A New Term of Supreme Chaos

23:27Okay, so my other theme slash big picture thought is going to require a somewhat extended, perhaps conspiratorial sounding rant that will might involve me talking for a bit and probably quickly. So just bear with me. Like, this is what happens when you are a conspiracy theorist. But my thought was, even taking the events of just the last few weeks, I've been struck by how much the court is to blame for, at least partially, and how they're also probably going to make it all somehow even worse. So the president announced he was moving ahead with the plans for a triumphal arch that veterans say will sully Arlington Memorial Cemetery.

24:04And the president has deemed this a national security matter. And it's like, where did he pick up the notion that simply saying national security three times lets him conjure up fascism and do whatever he wants? The Supreme Court, which had a shadow docket order over the summer in the ballroom case. That's a clue reference because, as I said, this is going to get conspiratorial. But in the ballroom case, the court stayed a lower court injunction blocking the construction. And the Supreme Court gestured to the laughable executive branch declarations, waving their hands and saying, oh, yeah, ballroom, key for national security.

24:32Sick parties, key for national security. And so the president just truce out, quote, at the strong request of the United States military and for national security, that's capitalized purposes. I have agreed to convert the magnificent triumphal arch into a top-grade military complex slash triumphal arch to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones plus snipers and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition. This is obviously BS, but he said the magic bar is national security. So maybe it's fine. He has reason to think it will be fine. And also maybe they will just say he has a Second Amendment right to stockpile drones.

25:07You know, again, not to manifest, but I'm sure they're thinking it. But to be fair to them, the Korematsu court did start all of this. And being fair to them is that they are reinvigorating Korematsu. Well, even though they killed it. First they killed it, then they reinvigorated it. But to be fair. At the same time. Also on the national security front, the president attempted to justify his ban on the press, namely MSNOW, CNN and Politico, on national security grounds, which was really interesting. because first it was that they were doing fake news, but apparently fake news and national security are the same thing when you translate it in your Google Trump translator.

25:45Anyway, why not, right? Why not just convert viewpoint discrimination into a legitimate concern about national security? We're going to talk about the press ban later with Erin Haines. I mean, they already kind of did that in the TikTok case. A hundred percent. We will get into all of this with Erin Haines, so please stay tuned for that. Also on the national security front, the D.C. Circuit picked up the bat signal. They rejected Anthropic's challenge to the Defense Department's exclusion of Anthropic's AI from DoD's supply chain when the DoD said it was a national security threat. But really, after Anthropic tried to raise concerns about the DoD using their product to create autonomous weapons, that was really the national security concern that Anthropic was making noise about what the DoD was doing.

26:31And if the president says that's a national security problem, it's not for courts to second guess. You got to say it three times and hope the candy man doesn't come up. I hear you, Melissa, now becoming part of my tinfoil hat brigade because there's still more. You know, also last week, this isn't on national security, but something else the court has made worse. Last week, federal immigration officers shot and wounded another person, Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez. According to witness accounts, the shooting was likely seemingly unprovoked. unprovoked. They may have shot him after ramming into his car, perhaps, and as part of a traffic stop.

27:04And then they also allegedly refused to render aid or allow others to do so. And again, it's like embolden immigration enforcement using excessive force that seems to target people based on their apparent race or ethnicity. Yes, I am speaking your name, Brett Kavanaugh. This is a Kavanaugh stop. Yeah, so I think you can draw a clear line from the court's blessing of those tactics on the ground in Los Angeles and these continued uses of this excessive force as we just saw last week. So it's also possible that this term, the court, might double down and make all of the potential for these government abuses even worse because on their docket is a very scary case asking the court to formally overrule Bivens.

27:45That's the 1970s case that allows you to sue some federal officers for damages when they violate your constitutional rights, although in now very, very limited circumstances. The court in recent years has all but cabined Bivens and the two other cases that authorized damages suits against federal officers for violating constitutional rights to their very particular facts. And now this term, the case Nielsen versus Watanabe provides the court with an opportunity to just overrule Bivens outright, give federal officers even more immunity, make them even less accountable. This case arises in the context of a claim where officers allegedly denied an incarcerated person medical care.

28:21So if you thought it couldn't get worse on unaccountable federal officials, it very much could. And the specific facts of that case before the Supreme Court actually call to mind the shooting I was talking about because what happened to Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez? He was allegedly left to sleep on the floor of a jail with a bullet still lodged in his body, similar to Watanabe. And the older case, the Supreme Court is being asked to overrule that had said you can sue federal officers who deny you medical care while you are detained. But the court is, I think, likely to say, actually, no accountability for federal officers sounds great to us.

28:56Yeah. For what it's worth, when it's had this opportunity in recent terms, it is basically stopped short of outright overruling Bivens and those other cases and just read them exceedingly narrowly. But I think you're right. I think there is reason to fear that this court is almost accelerating in certain respects the things that it has tried to slow walk like this line of cases. So I wouldn't at all be surprised if they just did the damn thing in this case. So speaking of unaccountable and emboldened officials, the Times reported that federal officials are drafting an executive order that would give President Trump explicitly the ability to control billions of dollars in scientific grants funded by the National Institutes of Health.

29:35So just to make that clear, this would be rather than having experts with scientific training, award grants on the basis of expertise, science, likelihood, the benefit to humanity, the Trump administration is probably going to put some doge bro and or white nationalist in charge of approving and vetoing grants because they do or do not align with the administration's priorities. And I ask you, ladies, where could the executive branch have gotten the idea that they could withhold money Congress had allocated, intrude on Congress's power of the purse, generally violate federal law. Melissa. I know the answer.

30:08They learned it from watching you, John Roberts. They learned it from watching you. Dad. We have to remember to call him dad. Daddy John Roberts. They learned it from watching you, dad. So I am glad we are now all in club conspiracy because it makes me feel less alone because there's even more unitary executive theory fallout slash So a ways back, Trump killed an anti-corruption investigation by killing an entire seemingly anti-corruption unit. Kind of unsurprising that after the Supreme Court, in its apostasy of an immunity opinion, insisted that the president has plenary powers over law enforcement, that the president might choose to do something like this.

30:45Perhaps more surprising is that this episode might have ensnared, get this, Susan Collins, concern levels through the fucking roof.

30:58True, true. This new reporting comes from ProPublica, which really takes can't stop, won't stop to a whole nother level. This is wild. They're just doing incredible work. So the specific investigation that ProPublica was reporting on here, the one that the president killed, was looking at whether campaign finance laws had been violated. There were allegations that in 2020, a corporation illegally funneled money to Susan Collins' campaign, specifically that a government contractor, someone who is prohibited from making campaign contributions, allegedly routed almost$200 ,000 to a Collins super PAC via a shell company.

31:34And folks, if we just hop back into our hot tub time machine, you'll remember that 2020 was when Senator Susan Collins was facing her last tough re-election. Hmm. And anyway, according to this reporting from ProPublica, the transfer of funds to the Collins Super PAC took place after the head of said Super PAC met with that government contractor. Indeed, ProPublica reviewed an email from the head of the Collins Super PAC to the government contractor in which the head of the Collins Super PAC characterized the decision to funnel the funds through a shell company as, quote, very smart. Stringer Bell would say...

32:17Exactly! Don't want to write that down. But also, I truly hope these people never watch The Wire because I would like them to continue violating Stringer Bell's rules. It seems pretty clear that they don't. So they're just going to keep writing this down. So ProPublica also detailed an email from a Collins Super PAC subordinate to a lobbyist in which the subordinate requested from the lobbyist the telephone number of the government contractor who allegedly orchestrated the transfer from the shell company. Why did the subordinate need the government contractor's phone number? Because allegedly Susan Collins wanted to thank the contractor.

32:51And guys, let me just remind everyone that's not illegal. It is not illegal to thank someone for doing something nice. It is not illegal to thank someone for doing something nice, which is why we saw the president of the United States at the State of the Union go up to one John Roberts and say, thank you. I won't forget. Indeed. Anyway, well, I mean, it's slightly different because Donald Trump was apparently thanking John Roberts for reasons. I don't know. So ProPublica's reporting alleges that Senator Collins may have been thanking the contractor for an entirely different reason. So according to the reporting, Collins subsequently steered more than$30 million in government contracts to the contractor's company.

33:37Senator Collins, of course, vigorously denies this. She may also be concerned about where ProPublica is getting its facts. Apparently, you should not talk to someone who has been convicted and rely on their word. I know someone who's been convicted 34 times. Would like a word. Would like a word about that. Speaking of which, let's get back to the it's all connected. Right. I do think the court partially unleashed this in their immunity opinion, signaling to the president he has plenary control over law enforcement. They also partially greenlit this by just demolishing anti-corruption statutes.

34:14But this is, I think, the part where I really feel like the guy in the meme at the whiteboard, you know, is crazy pointing to all of these connections because who, according to ProPublica, got involved in the attempt to cover up the campaign finance issues that sprang up around this alleged transfer? Allegedly, one Cleta Mitchell. Listeners, you'll probably remember Ms. Mitchell from the elite strike force legal team aiding Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election. Release the Kraken. That was her. Yep. But back to the campaign finance and blaming the Supreme Court. I'm trying to stay focused.

34:50But again, guy at the whiteboard pointing at all of the connections. The insane campaign spending and campaign spending asymmetries that we are seeing, including some that is going to try to bury the Susan Collins story. It includes the fact that the Dems are being outspent because the Republican National Committee has so much more cash on hand. Some$200 million was spent by Republican super PACs in the first half of September. Here in Michigan, I cannot turn on my TV without seeing an ad attacking Abdul Syed or an ad praising Mike Rogers. Well, some of that is because of RNC versus FEC. That was the court's decision last June that allowed candidates to coordinate with party committees about how party committees spend their insane war chests.

35:30And because the court, in a recent shadow docket order that Rashad Robinson and I just discussed a couple of weeks ago on the pod, allowed the Federal Communications Commission to demand that broadcasters give the party committees huge discounts on ads, which just exacerbates the spending asymmetries between the parties. So, again, the Supreme Court, like a doula, I'm ready to catch this baby. Let's go. But let's just say those are obviously the most recent installments. But obviously, the 2010 Citizens United case, right, really is. The subsequent, yes. And the, yeah, D.C. circus. I mean, that's evergreen, Kate.

36:02I know, but I'm just saying, like, it's, yes, these are obviously important tweaks. Say the name. So Citizens United, speak now, right? These cases that are— McCutcheon. That actually created the infrastructure of this super PAC world that we are all living in. Like, that's where these hundreds of millions of dollars are coming from. And we are likely to see hundreds more pour in sort of airwaves across the country in the next six weeks. And it's because of SCOTUS. And if you're wondering whether this could get worse, that sound you hear is one Samuel Alito revving up a diesel gas guzzling engine to pour some greenhouse gases into the ozone, pounding some roided up energy drinks while saying to the other justices, lady and gentlemen, start your engines.

36:43It's time to determine who America's most powerful corporation and next most fascist justice will be. Do you take any solace in their diesel engines being extremely expensive to fill right now? No, because I'm sure they're just funded by their billionaire benefactors. Probably right. Harlan Crowe just like pulls up a whole tanker of diesel. He just like fills it up right there. Yeah, that's probably right. OK, so let's provide a little bit of detail in terms of what the cases that we're talking about look like. There are a number about corporate power and possibly corporate immunity. These cases offer the court yet more opportunities to give corporations a pass from legal liability, which could mean more money in corporations' pockets.

37:23So let's tick through them. First, in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley, the court will decide whether to throw out the Department of Labor's adjudicatory scheme for collecting money from employers who allegedly withhold wages from workers. Sounds cool. Right, exactly. And then there's Suncor Energy versus county commissioners of Boulder County, where the court will determine whether oil companies are immune from state tort lawsuits alleging harms from climate change. You know, it's whether federal law preempts these state tort lawsuits. Please also note that Sam Alito has stock in Exxon and refuses to recuse from this case.

37:56This guy is totally digmatized by the oil and gas industry. So much so that I'm sure that in true Taylor Swift fashion, Sam Alito is going to record a new song called Oiled. Ew. But again, the fact that there are these clear parallels to what Sam Alito might do and this album speaks volumes. You deserved a nice thing right now, Leah. That was for you, Leah. You deserved some good songs, and I'm sorry that that didn't happen. But she has a good song, Coming Down the Pike, Oiled, by Sam Alito. I really look forward to that. I don't.

38:33Could be about skincare. We don't know what it's about. I don't know. Anyway. Or lude. While on the topic of SCOTUS ethics. That was the subtext, Leah. Subtext. No, but this is the problem. It's like this album, right, makes everything so explicit and press. Like it's not even fun or witty. It's true. But we don't have to do that. I think we just did. All right. While on the topic of SCOTUS ethics, or lack thereof, corruption, let's just talk about it. Can I just note that the president last week hosted a state dinner with President Xi of China? And who were some of the individuals invited to attend this monumental state event at the White House?

39:16Well, not the folks you think of, not the folks you might think would be invited. Instead, the folks on the list that we would be interested in knowing about included noted institutionalist John G. Roberts and his wife, Jane. Not just the chief justice, though. Also included among the party was Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband, Jesse, as well as Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Can I have beer instead of this champagne? As well as his wife, Ashley. Do you think the president attempted to go up to them and ask them, why are you such shells of the people you used to be? Like he posted in that True Social.

39:57Why these guys is my question. Especially because it's the ballroom and, you know, it's not in the ballroom because there is no full ballroom yet. But like, I think it was just in one of those tents. I think that's where this state dinner was. But Roberts, Barrett, it's an interesting choice. Like, why not Thomas and Alito? You think he invited them and they declined? I wouldn't be surprised. You think they declined? I don't know. Why would they decline? I bet Ginny Thomas would love to be at something like that. I do see why Brett Kavanaugh was invited. I mean, like the learning resources. Yes.

40:25Major questions doctrine doesn't apply in foreign affairs. Like, that's the guy. But Barrett and Roberts have sold him out in several cases. I don't know. I mean, I still think immunity opinion number one in his book. So, yeah, I don't know. Won't forget it. Exactly. Won't forget it. So I am glad we are all bringing big, big conspiracy energy to the podcast now. And in this list of all the things the Supreme Court has allowed, facilitated, enabled, I didn't even touch on the administration's alleged violations, apparent violations of court orders. You know, on the media press ban, where even after a lower court invalidated the president's revocation of MS Now and other outlets' press credentials, MS Now reporters were still barred entry, at least for some time.

41:08Or on TBD, the third country removal case, where the administration seemed to again be putting people on planes off to third countries, even after courts issued additional decisions limiting them. Additionally, on Friday, a federal judge held the Trump administration in contempt for deporting a man to El Salvador in violation of not one, not two, but three court orders. And I think the court is partially to blame for this noncompliance, given that they have repeatedly given the administration equitable, extraordinary relief from lower court orders that the administration has plausibly violated without saying so much as a word about any alleged noncompliance.

41:42Let's just maybe say a couple more words about the DVD case. We talked about it quite a bit during the first year of the second Trump administration. So in 2025, at issue here are the administration's efforts to deport individuals to third countries. So that's places where they have no relationship with, where they may be, and reporting suggests that some have been subject to brutal and inhumane conditions, including torture. This truly was one of the most egregious abuses of the shadow docket. During that first year of Trump 2.0, the court, with zero reasoning, allowed the administration to continue these removals, even though a lower court, in a carefully reasoned opinion, had found them likely unlawful.

42:16And to repeat this, and Leah has already said it, SCOTUS could not be bothered to say literally one word about that lower court conclusion and why it was wrong. And then the next day, SCOTUS reiterated that, yes, the administration could keep sending people to third countries. The district court should get out of the way. OK, so that was all preliminary, the very early stages of litigation. Now the same district court has issued a final judgment in validating the policy, and the administration is back before SCOTUS a third time, begging to be allowed to resume these horrifying deportations. And if passed is prologue, the court will let them.

42:49I don't think it's overstating things to say that DBD was one of the worst decisions ever issued on the shadow docket. And the fact that it's now back at the court might have been on Justice Jackson's mind when she delivered some remarks, including about the shadow docket last week. So she said, quote, we cannot expect the public to have faith in our judicial system if, without clear explanation, we are consistently greenlighting harmful acts that do real damage to litigating plaintiffs. A whole word. But while we are on the topic of crimes against humanity, I think now will be the time when I briefly share additional thoughts about life of a showgirl encore, because I do have additional thoughts in addition to the ones I have already shared.

43:31My bottom line, in addition to those I've already revealed, is that the album makes me want to walk into the ocean or impale my own ears and brain with rusty metal, so I am never again subjected to this dribble. I personally think Max Martin should both be embarrassed and eventually forced to answer for his crimes, which include the bad rap randomly inserted on Pink Clouding, the Patient Zero Bridge, which I've already noted, and the entire fucking song of Cleveland. I am personally offended on a very deep level that sonically, Cleveland calls to mind folklore in the opening. So it's not just a bad song.

44:09It's a bad song that tarnishes what was good. Like, lyrically— Folklore is still good. It's not affected by this. No, it is mentally in my brain, right? I will think of Cleveland now when I hear the opening passage of Last Great American Dynasty. Also, these are love songs to the extent, and they are more about what the world sees in their relationship than what she sees in him. Except a woman. Yes. Okay. It is largely about perception, but I will say two things. One, he already took me to Cleveland is a fucking funny line. That is a funny line. Unintentionally. Unintentionally. But deeply. Unclear she's in on the joke.

44:45Maybe not. But also, you know, there is some kind of internal logic to it. So the line, you only need to find one person in this entire world who doesn't find you completely insufferable, and I have an important announcement to make, that is about her and her relationship. And the song is awful, but I sort of found that charming. Here's the thing. It could have been interesting to explore this disparity between having this deep, satisfying, warm, personal connection that's on the inside and the rest of the world hating you. But she already did that and did it well in reputation. and the fact that like the woman who wrote evermore is now saying this is the love of my life hey hey hey like make he likes what he likes and he likes me like the like you all don't like me but ha i got married i know it's yeah it's not some big own and also i take it pink clouding is like an apology to tom hiddleston oh but she's gonna have to apologize to him all over again because of the song or at least because of the random rap.

45:47And I just feel like if no one around you is willing to tell you these hard truths, I volunteer to do so. The album could have been amusing had it just been released as like a spite album. Oh, you all hated this. I'm going to give you even more of it. And I just, in conclusion, you know who I bet likes this album? Brett Kavanaugh. Yeah, because that's how dumb it is. Oh. That's all. Oh, you think Charlie likes it? Because it's so bad. Charlie X, he has to like this bitch. Yeah. Oh, yeah. My haters destroy themselves. Totally. Yeah. The point about marriage as an own, may I just refer you to some really fantastic work done by a young and promising scholar called Marriage is Punishment?

46:29But like this marriage is punishment for me. That's an early Melissa. That title was a banger. It really was. As is the entire article. Yeah. I was just thinking. An award-winning article. Absolutely. And rightly so. Just to bring this back to not SCOTUS, but Trump, the state visit from President Xi, I think, caused, I think, a lot of people to observe that it is just so rare in history that you see a great power self-immolate. Like, great powers fall, but usually because of some external force. Anyway, I dropped that observation in the context of our Taylor convo for what it is worth. Self-immolation going on everywhere.

47:05Apparently. Except for the Supreme Court, at least in the short term. Maybe ultimately that's what's happening there. I don't know. I've got a new article in me, supermajorities as punishment. When we come back, Melissa is going to talk to Erin Haynes. She's the president of the National Association of Black Journalists and co-host of Crooked's Long Play podcast. She and Melissa are going to talk about news outlets suing the president for continued press access.

47:32This episode of Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Alloy Health. Let's be honest, aging can come with some unwelcome changes. Sleep disruptions, hot flashes, brain fog, weight gain, and decreased libido can hit you hard. Menopause is inevitable, but it's also treatable. Almost half of women go three plus years before seeking relief from menopausal or paramenopausal symptoms. Most don't even know where to go for a solution. That's where Alloy comes in. Alloy is a digital health platform that connects you with a menopause specialized doctor to feel and look your best in midlife. Your doctor will help you find the best, safe, science-backed treatments for your symptoms, for skin, hair, weight, and sexual wellness delivered to your door.

48:13Everything is done online from the comfort of your home, so there's no waiting for an appointment or in line at the pharmacy. Alloy is fast, accessible, and their treatments work. Here's how it works. First, you complete your intake. Alloy solutions are available by prescription, so you first need to complete an intake form. Once you do that, you will receive a treatment plan from your doctor because you are going to be matched with a menopause-specialized physician who will create a personalized treatment plan tailored to your specific needs. Plus, you will have unlimited access to your doctor, so you can message your doctor at any time.

48:46Then you'll get your three-month supply. Once you're approved, Alloy will then ship your prescription directly to your door with automatic refills. Join the 95 % of women who tried HRT through Alloy and saw relief in the first two weeks. Head over to myalloy.com and use the code STRICT and tell them all about your symptoms, and you'll get a fully customized treatment plan and unlimited messaging with your doctor. Plus, you'll get 20 % off your first order today. Head over to myalloy.com and use code STRIK to get 20 % off your first order. This code is valid on products only. Strict Beauty is brought to you by Jones Road Beauty.

49:25Here's the thing about aging, folks. It's not just about finding a skincare routine that works for you. It's also about finding a makeup routine that works as well. Because as you get older, you develop fine lines and wrinkles, makeup can actually be a challenge, maybe even a problem, as it seeps into those fine lines, making you look less fresh. That is why I love Jones Road Beauty. It's so refreshing when you have a product that actually enhances your skin instead of just caking on layers of makeup. The Jones Road Miracle Balm is just that. It's an absolute miracle that allows you to get a glowy look in under a minute, and it has earned a permanent spot in my everyday makeup routine.

50:04I can just dab a little bit on my cheeks, look a little bit more alive than I did before and keep it moving. So if you've already simplified your routine with Miracle Bomb, Jones Road just launched another product that's going to fit right into your streamlined makeup routine. Their new minimalist defining mascara is all about enhancing your natural lashes, not covering them up. The flexible silicone wand separates every lash for a soft, feathery look that makes it easy to coat every single lash, even those tiny lashes in the inside corners. Jones Road, modern day makeup that's clean, strategic, and multifunctional for effortless routines.

50:41And for a limited time, our listeners are getting a free full-size mascara on their first purchase when they use the code STRICT at checkout. Just head to jonesroadbeauty.com, use code STRICT at checkout, and after your purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please tell them that you heard about Jones road from the effortlessly glowing ladies of strict scrutiny with their miracle bombs. Thank you.

51:12Listeners, Leah and Kate and I briefly discussed the president's media ban on CNN, MSNOW, and Politico. Those news outlets promptly filed suit against the administration in response from being denied access to the White House grounds. And in multiple acts of solidarity, Law firms, you could take a note from this. 49 additional media organizations, including CBS News, Fox News and The New York Times, filed a supporting legal brief in that litigation. And as importantly, the major TV networks withdrew from the rotating White House press pool in a rare joint protest. So a lot of solidarity among the news because everyone understands that this is an attack on the press and it's not just an attack on liberal press.

51:56It can be turned around to attack all press. Anyway, District of Columbia District Judge Timothy Kelly issued an order late Wednesday night blocking the president's ban for 14 days. Given everything that is going on, we thought that we should bring in someone who could talk with us about the press and someone who is not only a member of the press, but perhaps has a really vested interest in freedom of the press. And I couldn't think of anyone better than our good friend Erin Haynes. Erin is no stranger to the Crooked Media Network. She is an award-winning political journalist, the editor-at-large and co-founder of The 19th, a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on the intersection of race, gender and politics.

52:36She is a co-host of The Long Play, and she currently serves as the 24th president of the National Association of Black Journalists. Erin, welcome to Strict Scrutiny. Let's get to it. Oh, my gosh. Thank you so much for having me. And thanks for wanting to talk about this, right? I mean, you don't have to be a black journalist to care about black journalists. So thanks. Well, let's start there. So Lonnie Guineer and Gerald Torres, both fantastic law professors, once wrote that people of color are often the canary in the coal mine for injustices. which is to say that people of color may experience it first, but it ultimately then trickles down to everyone.

53:12Given your experience representing black journalists as the president of the NABJ, were you surprised to see the president block selected outlets from the White House? What has his past behavior been with journalists? Yeah, no, the short answer is absolutely not, right? And even before I'm president of the National Association of Black Journalists, right, I'm old enough to remember 2016 when President Trump was in office the first time around. And he was targeting who? Black women journalists. Jamel Hill, April Ryan, Yamiche Alcindor. He's calling them out in press conferences from the press briefing room and talking about Black women journalists who are doing their jobs, by the way, with professionalism, with integrity, with excellence every single day.

53:52And yet, you know, because they are asking questions, by the way, on behalf of the American people, he is trying to disparage them. He's trying to discredit them. And in that time, there were no consequences. There weren't people that were really pushing back against that behavior. And so, you know, fast forward a decade later when he is continuing to single out women journalists, also Black women journalists, Rachel Scott, Kayla Gardner, Jasmine Wright and others. He's he's singling these people out. Their colleagues are not pushing back against this in real time. The White House Correspondents Association not standing up for them.

54:26And so, you know, it has taken some time. The Associated Press, when they refused to refer to the Gulf of America and they were kicked out of the press pool and their colleagues did not stand with them at that time. They stood alone when they pushed back and said, no, we're not going to do that. Right. And they litigated and that litigation is still ongoing. Correct. I mean, but like they pursued legal action. They didn't have anybody standing with them in that moment. And so all of that, because there have not been consequences for years, right, because this was allowed to become somewhat normalized, you know, at the highest levels of our government, absolutely.

54:59Why wouldn't he think that he can curate, right? Like who gets to be asking questions from the White House, from the People's House? So the president's ban is obviously animated by his objections to how he is covered by various outlets, the kind of questions that these black women journalists were asking. And to be very clear, that's viewpoint discrimination. Like you can't ban people from the press pool because you don't like what they're saying or the questions that they're asking, even if you dress it up as a national security concern. So I think we should just say it is unlikely that the president's arguments will be availing in court.

55:38But I think there is a bigger question about what happens outside of courtrooms, which is to say this president's actions on the press may have repercussions in the court of public opinion. So how do you think this is registering with ordinary Americans and their understanding of the media and how it works and what its role is as an accountability institution for this president? Yeah, absolutely. Look, I mean, I think that is one, a potentially good thing that has come out of this unfortunate situation, and that is people paying more attention to the First Amendment and the importance of the First Amendment.

56:11Yes, absolutely that. And also that this is about, I mean, attacks on press freedom, attacks on journalists being able to hold power to account actually erode the public's right to know, right? If these journalists are not in the room asking questions of the president on behalf of the American people, they're still going to try to do their jobs. Obviously, you saw those those same journalists outside of the White House gates still trying to report on what the administration is doing. But like the idea, I think Americans are seeing, oh, what is it that the administration that this president doesn't want the American people to know about what he is doing?

56:48I think that is the message that's translating for a lot of the American people right now. Look, we know journalism is not this country's favorite profession. And yet they can understand what the impact may be to them if journalists are not able to do their jobs. And you think people are really cottoning on to that right now because, like, people don't trust the media. Like, they think that the media is siloed, that Fox is for him and MSNOW is for the other team. And they really don't believe that there's truth, that, like, I mean, they're getting their news from a wide array of sources, not all of them reputable.

57:20Does this further erode the way people think about the media? And does it endanger the idea that the media is one of the few mechanisms that we have right now to call this administration to account? Well, I think that's definitely the risk. And I think that that's part of why the president continues to call journalism fake news and talk about the press as the enemy of the people. It is because the relationship between a healthy democracy and a healthy press, I mean, you don't have one without the other, right? So if you can discredit a free and representative press in a democracy, then you are eroding the entire institution.

57:58My hope is that people are beginning to become more aware of the relationship between journalism and democracy, that an attack on journalism is an attack on democracy in this country. So to that point, I thought one of the things that was so striking about the Chinese state visit was the president actually lauding the Chinese press and President Xi's control, autocratic control over the Chinese press. I don't think we've ever had an American president say something like that, like actually look to an autocratic nation and say, like, I'll have what he's having. Yes, it's usually people around the world look at our press and our free press as an example of how this can work.

58:42I mean, this is another reason why journalists in the White House asking questions of power every single day, the world sees that. It is not just that the American people are seeing that. The world is seeing that in this country, in a democracy, you have journalists who are able to ask questions of the most powerful person in the country, arguably in the world, right? That is not the case in every country in the world. But that is what countries understand or what they have historically understood as what it means to be part of a democracy. One of the things that this administration has done that probably doesn't get as much notice as it should is that it is completely recast the Voice of America.

59:22So Voice of America was launched many, many years ago as a means of basically trumpeting a pro-democracy message throughout the world, particularly in countries that might be on the precipice of dipping into autocracy and this president. One of the first things he did was install Kari Lake as the head of the Voice of America, and then he subsequently cut the funding for it. So it doesn't work anymore. Like, what's the impact of something like that on a free press and the role of the free press, not only being accountable here at home, but also perhaps spreading those democratic ideals elsewhere?

1:00:03Yeah, I mean, that's just it, right? Like the relationship between a free press and democracy, that message being spread across the world because of a vehicle like Voice of America. If you don't have that, you lose a very valuable vehicle for people to understand the role of the press and getting them information in some of those countries. But for Voice of America, they weren't getting information about what was going on, where they were. And so for them to have had that understanding of how journalism, of how the spread of honest and accurate information is supposed to happen, for that to go away, they do lose something.

1:00:38I think democracy more broadly loses something when you have democracy being dimmed via a dimming of the press domestically and abroad. So one of the news stories this year that has fascinated me, again, this has not gotten a ton of coverage elsewhere, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, has effectively allowed a suit to proceed against The New York Times. So a white New York Times staffer has argued that the Times' policies, which were inaugurated between seven and five years ago, which require the newsroom to be more diverse, he argues that because of those policies, he was denied an important promotion.

1:01:21I will note that the Times implemented those policies in large part because lots of people have said, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support it, that when you have communities of color being covered by people who live in those communities, who are part of those communities, they're just going to register in a different way. And having a more diverse newsroom means you will cover a wider array of stories than you otherwise might. And so the fact of a diverse newsroom means there are going to be a better newspaper. This person apparently took the fact of a more diverse newsroom or the interest in a more diverse newsroom personally.

1:01:58And now the EEOC has allowed the suit to proceed. This is going to be something that The New York Times defends vigorously, uses all of its resources to defend, I hope. But I don't think a lawsuit like this is necessarily aimed at The New York Times and those large media news outlets that can defend themselves. This is about smaller papers and getting smaller papers and news outlets to be afraid of doing diversity or having diversity initiatives because they can't afford to take the risk of being sued. And as a consequence, maybe they'll think twice when it's time to hire a woman or they want to hire a person of color.

1:02:37And that's exactly what this kind of lawsuit is about. And what do you think about that as the president of an organization that's meant to encourage diversity in journalism, meant to champion the work of Black journalists when we're literally seeing the toehold that Black journalists and other journalists of color have gotten in these newsrooms, which is so tenuous, being eroded in real time? Yeah, I mean, tenuous to say the least. Look, I mean, the New York Times didn't just say it. The Kerner Commission report said it in 1968, right? Like, if we are going to get to a place where American journalism is truly representative, then we need to be hiring Black journalists to cover Black communities and the totality of diverse communities, right?

1:03:22Like not just showing up when something bad happens, but covering them in their everyday life, showing them a full picture of themselves. Like that is the work that to this day is not fully happening in American journalism. Right. And so NABJ comes along in 1975, founded by 44 black journalists who understood that representation inside newsrooms was essential to shaping the fair and accurate coverage of black communities across this country. Right. And so here we are, 51 years later, I think when the Kerner Commission report came out, something like five percent of all the journalists in American newsrooms are black journalists.

1:03:58That number today is something around six percent. Right. So we're not talking about the black press is just taking over American journalism. Far from it. Right. Like we are still fighting for black journalists to have their rightful place in American newsrooms because journalism and black journalism included is part of democratic infrastructure. You do not have an honest and accurate record of this country without Black journalists. You do not have the American story without the stories that Black journalists are telling in communities across this country each and every single day, right? So I think that the media consolidations and media cuts, whenever that happens, it always affects Black journalists disproportionately.

1:04:35We're often the last hired, and so that means we're the first that are shown the door. And diversity is always a casualty, even though we know, like I said, it is journalistic malpractice not to have people covering the communities. that share their lived experience. We know that, right? And so in this anti-DEI climate, which is affecting all institutions, journalism is not immune to that. Now you're seeing this New York Times lawsuit. You're seeing an EEOC that is sympathetic to white Americans, right? They are the ones that are the victims of discrimination at this point. And so, yeah, that absolutely sends a message to newsrooms, frankly, that have not been particularly committed to diversity without being pressured and pushed to hire diverse journalists in their newsrooms that are being empowered, frankly, to make a different decision that goes, frankly, in a direction that I don't think is productive for the profession or for our democracy.

1:05:27It's such a good point. And the fact that so many people are talking about the president's assault on the press, but not linking it to this EEOC lawsuit is just insane to me. Like, they are part and parcel of the same thing. One final question for you, and thank you for taking the time. I know you're at a conference and you've got tons of stuff going on. So just one final thing. In recent years, there's been criticism of formal coalition press groups. For example, the White House Correspondents Association has drawn some real critiques by those who argue that the WHCA has prioritized maintaining strong relationships with those in power over aggressively defending a free press.

1:06:11And one of the things they cite is that the WHCA continues to have its annual dinner where the president and members of the administration come, and it's something of a tongue bath for the administration. What do you think the role should be between these press organizations and journalists at this time. How do you balance the interest and the need for access with the desire and indeed the imperative to stand up for the First Amendment? So from where I sit, the First Amendment is not optional. And I think that we are in a moment where journalists are going to have to fight for this profession.

1:06:46We're not going to have access to anything if we don't have a profession intact and standing strong and standing together, because the truth has to matter. The truth has to matter on behalf of the people that we are telling the truth for. And so that, to me, feels like our best and highest use in this moment, because if we don't get that right, then we're not gonna be able to do any of the rest of it. I'm encouraged by, you know, the White House Correspondents Association's recent stance, you know, after this latest attack on the press with the president banning, you know, MSNOW, CNN, and Politico, the White House Correspondents Association coming out and speaking, pushing back against that.

1:07:22I mean, that certainly was something that I felt was overdue, but it is welcome that it is happening now. It is welcome that there have even been organizations of the Associated Press put out a statement, even though they were not one of the organizations that was impacted by this press ban, because there's an understanding. CNN was not allowed on Monday to have its cameras. And so all of the outlets said, we will not have cameras. That kind of solidarity, that kind of strength in numbers, it matters right now because we have to say collectively in solidarity, there is strength in numbers to stand up and say that this is not acceptable and that this is not something that we can allow to be normalized in a healthy democracy.

1:07:57We cannot allow this to be normalized, right? This is wrong and it is anti-democratic and it is not the prerogative of the president to decide who does or does not get to cover him. That's not the prerogative of any president, right, to be able to do that because they like or dislike the coverage that they are getting. We have a role to play, and it is important for us to assert that role and assert our First Amendment rights at each and every turn so that it is not okay to suggest that we're doing anything less than our jobs with professionalism, integrity, and excellence every single day. All right, Erin Haynes, thanks so much for stopping by.

1:08:30I know you had a busy day, but we always, always value your expertise here on Strict Scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you. Listeners, you can read Erin's writing at the 19th, and you can listen to her along with Jennifer Palmieri and Mitch Landrieu at The Long Play, another fantastic, crooked podcast, sister podcast to Strict Scrutiny. And after this break, you'll have Leah with her incredible interview with Mahmoud Khalil. That's coming up.

1:09:05strict scrutiny is brought to you by cook unity guess what folks i hate cooking this is not a secret but you know what i do love eating that means i have a disjunction and cook unity is what enables me to fill the gap cook unity is the first chef-led meal delivery service that makes your meals in small batches inside local micro kitchens all across the united states not in factories. So every dish arrives at the kind of freshness you would get at a restaurant itself. And the meals are from Michelin starred chefs, James Beard winners, and Food Network stars. So head over to cookunity.com for a short or use code strict before checkout for 50 % off your first week.

1:09:45I just finalized my meals for my next orders and I cannot wait to try the smoked chicken chili with Greek yogurt. Yum. And here's my new favorite, the chicken and dumplings. Old school comfort, but without old school slaving over the stove. Every CookUnity meal is handcrafted by chefs in local micro kitchens, not mass produced in large facilities. So they're fresh, never frozen, and they can be refrigerated for up to seven days. CookUnity uses real culinary talent, cooking in real kitchens. It's not a brand just slapping a chef's name on some factory product. And there are hundreds of dishes to choose from.

1:10:19And the menu is updated constantly. So taste what happens when real award-winning chefs make fresh, small-batch meals just for you. Go to cookunity.com forward slash strict or enter code strict before checkout to get 50 % off your first order. That's 50 % off your first order by using code strict or going to cookunity.com slash strict. Get on it. Get eating. If you missed some of your favorite Crooked Pods this week, don't worry. You can now catch up on the week's best moments on MS Now on Saturday nights. MS Now is streaming an episode of highlights from your favorite Crooked Pods, packing as much analysis, funny moments, and 100 % correct opinions into 40 minutes as humanly possible.

1:11:00Crooked on MS Now airs every Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific.

1:11:13Hello, appliance fans. I'm here at Grand Appliance where Katie just bought a new Samsung laundry pair. Talk about your experience, Katie. My salesperson was amazing. He knew everything about appliances and was even able to get it on a delivery and install route for tomorrow. Wow. Next day delivery? Yes. My laundry is piling up, so this is a lifesaver. There you have it. Grand for the win. Check out grandappliance.com for full details.

1:11:49It's time for the next and final segment, for which we got a huge news story underscoring just one reason why it is so important. So before we bring you my conversation with Mahmoud Khalil, Columbia graduate and victim of the administration's anti-Palestine speech campaign, wanted to talk about this Associated Press story, which confirmed that ICE has begun essentially electronically disappearing people who are in the agency's custody and who are subject to final orders of removal. So as of last week, anyone who is jailed by ICE and is subject to a final order of removal will not appear in the ICE online detainee locator system, making them effectively vanish.

1:12:28And what this means is people who have been detained for months suddenly will not appear in the locator system, even if they have not been moved. And people who are newly arrested may not show up in the system at all. So people, family lawyers will not know where they are. You know, they could be deported and you might not know. And among other things, this will make it quite difficult to file habeas petitions challenging detention because attorneys won't even know what federal district their client has been moved to, you know, as a stage for their removal. And this might apply to, like, we don't really know, could be maybe a third of the people in ICE custody.

1:13:02And this tactic of disappearing people, making them hard to find to impede their ability to vindicate their rights, is, of course, a tactic that the administration has tried, albeit in different form, shuttling people around so they're hard to find and before they can contact an attorney, including in Mahmoud Khalil's case. So Mahmoud Khalil's with me now. He's a recent Columbia graduate, and his new book, No Land to Stand On, Notes from Detention, is out tomorrow, September 29th. Mahmoud became one of the faces of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech because of his advocacy and organization.

1:13:34There were so many immigration matters on the court's docket last term, and this year it's possible there will be more, including ones about immigration detention. So I am honored to talk to someone who can speak about this all firsthand. Mahmoud Khalil, welcome to Strict Scrutiny. Thank you, Leah, for having me. of course. So let's get started. The title of your book, No Land to Stand On, can refer to Palestine, refugee status, immigration status, detention, and even legal standing to raise a claim. What meanings did you intend the title to carry? To me, I think No Land to Stand On was more of a realization telling myself that statement.

1:14:12You know, I myself was born and raised in Syria, but I don't have its citizenship. I lived there for 18 years. I called Syria my home, but I always knew that it's not my permanent home because, you know, everything I had, had something temporary on it. You know, my ID used to say like temporary ID for Palestinian refugees. The same when I went to Lebanon, when I fled Syria at the age of 18, I had to renew my residency, my temporary residency, every single year. And when I came here, and I finally felt that this could be a place I could stay here, like I'm seeking permanent home at that time, you know, like, the fall of the regime in Syria, the Assad regime that I was basically fleeing felt so distant.

1:15:03So I was seeking literally a permanent home. And that's basically like, Like when I got the green card, it's the first permanent thing. You know, it's a permanent residency. LPR, it's supposed to be. The P is for permanent, for those of you listening. So that to me, like known as a standalone is more around impermanence. And also, I think the specific sentence, a lot of it comes from my mom. So my mother also fled Syria a few years after I left, like in 2014 or 15, to Germany. And they couldn't see my family for over five years or five years at least. I finally was able to go to Germany to see them.

1:15:49And when I met my mom, like in Syria, she was very vibrant, very energetic. In Berlin, I felt like she lost her spark and that pained me. And when I asked her, like, you know, what's wrong? Like, you look at her, like, she feels defeated in a way. And I remember she told me, like, I spent my whole life and my work, the money that we got to build a home for us in Syria. And in a year, we lost everything. So now I feel as if, like, I don't have a place. So why would I bother now to be that energetic? So it's really like that feeling of deprivation, of impermanence, of just like uncertainty, especially now what I'm feeling with uncertainty, I could be deported any day.

1:16:39My wife and I can't plan anything because it just could happen any day. So the book really builds on this theme of displacement, right? And the uncertainty and instability that creates and writing about that, but also so much more. you write that Palestine is not merely an exception to supposedly universal rights, like the right to have a home, right, or a country, but a warning about how easily those rights can be withdrawn from others. What do you want readers to understand from that warning? I think for years, we, as Palestinians, have been warning, like everything starts with us. So So take my personal story.

1:17:18When I was detained back in March 2025, like a couple of months into Trump's administration, we were warning that it's going to start with us. We are the canary in the coal mine. And then after my detention, the Trump administration touted about it as a plan or as a blueprint. That's what the White House said about my arrest, because they want to use my arrest as a test case against other people. And also a warning to others. And warning to others, like they want to make an example out of me so no one would speak up against the administration. It's not necessarily not to speak about Palestine.

1:17:59Of course, that was a primary goal for them to just like chill the speech of people and mostly students from speaking out for Palestine because the intention was not international students. Right. Most of the protesters were American students, American citizens who were dismayed by the genocide happening in Gaza, by the U.S. support to that. But after me, they went. So sorry, if I might interrupt you, since, you know, you are saying that this is partially about, of course, the government's desire to chill speech and suppress speech, right? Like the First Amendment is partially the vehicle, right, for challenging what is happening.

1:18:36But Palestine is the reason, as you are also describing. So what is lost when liberal defenders protect a Palestinian speaker's abstract right to speak, while potentially distancing themselves from the substance of what the speaker is actually saying? I think I talk a little bit about in my story how in the book, like how some of my lawyers wanted to focus a lot on your case is the First Amendment speech. Like, let's focus only on that and, you know, not talk a lot about Palestine because Palestine is more of a throne issue. A lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable about like supporting you if it was about Palestine.

1:19:15But if we say like it's a First Amendment, then it's easier to talk. And I think that was, to me, sort of, I wouldn't say insulting, like I understand their point of view. I understand that they are trying to protect me and to really have my case resonate with as many people as possible. But with that, I'm sort of like I would be participating in the erasure of my people. The right to narrate that Palestinians for so long were denied. everyone speaks about Palestinians, what Palestinians want, what Palestinians are, but they never want to hear from Palestinians. They don't want to hear about like all these things about Palestine.

1:19:55And by being complicit in that, I'm shooting myself in the leg. Like, why would I do that? And as if speaking for Palestine is a taboo, is something wrong? And it's not. What I was advocating for is simply for equal rights, the end of killing, the end of using our tuition fees at Colombia or our tax dollars in the U.S. from being sent to a foreign government. So there's nothing wrong about that. That's why we're trying to tiptoe around like that topic. And liberals still get wrong now, like, you know, with the Ed Sheeran-McElmore now, like all that happening. It's not merely about First Amendment.

1:20:35Or even just about corporate power, right? Exactly. It goes beyond, way beyond that. So most people might be familiar with some aspects of your story, or at least how the administration targeted you, literally grabbing you off the street, shipping you off, sending you to different detention facilities. And as you recount that experience, you say that constitutional protections supposedly are not supposed to depend on whether a person is sent to New Jersey, Louisiana, or Vermont. But in practice, it does. And of course, this is a theme that is very familiar to our listeners as we talk about the Fifth Circuit or courts in Texas often.

1:21:16But what does your case suggest about the conventional legal idea that federal law is uniform and applies across the country? I mean, absolutely, like the law should be one and equal and applied equally to everyone, especially in one country. But the legal system in this country, I feel like it's a product of the political system where presidents appoint or nominate their preferred judges. And it's just like it's insane to me because it's very, very ideological. It becomes that a court would become very ideological. And what happened to me, we call it forum shopping, where the government would want to take the case to a place where they think they would get a very preferable judge.

1:21:58that's happening so much in the south and that's why it was shipped and to me when i realized that that was even possible i was very shocked like that that like a court wouldn't see that hat like that's why the government shipped me over 1300 miles in 24 hours like less than 24 hours i think i was out of new york 14 15 hours after after my my arrest and that makes like this tiered system of justice. So for example, in my habeas petition case that was argued in Jersey, we won because like that's like the case is so clear that the government is trying to unlawfully detain me based on these bogus claims.

1:22:42But it was a Democrat judge that ruled in our favor. After that, we lost an appeal two to one because the panel was two Republicans, one Democrat. After that, on Bonk, when the whole court wanted to hear it, it was like six to five. We lost six to five. So it was right across the ideological lines. The opposite happened in the Fourth Circuit or in Virginia with Brother Kansouri, someone who's going exactly the same as I'm going through, where he was lucky that he got a Democrat majority court that ruled in his favor. So I'm here, I'm in this stage where I'm now like at the verge of deportation.

1:23:22Like it's just like by mere luck that I ended up in New Jersey because I, you know, the government took me there to sleep there. I mean, they were hoping I would go to the Fifth Circuit, but also now I'm fighting my immigration case in the Fifth circuit that's known to be extremely ideological, ideological, favoring the Trump administration, you name it. Yeah. So he'd like, I don't think there's justice. That's when I say, I feel like I'm getting justice a lot through and not necessarily in courts, but more when people are voting out those who contributed to my abduction or are waking up to all these injustice is happening, whether to me or to my people.

1:24:07That's justice to me. That's accountability to me. And on those ideological outcomes and divisions, you know, you mentioned that the Court of Appeals en banc, you know, the Third Circuit, you know, divided by narrow margins on whether to rehear your case. And I would be remiss if I did not remind listeners that some apparently, you know, Democratic senators refused to confirm some nominees to that Court of Appeals. And who did that clear the way to be confirmed? Judge Emile Bovee, right? So like, this is part of why we will not stop talking about those judicial vacancies and nominations, because they can truly make the difference between enforcing law of vindicating rights and not.

1:24:56No, in my case, I mean, that really what made a big difference, because it's very, as you said, it's very narrowly divided. I think it's like seven to six. If the Democrats managed to fill that vacancy instead of Beauvais, like Beauvais, it could be like the opposite, seven, six Democrats. And that meant protections for millions and millions of immigrants. Because again, like this case, it's not about me as a person. It's about whether immigrants in general, they would have access to habeas corpus to challenge constitutional claims. And that's like another part of, I mean, you're very familiar why that judge was not confirmed.

1:25:39Yes. Basically, because he was a Muslim. Yes. Yep, exactly. It all comes full circle. But speaking about you as a person, as a scholar, you read Ex Parte Endo, the Supreme Court decision, while you were detained. And we're struck not principally by the fact that the detainee, the petitioner, won, so the doctrinal victory, but by the way, the individual, Ms. Endo, disappeared into a case name. Won in the Supreme Court, but as you emphasize, the machinery logic of mass incarceration did not disappear. And what does that history suggest about the difference between winning a case, challenging a system, and how we need to keep the people affected front and center?

1:26:23I mean, that's what I'm really struggling with because now even like sometimes I tune in some legal webinars and they talk about my case, you know, like the Khalil case. Right here, right here. that's the thing like it's just like about the khalil case and i i'm now like sort of brought down to that case and that's how i felt about indo you know like it's um you know i was like oh what's in what's indo and then i went because i had so much time in detention i was like okay let me go look up what indo is and and i was so shocked about her story about how the United States even went further. You know, they were citizens of Japanese ancestry.

1:27:08Yet, the government found a way to go after them. And that's when I say like, these rights are not only ours to lose. Because it's really once the administration, any administration, not necessarily this one, they target a specific subset of people or whatever we want to call it, they can, They would be able to. And that's why we need to keep fighting, because these rights that we got, people take it for granted. I'm really like fighting this case mostly, in a bigger part, because what's happening to me is wrong and shouldn't happen to anyone else. And less about whether I want to stay in this country or not.

1:27:49Because fundamentally, what's happening is wrong. Of course, I want to stay in this country. I'm fighting because I believe in the principles of the constitution of this country and the potential of it. It's not perfect, but there is potential. So speaking of those principles and rights, after the experiences you have had, what do phrases like the rule of law or constitutional rights mean to you now? I mean, down in me, like I still believe, like I've always believed in the rule of law. I always believed in the constitutional rights. What's happening now is these are afforded to some, to those who align with power, to those who I once described as a democracy of convenience, that when it's convenient, we will give you law, rule of law, we would give you constitutional rights.

1:28:35in reality people in power they don't really care about that they would use it the way they want it and all of these it's becoming to be abstract very abstract when the rule of law is not applied equally when constitutional rights now there is like different interpretations about you know who are the people you know like now they're saying the people are only U.S. citizens they would go back to say like oh the people actually are not the enslaved people but also it would go the people are not women, all of that. Like, it's shocking. The other point is, I feel like also the rule of law is applied very, and equally, like, to people, because...

1:29:16Which definitually is not the rule of law, right? Like, the rule of law is law is supposed to mean just the law and apply to everyone equally, right? Not depending on who the person is. But I think this administration figured that they could do anything they wanted, whether legal or not legal. And the worst that could happen, the court would tell them, can you stop doing that without any real consequences? And if there were real consequences, it would be money that would be paid out of taxpayers rather than actually from the individuals inflecting such damage. Because when I think about the officials who defamed me, who literally like turned my life into hell, they're not going to pay, mostly like pay for any of what they did because of the immunity or federal immunity or whatever, which is to me is just like bizarre, because then how these people would stop doing what they're doing, like if they are if they feel that they are immune.

1:30:10Yeah. So speaking of you were talking earlier, why you want to win your case throughout the book, I believe that we will win appears as both kind of an encouragement, you know, a movement chant, and also a means of survival, and in particular, surviving detention. So what does winning mean to you now? You mentioned obviously wanting to prevail in your own case, but there's also challenging the detention system, furthering Palestinian liberation. Is it something that encompasses all of the above or more? I absolutely think it encompasses all of these and more. And in principle, I don't think the administration targeted me because they know me.

1:30:54It's just like they wanted to send a message and I was the messenger. so what they want was much much bigger than that is like to actually terrorize people into not speaking and to use this as a blueprint to go after so many other people so winning to me and i believe we are winning it's not like i believe we will win i believe we are actually winning right now the fact that the president of the united states is coming after you know a random students, that means that we are actually making difference. And winning to me is really what we are seeing now in polls and hopefully we'll see in the midterms that people are finally waking up to the years of dehumanizations against Palestinians and immigrants alike, against the other as they want or the administration want to describe.

1:31:48So that's winning, a big win for me. and of course like to me is that all what I'm doing and what I advocate for is for the liberation of Palestine and that's the ultimate winning for me but it's also like the liberation of humans as as a whole you know because the liberation of Palestine I don't want it to come at the expense of anyone so to me it's just like a liberation of all of us because to me this conversation that's now us and them it's very dehumanizing and I don't think it's sustainable and or would get like peace. I don't want to be naive at the same time about like, all of these. But in reality, this is what I'm fighting for.

1:32:27It's just like to liberate us all. Well, maybe we should end on the note that we are in fact winning. Again, the book is No Land to Stand On, and is out tomorrow by Mahmoud Khalil. Thank you so much for joining, Mahmoud. We will be thinking of you as your legal fight continues. And thank you for joining us and reminding us of the human stakes to so many of these cases and issues. Thank you so much, Leah. Thank you for having me. Thanks again to Mahmoud Khalil for joining us. And as always, we are going to wrap with our favorite things. I've got a few. One, Levain's Fall Spice Chocolate Chip Cookies.

1:33:03Delicious. Can I just ask, it's not the same as pumpkin spice. Is Fall Spice a broader spice palette? Yeah, I would describe it as a broader spice palette. I think it's all spice. Yeah, okay. It has a lot of cinnamon, clove, cinnamon and whatnot. Sounds great. Was also going to add ProPublica. They don't need access journalism to do great journalism. What is everyone else doing? Two books on similar themes, Gil Duran's Nerd Reich and Naomi Klein and Astrid Taylor's End Times Fascism. And then two shout outs to people who I don't know exactly how to describe what they have managed to do, but like overcome incredible adversity.

1:33:39And just wanted to note that Amanda Zoroski announced that she and her husband welcomed a child. Amanda, of course, is one of the women whose life was threatened by Texas's near total abortion ban. She testified in front of Congress and elsewhere about that experience. She was a guest at our live show in Austin. She is wonderful. We're such huge fans of hers. Yes. Sorry, but big news is, yeah. And another Texas is Alyssa Edwards slash Justin Johnson, who absolute slime of the earth, Ken Paxton, has decided to come after and target as part of his campaign. And Alyssa responded with the poise and grace that defines someone who was crowned America's next drag superstar global all-stars edition.

1:34:29She has more grace and wit than Ken Paxton will ever. And I mean, it's just it's just astonishing if you like read the response. And then, yeah. So just wanted to note that. It's not astonishing because if you've seen Ken Paxton. That's true. But astonishing, an astonishing response to a POS. Totally. Okay, I'm going to mention a couple of things. One, I am finally reading this book I've been meaning to read for a while, Daniel Immerwar's How to Hide an Empire. He is a historian at Northwestern. I had sort of had the book on my radar, and then he wrote a really good review in The New Yorker of Nico Bui and Daphna Renan's new book, Supremacy, which we've talked about.

1:35:06And so I was like, oh, I should really read his book. It's incredible. It is great. Okay, a couple of pieces of magazine reporting from this week. Ari Berman and Pema Levy in Mother Jones have a long piece about Calais and the new, new Jim Crow that is gutting read, but really, really important, really excellent, excellent journalism. And sort of in that similar category, also gutting, also urgent and important, but highly personal is Nicole Hannah-Jones' piece in The Times about her daughter and the New York City public schools failing her and just this kind of wrenching set of decisions and reckoning with those decisions that she and her family made about how to educate her daughter in a system that continues to fail largely Black and brown kids in New York City.

1:35:51and it's like really brave and beautiful piece and I highly recommend parents and everybody read it. So I don't mean to contradict, like I actually found the Nicole Hannah-Jones piece so hard to read this year. You know, I remember the earlier piece from 10 years ago and I remember reading that too and we made totally different choices for our kids. I think one thing that the piece doesn't talk about but I think maybe should is that for Black parents there's just no really good options. Like you send your kid to a failing school and you have a piece like Nicole Hannah-Jones. You send your kid to a fantastic school with great resources, but they're one of like a handful of kids who look like them.

1:36:31And, you know, you worry about their self-esteem being crushed indefinitely and not being sufficiently tethered to their identity. There's just no good options. And I really wish she had just said that explicitly. So one thing I did love as a response that doesn't excoriate her, as so many people are doing on the internet, was a piece by Zach Cheney Rice in New York Magazine that responds to her New York Times piece. But I think it's just sort of reckoning with this. There were just shitty choices out there. And this is part of the residue of segregation. And it is really hard to do what Nicole Hannah-Jones tried to do when you're doing it basically alone.

1:37:09The difference between now and parents in the 1960s sending their kids into predominantly white schools to integrate them is that they were working as part of a huge coalition and community. And that was just not what Nicole Hannah-Jones was doing. It may have been what she aspired to, but in the end, it seems that's not what happened. I also wanted to say plus one to the ProPublica story. You should definitely read the ProPublica story about Maine Senator Susan Collins and these allegations about her and her team perhaps accepting a large cash transfer from a shell company, allegedly. That may also have resulted in government contracts going to a government contractor in exchange.

1:37:49So I think it's just amazing reporting. And again, the whole question of access, not when you're pro publica, you just keep on your hustle. Good for you. I'm in Austin at the Tribune Fest, and I just saw Senator Raphael Warnock talk about his new book, The Crooked Parts Make Straight. I read it when it came out a few months ago. It's really just inspiring. He's like literally one of the best speakers I've ever heard. So definitely try and take a look at that. And I've gotten to meet so many fantastic stricties in the wild here in Austin. So let me shout out Cassie, Morgan, Marie, Parisi, Joyce, and the fabulous ladies of Book Woman, not book people, although they are great, Book Woman, which is an Austin indie bookstore that's absolutely fantastic, run by Lori and Susan, and they were absolutely fantastic.

1:38:35So please check them out if you're there. And finally, some housekeeping before we go. Stricties, are we going to see you at Crooked Con? The lineup was just released, and we think you're going to like what you see. Along with your favorite Crooked hosts, you'll see potential presidential candidates, members of Congress, campaign strategists, organizers, journalists, and many more at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center on November 7th. And at the November 6th Strict Scrutiny Live, we are going to be joined by attorney, civil rights activist, and former president and director of counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, multi-hyphenate and total badass, Sherilyn Eiffel.

1:39:14So we are going to have so much jurisprudence madness. It's going to be absolutely fantastic. I can't think of a better person to help us break down all of this than Sherilyn Eiffel. So get your tickets. What are you even doing with your life? If you're listening to this album that Leah is like literally losing her mind over, like just stop. Pause the hate listening and buy a ticket. I can't handle this on the eve of a new Supreme Court term. Yeah, it's a lot. Press pause. Press pause. Buy your tickets. Sherilyn, we have been so lucky to have incredible guests over the years we've been doing this podcast.

1:39:46Sherilyn is one of the very best, and we've never had her at a live show. So I am so, so excited to do that. Okay, so that is November 6th, and then we'll be at the Crooked Con all-day event with another panel on November 7th, the next day. So you have two opportunities to hang out with us. The shows will be very different, but I think it's fair to say equally fun. You can view the full Crooked Con lineup and get tickets at crookedcon.com. Ticket prices will go up on October 6th, so you're still in the lower price window. Get yours now to lock in the early bird price. But if you are too busy, hate listening to the new tracks between now and October 6th, you can still probably get tickets after that if there are any left, but try to get yours early.

1:40:23See you there. You can definitely get your emotional support billionaire to buy them for you.

1:40:33Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Melody Rowell and Michael Goldsmith. Music by Eddie Cooper. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hethcote, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffat, Adam Lippert, and Eric Schutt. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

1:41:00If you missed some of your favorite Crooked Pods this week, don't worry. You can now catch up on the week's best moments on MS Now on Saturday nights. MS Now is streaming an episode of highlights from your favorite Crooked Pods, packing as much analysis, funny moments, and 100 % correct opinions into 40 minutes as humanly possible. Crooked on MS Now airs every Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific.

1:41:30Hello, appliance fans. I'm here at Grand Appliance where Katie just bought a new Samsung laundry pair. Talk about your experience, Katie. My salesperson was amazing. He knew everything about appliances and was even able to get it on a delivery and install route for tomorrow. row. Wow. Next day delivery? Yes. My laundry is piling up. So this is a lifesaver. There you have it. Grand for the win. Check out grandappliance.com for full details. This is Chelsea Halner from Dear Chelsea. If you travel a lot with your dog, like I do with Doug, feeding them well on the road can get surprisingly complicated, especially when you're touring 30 plus cities, staying in hotels, flying, driving, and basically living out of a suitcase.

1:42:13Frozen dog food sounds great until you realize you don't exactly have a freezer backstage. That's why I started bringing Just Fresh from Just Food for Dogs. It's real fresh dog food made with human-grade ingredients with meat and vegetables you can see in the bowl, but the difference is it's shelf-stable, which means I don't need a freezer or a cooler and there's no prep. So now I can throw a few packs in my bag and Doug still gets a healthy meal wherever we are. Doug absolutely loves it and I like knowing I am feeding my baby something that's actually good for him. It's also the number one vet recommended fresh dog food made without preservatives or fillers.

1:42:50Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50 % off your first order.