idea.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah, it was.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, it was just a weekend away. It was pre planned before we knew that the regime change was happening. But FYI, I did not enjoy my time abroad because I was just really sad.

[Leah Litman]

Sorry.

[Melissa Murray]

It's okay.

[Leah Litman]

Okay. Even more an addendum to the calls for Justice Sotomayor to retire is.

[Melissa Murray]

This one is funny.

[Leah Litman]

Even stranger calls for President Biden to nominate. Wait for it. Vice President Kamala Harris to Justice Sotomayor's seat. I don't even know where to begin with that, so I'm just going to state it and stipulate it as ridiculous.

[Kate Shaw]

It's a weird thing that Democrats. Do you remember that there was a minute when folks were trying to get Obama to put Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court? Like, it's like, you know what?

[Leah Litman]

Here's a gift, right? A consolation prize for losing a significant election. You get a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

[Kate Shaw]

What?

[Leah Litman]

What?

[Kate Shaw]

So, no. Although I have to say I do find kind of amusing the sort of related suggestion that Biden should resign to give Harris the chance to be the 47th president for a couple of months purely for the petty ass reason that doing so would force Trump world to ditch all of their 47 gear and start afresh with 48. Because she would be the 47th president. Shouldn't do it for that reason. Not a good idea on the merits. But I do kind of like the pettiness of the suggestion. And since we are in the mode of finding joy where we can, I thought I would share it.

[Melissa Murray]

You know what? Joe Biden is a Scorpio and they are a petty, petty people. So, like, I think this probably did.

[Leah Litman]

Get more evidence of that.

[Melissa Murray]

No, he, he. He's a petty person. I think I'm not mad at it either. I think this probably got a good airing. Was probably like there were good reasons not to, but I'm pretty sure this got a good airing.

[Kate Shaw]

He was much too gracious and insufficiently petty, in my view, when Trump visited the White House for their fireside chat last week.

[Melissa Murray]

That's true. I did want to see a little more pettiness. But he's been petty elsewhere with the White House press corps. He was pretty petty with Peter Doocy a couple of times.

[Kate Shaw]

That's true.

[Melissa Murray]

I appreciate it. More of that. More of that lame duck energy. Joe Biden Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Zbiotics Pre Alcohol. Let's face it, after a night with drinks, you probably don't bounce back the next day like you used to. Well, guess what? There's help for that. ZBiotics Pre alcohol Probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's actually to blame for your rough next day. Zbiotics Pre Alcohol produces an enzyme that breaks that byproduct down. So remember to make Zbiotics your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll wake up feeling your best tomorrow. I'm not a huge drinker, which means that when I do drink, I really feel it the next day. And basically the way I deal with this is by using ZBiotics. I make it my first drink of the night. I have my favorite Martha Rita, and then I go to sleep and I wake up feeling better in the morning. And with their GMO technology, ZBiotics is continuing to invent probiotics that will help with everyday challenges that are endemic to modern life. And with their GMO technology, ZBiotics is continuing to invent probiotics that will help with everyday challenges of modern living. Go to zbiotics.comstrict to learn more and get 15% off your forced order when you use the code Strict at checkout. ZBiotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So remember to head to ZBiotics.comStrict and use the code STRICT at checkout for 15% off. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Bookshop.org maybe you're searching for something to get your mind off all of this. I say as I gesticulate wildly, was certainly where I was last week when I literally had to leave the country and go sit on a beach somewhere and totally get out of my head and out of my election related funk. And what did I do? I went to bookshop.org and I perused their fantastic recommendations by real readers and I found my perfect read. The book was called Coronation Year by Jennifer Robson and it was a fantastic historical treatment of the entire year leading up to Queen Elizabeth's 1953 coronation. And it had intrigue, it had had quirky British humor, and also a really cute love story. And it was exactly what I needed to get out of this moment. So maybe you too are looking for something. Maybe you're searching for an incisive history that helps you make sense of everything that's going on. Or maybe what you need is a novel that gets you out of your head and out of this moment. Either way, bookshop.org has you covered. Bookshop.org helps foster culture, curiosity and a love of reading for generations to come. Because every purchase [e-mail] directly supports local independent bookstores. You can discover new books that are updated weekly, and you can get all of the bestsellers from bookstores across the country. And you can actually support your favorite bookstore. So I love [e-mail] because I know that a part of my purchase goes to support my favorite local bookstores. Like Books Are Magic in New York or Cafe Con Libros in Brooklyn or my absolute favorite bookstore in the world. A great good Place for books in Oakland, California. Up in Montclair Village. Your next great read is waiting for you. Just head on over to bookshop.org use code strict24 to get 10% off your next order. That's at bookshop.org crooked and you can use the code [e-mail] crooked for 10% off and get to reading. Leaving aside those halcyon dreams of Kamala Harris, a Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor in retirement, let's focus on the Trump nomination. So as we all begin to prepare for Trump the Sequel, Bigger, Better Wetter, there has been some trickling information about who is actually going to staff this next administration. And we've also learned that President Elect Trump has developed a newfound interest in recess appointment. So let's start there.

[Leah Litman]

Should we explain what recess appointments are?

[Kate Shaw]

Sure. So a couple of constitutional provisions are relevant here. Article 2, Section 2 provides that the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. So you can make a recess appointment. And it can be good up to like, a little under two years. So there is a possibility that is a thing that has happened, actually. The Supreme Court, until a few years ago, had never weighed in on this sort of obscure provision of the Constitution, did hold in a very fractured opinion that the president does have the power to make appointments and that they don't just have to be in the big recess between congressional sessions, but actually can happen during recesses that arise during a congressional term. But the recesses have to, you know, be not super short. So there's like a 10 days, ish, kind of limit that's set forth in the Breyer opinion for the court. So it's a case called Noel Canning. So that's, that's kind of the background. Presidents can make recess appointments. There is, that was a very divided opinion by a very different court. And so there are some questions about the current status of that opinion. But for sure, presidents have, under current Supreme Court precedent, some power to make recess appointments. So bypass the Senate and put people in directly for a limited term. Okay, so that's the reason.

[Melissa Murray]

Can they fill their entire Cabinet with recess appointments?

[Leah Litman]

Well, okay, let's, let's get to other possible limits on these recess appointments before we go to the nuclear option.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, this is another nuclear option, too. So this is a separate provision also in Article 2, but this is the next section, Section 3 that says the president, there's the part about he gives Congress information on the State of the Union, he recommends measures to them, and then in language that has not really ever been tested, the Constitution provides, quote, he may, and that's the president, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. Okay, so we are hearing, and this is actually a thing that Trump floated, even during the first Trump administration, that he may make recess appointments of members of his Cabinet and that he actually may, if the Senate won't agree to go into recess voluntarily, seek to use this, really never use constitutional power to force an adjournment and then treat that adjournment as a recess, during which he can make recess appointments, maybe up to and including his entire Cabinet. And we will detail who is in that potential Cabinet in a minute. But that is the background, and it's all being floated. And I find it an unbelievably terrifying possibility.

[Melissa Murray]

Stares in the Reichstag fire. Right.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, different ways to undermine the legislative body seems to be a thing that.

[Leah Litman]

Aspiring autocrats one is by like suspending them entirely. But I guess like I want to be clear that this would require the consent or assent of the Republican House or Republican Senate because this never before tested adjournment power only kicks in in case of disagreement between them. So that means one of the two bodies, either the House or the Senate, would have to vote to adjourn in order to allow the President to make these recess appointments or. Right, both would do it and allow the President to make these recess appointments. But the point is it would require the Republican majorities and Republican Party's agreement in this fascistic scheme seems likely. Yeah, no, he's obviously asking them to bend the knee and they've always done it before. Right. So like it's very possible they will do so again. And a part of me does think that this request for recess appointments as well as some of the possible nominations that he's already floated that we'll talk about in a bit, they are some weird kind of loyalty test to see how far his party will go. Right. Like what can he get them to agree to? And if he can get them to agree to this, I mean, what on earth are they not going to agree with? And it just seems like this prospect of recess appointments coupled with all of the nominees is just flooding the zone with shit. It is impossible to digest how insane any one of these things are when all of them are happening at the same time. Like the day when we first got the trickle of official announcements of nominations. I feel like halfway through I was already feeling exhausted and it's just so much. And again, this is how they do it and get away with it is just overwhelming everyone else with all of this bs.

[Kate Shaw]

And the aggressiveness is so striking because these would be hearings that would happen after the new Congress is sworn on January 3rd. So he's going to be controlling and.

[Leah Litman]

There'S even by small margins he's going.

[Kate Shaw]

To have a significant Senate majority. And what I don't know. But I strongly suspect that in at least the modern era, recess appointments used to be something that presidents would use because you know, back in ye oldie days when transportation took a while and senators were far flung, if you needed to get somebody installed on an expedited basis to do an important job, you could get them in without waiting for the Senate to return and confirm the person. That is the purpose. Everybody agrees originally. So maybe there were some cross partisan recess appointments back in the day, but in modern days, it has really just been used, maybe if there's an emergency, but also if there's, you know, some difficulty getting the party that controls the Senate to confirm your nominee, if you're the president, because it's not your party. And the idea that he would have this much trouble, that he would anticipate having this much trouble getting confirmation votes on his Cabinet from his party in the Senate, just, I think both speaks to how deranged these nominations are, but also to Leah's point that this is just maybe a power play, that this is designed to induce a radical set of concessions in the first. It's not even the first hours. We're in like negative 11 weeks before of, of, of the Trump term and already requiring them to genuflect in this kind of debased way by saying, like, we will recess and you can just put all your people in. It seems like pretty clear evidence that we are in absolute worst case scenario terrain already again, minus 11 weeks in.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, it's kind of like a game of chicken with John Thune specifically. So TH is going to be the incoming Senate Majority Leader. And yeah, I think he's, he's a very conservative guy, but he's not necessarily a Trump loyalist. And I think this is sort of like, are you gonna get in line, friend? And are you gonna bring this entire caucus with you? And all of this stuff is crazy, but this is a gauge. How much am I going to be able to get away with?

[Leah Litman]

Yeah. And just going back to the Supreme Court's interpretations of the recess appointment power in the Noel Canning decision that Kate mentioned a little bit ago, it was, as she noted, very divided. And in the Justice Scalia separate writing that was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, they said that the recess appointment power applied only to those vacancies that happen during the recess. That is vacancies that arise during the recess, not vacancies. Right. That existed before or after the recess, which is kind of what appointing your entire Cabinet during a entirely orchestrated recess would do. And again, I'm not saying that these justices are going to be consistent, but I do think this is just part of asking all of the Republican Party to get in line and genuflect and bend the knee, as they have done to date with Trump.

[Melissa Murray]

So it seems the Constitution is actually a suicide pact.

[Kate Shaw]

And it. Yeah, last week I, I said, definitely said to Leah, I think that we can still fight for the Constitution, which I still think in general terms is right. And I do not want to.

[Melissa Murray]

Were you out here being Pollyanna again while I was gone?

[Kate Shaw]

I mean, no. We were in a dark place. I was not, I don't think being Pollyannish. I just said I was. I wasn't willing to say that I'm. We're struggling, so I'm willing to give up on the Constitution and at least on sort of its broad principles. And, I mean, I will say two things. One, I think it is pretty clear that this, you know, power to adjourn turns on the existence of extraordinary occasions, which I think applies to both convening and adjourning. And so I think that there's no facial way to suggest that this whatever scheme satisfies those constitutional conditions. And yet I'm not in any way going to predict, even if the court somehow got this case in front of it, that the court would either be consistent in terms of the positions they took in N. Canning, which Lee was just talking about, or in this separate question, that they would actually faithfully interpret both the language and the underlying purposes of this provision, which in no universe would were ever designed to allow Trump to do something like this. This.

[Leah Litman]

But let's go on to the people that he plans to install in this grand scheme, and then it, you know.

[Kate Shaw]

And then it all starts to become clear, because even with this incredibly compliant Senate that he's about to have, some of these people might be a bridge too far. I think it's at least possible. All right, so let's take through the folks, the names that we have gotten and a couple at the outset that actually wouldn't require any Senate involvement and so aren't really involved in the scheme that we were just describing. Trump has announced that he has selected one of his campaign managers, Susie W.S. to serve as the White House chief of staff. She, if she does take the position, will be the first woman to serve in that role. It has also been reported that Stephen Miller will play a major role in the West Wing. I think he will be the White House deputy chief of staff for operations, which is the position Alyssa Master Monaco held in the Obama White House, which somehow just makes me so sad that she's got to share that title. If this guy actually does. That sounds like he's going to. So, I mean, he is going to be the architect of the. A savage immigration policy the administration has already suggested it will pursue. I expect it to begin very, very quickly.

[Leah Litman]

You know, and it's not just. It's not just peewee German. Right. Who is going to be facilitating these deportations I have not heard that. I'll be here for the rest of the episode.

[Melissa Murray]

Wow. I'm so proud of you. That was great.

[Leah Litman]

Also, Donald Trump has indicated he will name Tom Homan as Border Czar. Homan is of course, an author of some pieces of Project 2025, who, when he was asked about deportations during the previous Trump administration, said something to the effect of, quote, you ain't seen shit yet.

[Kate Shaw]

I have to say there's a new documentary called Separated out, which is based on Jacob Soboroff's book, and Homan is in it a couple of times and he is one scary dude. Oh, God. So we have that to look forward to.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah. So those are the positions that do not require any kind of advice and consent from the Senate. Now on to the ones that do require the Senate to step up. So former New York Congressman and one time New York gubernatorial hopeful Lee Zeldin has been tapped to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin has been a member of the so called climate conservative in the House of Representatives. He also objects to the Paris Accords and he has vowed to roll back climate protections that were instituted under the Biden administration. On the upside, it does seem likely that a Zeldin run EPA will fare better with this Supreme Court.

[Leah Litman]

So hashtag winning.

[Melissa Murray]

Someone's winning.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

Additionally, also from the New York delegation, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik will be nominated ambassador to the United Nations. This position that was formerly held by Nikki Haley in the first Trump administration. And I'm just, you know, I, I know two is not a very large sample size, but it does seem like a good place to put your women is in the United nations or abroad. Right. Like, who cares if women are dying in parking lots? You can always be UN Ambassador and that is progress. Ladies. You've come a long way, baby.

[Kate Shaw]

You might also be able to head the Department of Homeland Security because we are hearing that South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is being floated to head that department also. Pretty scary.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, it's just going to the dogs, honestly.

[Leah Litman]

Right, exactly. Like scary for the dogs as well as everyone else. Like when they're killing the dogs, they're killing the cats. Donald Trump was like literally screaming about people eating the dogs. Right? Who knew he would appoint a puppy killer to his cabinet?

[Kate Shaw]

It turns out there is so much projection that the campaign and the last few years in Magaland has been engaged in, and the Cabinet really just makes all of that very clear. Another announced nomination, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee will be the ambassador to Israel.

[Leah Litman]

Let the rapture begin. I don't even know what to say about that.

[Melissa Murray]

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who once rued Trump's influence on the country and the Republican Party and the United States standing in the world order, has recanted all of that and has been tapped for Secretary of State. So, yes, you can come back from anything.

[Leah Litman]

We've also got reports that Donald Trump will nominate Pete Hegseth for the Secretary of Defense. I don't want to understate how wild this is by merely describing him as an anti vaxxer Fox News host, but that is accurate. He will be leading the most powerful bureaucracy in the American government. He also doesn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom. Or so he once said on Fox. Like this is anytime he doesn't wash. Pretty pro germ administration, as we'll get to later. He also was like shilling for ammo last summer, like helping to market it. He has urged here, he did urge the President to pardon people who were convicted of war crimes. He has called for a declaration of war against the woke military, by which he seems to mean people of color and women in the military. This is in his recently released book. And it's not just people outside of government who might think he's a little nutty. He was also ordered to stand down from President Biden's inauguration because of his extreme views. Like, he kind of failed a background check. And this is again the Secretary of Defense.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm still back on Fox News host. Right, because our former roadie and MSNBC news host Chris Hayes would have been great as Defense Secretary in a Harris administration. I just want to put that out there.

[Kate Shaw]

The idea that she in, you know, the sort of world 2 in which she is busily announcing her cabinet appointments, that she would be, you know, just surfing the channels to decide whom to nominate to literal cabinet positions just really.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, really tells you everything you.

[Kate Shaw]

Need to know about where we are right now. And it's not even like remotely the most alarming biographical detail that he's a Fox News host. Not even close.

[Leah Litman]

No, exactly.

[Melissa Murray]

The washing hands was also very.

[Leah Litman]

That's pretty scary.

[Kate Shaw]

I don't know. I think that's pretty innocuous compared to, I mean, he pressured. He pressured Trump to literally pardon war criminals.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay.

[Kate Shaw]

Speaking of anti vaxxers, not even the.

[Melissa Murray]

Most prominent anti vaxxer, no clothes.

[Kate Shaw]

After we sat down to record, Politico broke the news that Trump evidently plans to name RFK Jr. To be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. HHS and that makes me think, you know, we are just not. We knew he was going to do something in the administration, like we knew that, but we thought he surely will just stick him somewhere in a czar position in the White House that is not going to involve any kind of public scrutiny or a real public facing position. And, and the announcement that he wants to put him in the Cabinet, I think only increases the likelihood that he actually is going to pursue this bananas adjournment scheme, because I can't imagine a senate confirming RFK Jr even.

[Melissa Murray]

What is Roger Severino thinking right now?

[Leah Litman]

Oh, I mean, he didn't debase himself enough in order to get this post. Roger Severino is. He was the author of the chapter on HHS in Project 2025. And I think people were thinking maybe he would be nominated as secretary. Now, of course, Donald Trump is gonna cycle through all of these people ad nauseam, right? So he'll probably get a chance like within one Scaramucci or two, like, who knows? Or maybe floating. RFK Jr. Is a way of clearing the way for someone like Roger Severino who maybe has less personal baggage, but their views are also quite extreme. I mean, it would be difficult to top putting an anti vaxxer in charge of the agency in charge of developing vaccines. I mean, this will literally, literally kill people. And it's like, oh, all you woke people care about, you know, kids and getting measles and mumps. And it's like, what?

[Melissa Murray]

This is Elie Mustal's whole theory behind all of this. Like, literally flood the zone with absolute crap, make it as crazy and as extreme as possible. And then when you put in the smart but extreme people, everyone's like, okay, that's plausible. He went to Harvard Law School.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah, I mean, that could be. But shall we get to the piece.

[Kate Shaw]

De resistance of the nominations which we have so far held off on? Even speaking about, as someone who was.

[Melissa Murray]

Raised in the Sunshine State, I feel like you take this, I'm supposed to be proud of this in some way. But y'all, what kind of world are we living in when literally Florida man can be nominated to be Attorney General of these United States? Like, yes, that is exactly right. Florida man Matt Gaetz has been nominated to be the Attorney General. And I'm just going to say it. It raised some eyebrows.

[Leah Litman]

You know, I was talking about this with some students who were expressing, I don't know, imposter syndrome or nerves about law school. And I tried to put a positive spin on this by saying, look at the comeback story America has right now. A guy who was under investigation by DOJ for sex trafficking, or at least a target of an investigation, will now lead the department. Like, is this the most progressive administration on offender reentry in history?

[Melissa Murray]

Facilitation, second chances? I love it.

[Leah Litman]

Quite possibly. I mean, like, we are literally making a guy who is like, if a frat paddle was made, a real boy with Botox injections, that guy is gonna lead doj. That's our Attorney General. I'll be here again for the entire episode.

[Melissa Murray]

You are on fire. This.

[Kate Shaw]

Wow.

[Melissa Murray]

You are at a 12, and I appreciate that because I'm still trying to get to 13.

[Leah Litman]

It's my lucky number. I love it.

[Kate Shaw]

It. Wow. Gates, I think, is the most reviled member of a Congress that includes Ted Cruz. I do not. Just like he is to the House what Cruz is to the Senate. I think he is hated more by his colleagues even than Cruz is by his colleagues.

[Melissa Murray]

I think the Senate Republican Max Miller said. He basically said that on tv.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, I think it's. I. Maybe I'm quoting him. I think I am just channeling what my general understanding is. And I mean, the list of. Of horrifying things about Matt Gates is so long, and yet there's no way to talk frat paddle turned real boy, so I won't try. But I will note that Gates, among other things, he has not been a particularly productive legislator, but he did make time to introduce legislation to protect J6ers. So, you know, there go those cases.

[Leah Litman]

Literally every one of these appointments feels like the Hunger Game cannon for, like, a part of the federal government. Like, boom, there goes hhs. Like, boom, DOJ is about to be dead, et cetera, et cetera.

[Melissa Murray]

Even Susan Collins was a little bit alarmed. So Senator Susan Collins of Maine weighed in on the Getz nomination, and she had this to say. Quote, I was shocked by the announcement. This shows why the advice and consent process is so important. And I'm sure that there will be a lot of questions raised at his hearing. Obviously, the President has the right to nominate whomever he wishes, but I'm certain that there will be a lot of questions, end quote. Who's going to tell her?

[Leah Litman]

Ask those questions, girl. I'm sure it'll turn out great. I mean, like, this is. This is what he was promising, right? Like, none of you people should be surprised. This is just ridiculous. And I think the best case scenario we can all hope for is that an Attorney general, Matt Gaetz, spends all of his time seeking justice for Peanut the squirrel. Instead of.

[Melissa Murray]

Why do you constantly erase the raccoon? The raccoon was also euthanized. Like, justice for the raccoon. Fred.

[Leah Litman]

Okay. Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon. Right? Like, if that is how he occupies his time, like, maybe we will survive. I also would just like to utter a sentence, if you will humor me for a little. You can read into this sentence whatever you will. There is a possibility that one Matt Gaetz is going to have.

[Melissa Murray]

Don't do it. Don't do it.

[Leah Litman]

A recess appointment. It might make him happy. Our sex pest in chief has decided he doesn't need consent.

[Melissa Murray]

You know what? Wow, you've really just ruined the playground for everyone.

[Leah Litman]

Sorry.

[Melissa Murray]

Okay, Sorry. All right. Maybe this might actually top Matt Gaetz.

[Leah Litman]

It's hard.

[Melissa Murray]

Former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard has been. Has been nominated to be Director of National Intelligence. I'm just going to leave that out there. And in addition to that, we have a new agency.

[Kate Shaw]

Ish Department. No. We are to say as law professors, there is no agency, but Donald Trump can just either. No. To make a department of Government efficiency. Sorry, I cut you off, Melissa. What. What is the thing that Trump is pretending he's doing? And then we'll get to the real.

[Melissa Murray]

Law part of it. But for now, a concept of a plan has been made into two real boys because Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped to lead the nascent Department of Government Efficiency, which, interestingly, is. Is not in the government and is not a department and may not have any power, but also might. Unclear.

[Leah Litman]

But also its abbreviation is D O G E. Like Doge. Doge, right, exactly. So I'm sure its mascot is going to be the Doge, too. Like, this is going to be sick. Clutch up, ladies. Like, we've got a Doge now.

[Melissa Murray]

Kate, do you know what we're talking about?

[Kate Shaw]

I don't, I don't. I thought Doge is kind of crypto. I thought. I thought it was about giving free advertising to. To Elon's, like, crypto. One of crypto. One of his crypto projects.

[Leah Litman]

Just Google it. Just Google it.

[Kate Shaw]

But it's also, I think, about promoting Doge, which is actually a name, a kind of cryptocurrency. Very. What is the. What is the Doge that you talked.

[Melissa Murray]

About could also be that, too.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, it's just more like, you know, grift. All I can get in Doge is dogecoin and the new fucking department. Doge. Oh, it's just a shiba. Inu. Dog. It's cute. Is this the Doge you guys were talking about?

[Leah Litman]

It became kind of like an Elon Musk thing for a certain period of time. I don't even know how to describe its origin story.

[Kate Shaw]

It's sometimes impossible to wind a meme back. So I may have just missed it forever. Exactly. Okay, thanks for trying.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm actually surprised, Kate, that you had the crypto at the ready. I thought you were going to say, obviously, the leader of Venice, the Doge. And I'm glad you were in this century.

[Kate Shaw]

Like, yeah, dogecoin. Apparently, a kind of. Kind of crypto. Don't sleep on Kate Shaw just on memes. You can sleep on me on those. But back to what we were saying at the outset. It's just. I really think it's important for people covering this to not call it a department, even though Trump is calling it a department. And obviously, you know, he wants us to say doge. But it'll be a committee. It's going to make recommendations. It's going to exist outside of government. Maybe there'll be some kind of White House entity that the President has the authority to create. But a department is created by statute, by act of Congress. He cannot force a recess and make a department while they are adjourned. That's not how any of this works. Maybe he will try this gambit to make the appointments, but. But he is clearly trying to seize all the power. And I really think it's important that just even rhetorically, we are not all capitulating in that effort. And I actually think in a subtle way, his assertion that he has made a department is part of that project, and it's important to resist it.

[Melissa Murray]

It's basically a faculty committee. And we all know how this works, right? This is a curriculum reform committee.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, exactly.

[Melissa Murray]

Basically.

[Leah Litman]

Elon Mussen, Vivek Ramaswamy are now associate deans.

[Melissa Murray]

I do love that asked. I'm glad we have each other. Okay.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah. So maybe in light of these, I think we need to recalibrate our expectations for Supreme Court nominations. Like, I think Judge Ho is really underperforming in the race to be as out there as you need to be for a nomination in the Trump 2.0 administration. I mean, I think Justices Cannon and Kashmirik are looking way more plausible. Can't rule out a Justice. Josh Blackmun or maybe Jonathan Mitchell. I think if the Department of Education is allowed to continue to exist, maybe Chris Ruffo as Secretary of Education, Bill Ackman. I mean, again, can't rule these out, I guess. One note about a possibility on the Gates nomination in particular. We talked about different theories for why these nominations might be the way they are, but on Gates in particular, the House Ethnic committee was apparently going to vote on releasing a report described as highly damaging by Jake Sherman at Punchbowl two days after Gates was nominated to be Attorney General and resign from Congress, such that the committee no longer has jurisdiction over him. And I think it's a question about was this an excuse to resign and he might not get confirmed but clear the way for someone else? I mean, I don't know, but there's just a lot going on here.

[Kate Shaw]

I hope the clear the way theory is right. I think that anything that keeps Matt Gaetz out of the Department of Justice would be a great development. But I am. I think that that's.

[Leah Litman]

I'm not. Yeah. Again, it might be like, hey, like, this is an added benefit. Let's shoot for the moon as well.

[Melissa Murray]

Right.

[Kate Shaw]

Why not both.

[Leah Litman]

Right.

[Melissa Murray]

Can I offer a hot take?

[Kate Shaw]

Yes.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

What if Matt Gaetz is actually the perfect person to be ag just because it would just be very difficult for him to get anything done. Anyone who came after him, who was actually plausible would probably be smart enough to do some real damage.

[Kate Shaw]

I just think he is going to be an absolutely willing and subservient attack dog. I think he will go after critics. I think he.

[Melissa Murray]

All of them would, though. I mean.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

No, I just think he's beyond shame and caring. And I think that there are people who are on the list who are. Who would do evil things, but actually might care somewhat about the views of, you know, the existing folks at doj. And I just don't think Gates would. God, Kate.

[Melissa Murray]

Kate.

[Kate Shaw]

I do.

[Melissa Murray]

No, Kate.

[Leah Litman]

Again, like, it might be that in the best case situation, we are hoping for a world where malevolence is tempered by incompetence. To borrow the words of Ben Wittes and Quinta Jurejuk of Lawfare. I think that that was some of what they talked about during the Trump 1.0 administration. But again, that is literally scraping the barrel for any bookmark.

[Melissa Murray]

This we might have to come back to. Maybe Matt was a silver lining.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, we'll see.

[Leah Litman]

Okay.

[Kate Shaw]

Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces, and home technology packages, you can enjoy.

[Leah Litman]

More cozy moments and sweet memories in.

[Kate Shaw]

Your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more at Dr. Dr. Horton, America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.

[Melissa Murray]

Are you an annoying coworker sending emails when everyone else is sleeping?

[Leah Litman]

Do they ask, how do you sleep at night?

[Melissa Murray]

Then you should go to Mattress Firm. They have knowledgeable sleep experts that can help you find a better bed. Like a Tempur Pedic. It has technology to keep you cool at night, meaning anyone, even people like you can sleep all night. Get matched at Mattress Firm. Sleep at night. Restrictions apply. See store website for details. Anyway, that's what's happening in the executive department, the real one, as it were. Let's turn to the judiciary and do some court culture. For real. For real. Real. Okay, what's going on?

[Kate Shaw]

Kate? Briefly, some news out of Louisiana, where a district court judge enjoined a state law that would have required public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Louisiana was the first state in nearly 40 years to enact a mandate on religious displays in schools. The law would have taken effect in January of 2025 and was widely and I think correctly viewed as an effort to tee up a challenge to Engel vs Vital, which is the 1962 Supreme Court decision that prohibited prayer in public schools on the ground that it, it violated the separation of chur state, which is a thing that used to exist.

[Melissa Murray]

In that decision, Judge John D. Gravels, who is an Obama appointee, wrote that the law was, quote, coercive to students and for all practical purposes, they cannot opt out of viewing the Ten Commandments when they are displayed in every classroom every day of the year, every year of their education. End quote. Sounds like a problem for church and state, if that were a thing.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Leah Litman]

I mean, the decision was not unexpected given existing precedent, but it does invite a battle over, you know, the future of said precedents, a battle that will surely end at the Supreme Court. The next step for the case is the fifth Circuit. So what could go wrong now? Time for some recaps?

[Kate Shaw]

Sure. Right.

[Leah Litman]

Okay. Can I just like.

[Melissa Murray]

Time out. Time out. I had such a hard time getting into these cases. Like, I know they matter to lots of people and. But I mean, like, geez Louise, I.

[Kate Shaw]

Think the justices kind of did, too.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah. I think that, look, the cases are important, but again, when you're comparing them to having Matt Gaetz running DOJ and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Running HHS, one thing is going to draw a little bit more attention and concern than the other, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

[Melissa Murray]

So while we were out of the country, someone asked Me. What do you think the scariest part of Project 2025 is? And literally the only thing I could think of was that it's just the first 180 days.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah. Yep.

[Melissa Murray]

Like, that's the scariest part. It's just literally half a year.

[Leah Litman]

Yeah.

[Melissa Murray]

There's more.

[Leah Litman]

Okay, so to the cases. Focus.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah.

[Leah Litman]

Two of the cases the court heard last week. One was Velasquez vs Garland. The case arises out of the fact that non citizens who are present in the United unlawfully and facing deportation can request what is called voluntary departure instead of a removal order under certain circumstances. If that is granted, an individual who follows the court's directive will not be subject to the usual repercussions of deportation. Instead, they might potentially be able to return to the United States more quickly with proper sponsorship, but they must leave the country voluntarily within the period directed. And if they do not, they can be subject to steep fines and be barred from returning to the United States for up to 10 years.

[Melissa Murray]

So what happens when a non citizen's voluntary departure period ends on a weekend or a public holiday, and instead of leaving the country, the non citizen files a motion to reopen the process on the next business day? Well, the 10th Circuit has held that regardless of what day of the week a voluntary departure period expires, the law requires a non citizen moving to reopen or reconsider removal procedures proceedings to file within the calendar day period set in the voluntary departure order.

[Kate Shaw]

That holding, however, conflicted with a 2012 9th Circuit decision holding that when a non citizen's deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or a holiday, the non citizen has until the next business day to file their post decision motion to reopen or to reconsider. And this case, Velasquez vs Garland, gives the court the opportunity to resolve that circuit split. So the petitioner argued that the meaning of the statute has to be consistent with the meaning of other provisions of immigration law and with the practice of immigration authority, which is that when a deadline falls on a public holiday or a weekend, the departure has to happen by the next business day.

[Melissa Murray]

Sounds sensible. However, the Biden administration was actually taking a much more hardline approach, and at least a couple of the justices weren't crazy about some of the choices that the government made at oral argument. So let's roll a clip.

[Leah Litman]

Because Mahara recognizes that reopening and reconsideration.

[Melissa Murray]

Can be subject to review. It doesn't say everything.

[Leah Litman]

So, first, for instance, take an alien who's a soccer fan and says, I want. I move for reconsideration, I want you.

[Melissa Murray]

To include in your opinion the statement, I'm as good of a soccer player as Lionel Messi. I don't think you should trivialize this case. No, this is actually.

[Kate Shaw]

And how do either one of those things make sense? This is a man who's really trying to, like, get the agency to focus on this timeliness determination that has just arisen in his. In the denial of his motion to reopen. He did what I would think the Agency would want him to do.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I will say that where this.

[Leah Litman]

Comes from is the text that is, there's review only of a final order of removal. That's 1252.

[Melissa Murray]

It then goes to Nasrallah, which interpreted final order of removal.

[Leah Litman]

Now, our argument, that's completely not unresponsive.

[Kate Shaw]

To the question that I just asked.

[Leah Litman]

I just have to say, Justice Kagan, if you think Assistant to the Solicitor General Yang is unresponsive, just wait until you hear from Solicitor General Sidney Powell or Alina Haba.

[Melissa Murray]

Release the Kraken. It wasn't just Justice Kagan who appeared frustrated with the federal government. Justice Gorsuch, renowned textualist, also had some words. So let's roll that. All right.

[Leah Litman]

If it's so obvious, how come you didn't raise it below that?

[Melissa Murray]

I can't speak to.

[Leah Litman]

Oh, neither can I. Again, I just have to imagine, like, what the colloquies and cases are going to look like under a Matt Gaetz, Department of Justice.

[Kate Shaw]

I just had this thought. I remember when we had Attorney General Holder on the pod, I think, did we talk about this? There used to be this practice of attorneys general doing, like, one argument, like, you know, just because it's a sort of ceremonial thing that's fun to do and it hasn't been, you know, Holder didn't do it. Lynch didn't do it. Garland didn't do it. Anyway, so.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, Holder said he didn't do it because he was so protest.

[Kate Shaw]

Right. Like the court.

[Melissa Murray]

Shelby County.

[Kate Shaw]

Exactly. It was not the kind of institution he wanted to appear before, you know, and have that kind of respectful exchange. And there, Rosenstein, I think, even though he was the dag, was. And then acting was the one person who did in the Trump administration anyway. Can you fucking imagine Matt Gaetz doing a Supreme Court argument? All right, well, okay, honestly, would watch. Exactly. Would watch. I mean, and maybe he would do it because he, like Trump, is this kind of seeker of negative attention and would probably do it for that reason, because people would. A lot of people would hate watch it and maybe he would enjoy that.

[Melissa Murray]

I would actually love to see Elena King.

[Kate Shaw]

I would love to see that too.

[Melissa Murray]

Embody him.

[Kate Shaw]

Yes.

[Leah Litman]

I'm slightly concerned she would just spontaneously combust instead.

[Melissa Murray]

Also possible, like, cannot compute.

[Leah Litman]

Right, Exactly.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, back to Velasquez for just a minute there. You know, on the substance, a lot of the argument was spent when not pummeling the federal government, discussing whether the court or courts had jurisdiction to hear these cases at all, which hadn't actually been raised below and was only kind of glancingly raised in the briefing before the court. So there was some talk of maybe sending the case back down, which is becoming something of a theme this term, which honestly I'm fine with. Like do nothing, send it all back. I think that's probably the best we can hope for from these clowns much of the time.

[Leah Litman]

Perfect. No.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, next case is Delegati versus United States, which involved a mob related murder. But that actually isn't what the case was about. The question in the case was whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death but can be committed by failing to take action has as an eligible the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force. So put simply, has a defendant used physical force when she hasn't actually done anything? And as in Velasquez, this was definitely a theme of the week. The government took a pretty hardline approach arguing that even in circumstances involving inaction, the defendant has used or attempted to use physical force. And this prompted some very interesting hypotheticals from the justices. And here is one exchange between, between Deputy Solicitor General Eric Fagan and Justice.

[Melissa Murray]

Jackson just piggybacking on what Justice Gorsuch is saying. I guess I'm just trying to understand the government's position on what it means to use physical force against the person of another in an omission case. So let's, let's take this hypothetical. Say you have a lifeguard and she has a duty of care to rescue children in the pool. A kid who she hates, hates, gets into the pool entirely of their own volition. Is it your position that she uses physical force against this kid if she doesn't jump into the water when she sees him drowning?

[Leah Litman]

Yes. So Justice Jackson's question generated whatever this was. So we're just going to play that clip here.

[Kate Shaw]

I mean, I don't know if she.

[Melissa Murray]

I guess the pool is probably not deep enough for her to get crushed and, but it's.

[Leah Litman]

The gravity is dragging her down in the pool. There's an internal process going on in her body.

[Melissa Murray]

Whereby her life is sucked away from her.

[Leah Litman]

I apologize, I'm not a doctor.

[Kate Shaw]

I couldn't quite tell you what happens.

[Leah Litman]

With asphyxiation, but the body's going to be attacking itself there, gasping for air eventually. You know, this description was, like, very relatable for me this past week. I was like, he's describing sensations that. Yes, right. I felt the gravity.

[Kate Shaw]

I really felt. I empathize with Fagan during this exchange because he was like, trying to figure out how exactly to respond to the question and realized he actually, how do you explain drowning? Like, I don't really know. And anyway, he did not do it effectively, although he did speak to something deep in our souls at this moment in time.

[Leah Litman]

Exactly.

[Melissa Murray]

Thank you for that.

[Leah Litman]

Right. You know, as in Velasquez, the federal government had a hard time in this argument as well, although their opening statement was quite confident. As you will hear here, Mr. Fagan.

[Kate Shaw]

Thank you, Mr. Chief justice, and may.

[Melissa Murray]

It please the court.

[Kate Shaw]

It's hard to believe that we're actually here debating whether murder is a crime of violence.

[Leah Litman]

Bold move, Cotton.

[Melissa Murray]

The last case the court heard in this sitting was Nvidia Corp. V. E Omen JJ or fonder AB and as we discussed in our preview, this case concerns two questions related to the Private Securities Litigation Reform act, or pslra. First question is whether plaintiffs seeking to allege center which is fraudulent intent under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents. The second question is whether plaintiffs can plead falsity under the PSLRA by relying on an expert opinion rather than particularized allegations of fact. The case involves Nvidia, which makes computer chips. It is currently the most valuable company in the world. However, its shareholders contend that in 2017 and 2018, the company's CEO, Jensen Huang, hid the fact that its record revenue growth was being driven by crypto mining rather than by sales for gaming. And the investors say that crypto market volatility made the company's finances more precarious when the market crashed in 2018.

[Leah Litman]

So when it enacted the PSLRA in 1995, Congress gave companies certain protections from lawsuits by shareholders. Specifically, the law requires lawsuits to include key allegations with particularity, including details to show that company officials knew they were misleading investors. Here, the investors maintain that their complaint met this standard. Here is Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler, who argued on behalf of the investors.

[Melissa Murray]

He reviewed sales data every week, every month, and in quarterly meetings that one witness described as proctologist exams because they were so detailed. The nature of his responses, I think is critical here. He, as I said earlier, when he was asked by analysts about the crypto demand, he didn't say, you know, we don't know or I don't know. He quantified the statements he was making and he didn't express uncertainty. He gave very specific figures that again contradicted the data.

[Kate Shaw]

So Nvidia argues that the lawsuit's allegations are not pled with particularity, but rather are based heavily on an analysis by an economic consulting firm rather than the factual allegations required under the 1995 statute. Nvidia also says that shareholders don't have to point to the contents of company documents to bolster claims that Huang's public statements were inconsistent with internal reports. And here is Nvidia's lawyer, Neil Katyal.

[Leah Litman]

Mr. Wong is not running a Ponzi scheme.

[Melissa Murray]

We're talking about one of the most.

[Leah Litman]

Respected CEOs of a dramatically important company.

[Melissa Murray]

It does seem that Nvidia can count on at least one vote. Let's roll the tape. What motive could he have for making a statement that is so far off?

[Kate Shaw]

And that is, if you are correct.

[Melissa Murray]

If the over a billion dollars figure is correct, is surely going to be going to come to light with severe consequences. That's the argument my friends make, and I think you could have made no.

[Kate Shaw]

What's wrong with it?

[Melissa Murray]

What exactly is wrong with it? I would like to know too, Justice Alito, what exactly? It wasn't just Justice Alito, though, who seemed sympathetic to Nvidia's position. The Chief justice also noted that when Congress enacted the pslra, it was with the intent to limit frivolous lawsuits by raising the bar for pleadings in shareholder suits. So, not clear where this is going, but it does seem it may be a narrower understanding of what it means to plead with particularity. In other court related news, Ted Olson, the former Solicitor General, Supreme Court advocate and a a prominent member of the Federalist Society, passed away last Wednesday morning. Olson rose to prominence as the lawyer for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, and he later served as Bush's Solicitor General. Although he was a noted conservative, Olson's career took some surprising turns alongside David Boies, his one time adversary. In Bush v. Gore, Olson litigated a challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative that withdrew the right to sanction same sex marriage in that state after victories in the Northern District of California in the 9th Circuit, Olson and Boies litigated the challenge all the way to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it on standing grounds. And although they did not succeed in obtaining a victory on the merits, that case is widely credited with paving the way for Obergefell versus Hodges, which was decided two years later. Olson's stance on marriage equality was not always well regarded in conservative circles. And as a lifelong Republican, he also provoked conservative ire when he defended dreamers in the Trump administration's efforts to rescind daca. He was a very complicated person in that regard. I will just say that I taught with Ted at a couple of seminars in the Aspen Institute Socrates program and got to know him pretty well. And I will just say at the outset, I was not expecting to like Ted very much, given how different our politics were. But he was just a really lovely, lovely person. Very open minded. We did not always agree on everything. And there were certainly moments where I was like, nope, nope, I definitely don't agree with that. And I'm sure he said the same. But he was really warm and open minded and open hearted and spoke so lovingly of his family, his wife, Lady Booth, Olson. And at a time when we just seem, like, mired in divisions that kind miss people like that.

[Leah Litman]

I just had one additional thought. Sorry, this is, like, going to be in a totally different tone and register. Do you think there are going to be, like, dead bears around HHS now? Like, you're just going to, like, walk into hhs?

[Melissa Murray]

Wow, that's a really big fucking pivot, Leah. Rest in peace.

[Kate Shaw]

I just refuse to believe he's going to be the HHS secretary. I don't. I don't feel optimistic about anything. And Gates? I don't know. The rest of them, I'm sure are going in, but I just. I just feel like there will be some crazy developments that will mean he's not ever walking in the front door of that building. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. It most likely is, but.

[Leah Litman]

Okay. Well, even if he's not walking in the front door, he still might leave. Bear.

[Kate Shaw]

Bear carcasses. That's true. The two could both be true.

[Melissa Murray]

I mean, whale juice in the fridge. I mean, speaking of beverages, before we go, I just want to shout out Tiffany at the Smith in Lincoln center, who is not only a faithful, strict scrutiny listener, she makes an excellent Martha. Rita, I just want to shout you out. Tiffany, thank you so much. You made my Tuesday night. And I see you queen. And I appreciate all the salt that you rimmed that glass with because, yes, it was salty, like its namesake. Thank you.

[Kate Shaw]

All right, that's all we've got. For today, the world keeps spinning and so does the court. And so do we. For now.

[Leah Litman]

Should say, like, one thing if you want to hear more from us. I think we've kind of shifted social media platforms where we are. I think all three of us are now primarily over at Bluer Skies on Blue Sky. So my handle is the same bluesky. I'm just Leah Litman. The podcast is also there. That is just strict scrutiny. So you can find.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, I had to have a number in my Twitter handle, but it's. I'm just Kate Shaw at Blue Sky. What about you? Are you Prof.

[Melissa Murray]

I'm Prof. M. Murray everywhere. Every single place. Love it, Prof. M. Murray.

[Kate Shaw]

But Blue sky, the vibes have been good. I like. I. I think it is.

[Leah Litman]

It feels like.

[Kate Shaw]

I mean, I'm. I'm always a little bit light as a poster. I just dip my toe in occasionally. But I've definitely been checking it and seems really useful.

[Melissa Murray]

I've been on a social media diet. It's just been hard. Like, Twitter used to give me joy and now it just makes me sad. And, like, I'm trying to get into Blue sky. Just. I just don't have the heart for it right now.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, that's fair. But I think if you give it a chance, it might give you some joy, too. Yeah.

[Leah Litman]

You should be patient with yourself. Like, Kate and I, I don't know, I feel like I was emoting really hard last week and I feel like. I don't know if this was also true for you, Kate. Like, I got several messages from people.

[Kate Shaw]

Being like, are you okay?

[Leah Litman]

Are you okay?

[Kate Shaw]

Right.

[Leah Litman]

I hope you're doing well. And, like, I was not really able to do much, if anything, last week, so. Yeah, just be patient, Melissa. Like, we got you. I'm glad you're back, and we'll get you there.

[Melissa Murray]

What does it say about me that I went away with my husband to celebrate our 20th anniversary and I was still so sad and now I'm back with you guys and I feel a little better.

[Kate Shaw]

What about. It's not. I don't think. Yes. But I don't think it's Josh related. I think it's just not him. Time.

[Leah Litman]

Time does somehow it is time.

[Melissa Murray]

It's been a week.

[Kate Shaw]

It's been a week.

[Leah Litman]

It's really time. And also, like, register, you know, I feel like we talked a little bit about this last week, Kate, but, you know, this is enough to just make you crazy and beat you down and there just have to be different ways of coping with it and pushing back and, and humor and like mocking these absolute unqualified dipshit fascist clowns. Right. Like that's sometimes helpful.

[Kate Shaw]

It is. It can be cathartic.

[Melissa Murray]

I've always found it to be more cathartic than the pussy hat, personally.

[Leah Litman]

Yes, yes.

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah. One more thing before we go. Are you wondering what comes next? Well, Stacey Abrams is going to talk with historian Heather Cox Richardson to see how history can guide guide us forward. Together they dive into strategies for countering disinformation, harnessing states rights, and how past eras can inspire progress today. Plus, Stacy answers audience questions on getting involved and impacting your community in this post election environment. Don't give up. Get on your pods and listen to the latest episode of Assembly Required Now. Or you can watch it on YouTube.

[Leah Litman]

And for a different take, last week on Hysteria, Erin and Alyssa brought together journalist Erin Haynes, activist Julissa Arce and comedian Megan Gailey to talk post election. Hear their takes on what it really takes for a woman to become president. To women voting for abortion rights while supporting anti abortion candidates. They cover it all. And since women are divorcing their MAGA husbands, is it finally time to unfriend your Trump supporting friends? They've got answers. Listen to Hysteria now or head to their YouTube channel for full episodes and more.

[Melissa Murray]

All right Kate, send us home.

[Kate Shaw]

I will. 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. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Madeline Herringer and ari Schwartz. Matt DeGroat is our head of production and thanks to our digital team, Phoebe Bradford and Joe Matoski. Subscribe to strict scrutiny on YouTube. To catch full episodes. Find us at YouTube.com strictscrutinypodcast and 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. Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy.

[Leah Litman]

More cozy moments and sweet memories in.

[Kate Shaw]

Your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more at Dr. Dr. Horton, America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder. Nobody does selling better than Shopify Home of the number one checkout on the planet.

[Leah Litman]

The Shop Pay feature even boosts conversions up to 50%. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or struggle. Rolling Upgrade your business and get the same checkout top brands like all birds use.

[Kate Shaw]

Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com podcast free.

[Leah Litman]

All lowercase go to shopify.com podcast free to upgrade your selling today.