We Need To Talk About Trump’s Maritime Murders

25:01We gotta win. How would you like us to do that? Yeah. Justice Jackson was a little mixed. Justice Sotomayor seemed more skeptical. The federal government also argued here, of course, on the side of first choice. And it at least had the decency to note that there was some tension between First Choice's chill theory and some of the court's standing jurisprudence, like Clapper, for example, and of course, the SB 8 case, Whole Women's Health v. Jackson. So it asked the court to side with First Choice under the threat of enforcement theory. And arguing for New Jersey, as Melissa already mentioned, was Sundeep Iyer, who I thought was really good in a way that was both understated and pointed.

25:42And it came out in a couple of places. So one, I thought, I'm sorry to harp on this, but I was so enraged by Gorsuch on this like self-executing point. He had, I thought, a nice response to Gorsuch contemplating declaring himself the ultimate authority on New Jersey state law as well as everything else. So let's play that clip here. I will say that if, again, the question that this court has is about the meaning of state law, I think there are entirely appropriate ways to resolve those questions. For example, by remanding the case to the Third Circuit with instructions to certify the question to the New Jersey Supreme Court, as is consistent with typical practice.

26:21And the question is shorter ire. Sir, you are no Bruce Springsteen. the stone pony would never accept you anyway um ire also made very deft use of lions and clapper these are two awful decisions in which the court denied standing to plaintiffs it was not sympathetic to lions is a case in which the court denied standing to an individual challenging the los angeles police department's policy of putting suspects in chokeholds and the logic of the case was that even though Mr. Lyons had been put in a chokehold already by the LA Police Department, because he wasn't able to show that he was going to be put in a chokehold again in the future, imminently, he had no standing.

27:07And Clapper is a case where the court denied standing to lawyers and NGOs representing Guantanamo detainees because they had not established that it was sufficiently likely that the government would listen in on their conversations. So here's an exchange between Iyer and Justice Gorsuch talking about the prospect of donor declarations. Really? I mean, we're going to now pick over the tense of the verb that they chose? I mean, they're saying if we'd known that this was going to happen, we wouldn't have given. Perforce, if it's going to be disclosed, we won't give. I mean, doesn't that just follow night from day?

27:46We don't think so for a couple of reasons. First, this court's decision in Lyons. It's perfectly clear that a backward-facing allegation of harm isn't sufficient. I understand that. So Iyer also, I thought, made very clever use of the Whole Woman's Health decision. So let's play that clip here. For one thing, this court has always made clear that you don't bend the rules of Article III standing based on potential fears of preclusion. And in cases like Whole Woman's Health, for instance, this court noted that there may not always be available a federal forum for a federal constitutional claim challenging.

28:24So you're not saying they wouldn't be. And while we're going through, you know, the greatest hits of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson also referenced the ICE case, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement case, the one that blessed the Kavanaugh stops, Vasquez Perdomo here. Isn't it interesting that we don't have credible threat in other areas. I mean, I'm thinking about, for example, Perdomo and, you know, the situation, I'm looking for it in my notes, in which people are saying we're fearing that we're going to have these adverse interactions with ICE. We have evidence of this happening. And the court seems to say not enough.

29:04We don't employ some sort of a credible threat analysis in that context. Now, as we said, Hawley didn't say much about pregnancy and nothing about abortion, mostly referring to First Choice as just a nonprofit. But Justice Barrett definitely did in an exchange with Ayer that was a little bit spicy. I mean, you had this project strike on the pregnancy centers. You know, the attorney general had essentially, you know, what your friends on the other side would say, declared war on pregnancy centers. So if it is true that the non-self-executing subpoena is enough if it's in the context of other government statements, why wouldn't that be satisfied here?

29:42My friends on the other side don't let the actual factual allegations get in the way of telling a story about hostility here. But I think that story is just not borne out by the record evidence that's been offered here. And Iyer did go on to say if there were a record of state hostility and targeting, that might be enough to get into federal court. But here, there just isn't that kind of record. But as in the Texas redistricting case, facts, we hardly knew ye. Well, it's not just the absence of facts. It's that she, like, this is sort of the Fox media orbit in which they're all existing, where anything that has to do with the Crisis Pregnancy Center is obviously going to be the target of some blue state sinister plot.

30:27Like the NAACP and its member list in Alabama in the 1950s. Exactly, exactly. I found that so insane. I think it's the first sentence of Holly's brief. It's like it is all over the brief. It was the first sentence of her opening argument. This is not the first time these right-leaning organizations have done this. You know, this was Americans for Prosperity versus Banda, right? Like they also, you know, invoked NAACP cases from the 1950s when they were arguing, you cannot compel us to release information to the state. I just want to point out that NAACP members in the 1950s were in danger of literally being lynched if their identities were known.

31:07Like, these folks are just basically giving money to crisis pregnancy centers. Yeah. But, you know, when you think about it, like, there's no discrimination against transgender people today or ever, which is why the court can uphold bans on gender affirming care. But there is massive discrimination against crisis pregnancy centers. Yeah. So and it's not just Barrett who seemed receptive to this account. Roberts kind of seemed sympathetic to this account of sort of targeting pregnancy centers, as Hawley called them in this clip. Counsel, you referred to the fact that you've addressed these subpoenas to car dealerships and things like that.

31:47Your friends on the other side don't represent a car dealership. This is not a car dealership, madam, right? This is something very, very different. Very different. Right. Justice Kavanaugh also asked about a brief he described as the brief of the ACLU siding with first choice. This was a bit of a misstatement. It was actually the brief from FIRE, that is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. But the ACLU was on it, and it just seemed like a very kind of cynical move to suggest that there was some sort of broad, cross-ideological consensus that first choice was being targeted and should win.

32:26Yeah. I did read the transcript to suggest that the justices are going to rule for the crisis pregnancy center, quite possibly, likely, with some Democratic appointees joining them. And it really made me wonder whether some of the justices, including specifically the Democratic appointees, might be influenced by the larger context in which this case is being decided, which includes very abusive targeting investigations of, for example, media matters by the Texas Attorney General and potentially abusive investigations by the Trump administration as well. And, you know, they wonder, like, well, should those entities be able to go to federal court immediately?

33:04And I don't think those concerns mean they have to rule for the petitioners crisis pregnancy centers here in order to protect the interests of targets of investigations that are truly pretextual and abusive and baseless. But I did wonder if that was influencing their perspective. Yeah. I mean, is this an appeasement strategy? I mean, just I don't mean appeasement in that sense. But like, if the idea is to put on the books law that would help those who are truly the targets of investigations that are pretextual and abusive, why wouldn't you entertain the prospect that maybe your colleagues would just come up with a different line of reasoning to avoid all of that precedent when it truly was some blue state group?

33:42Yeah, I mean, but there was there's a lot of the kind of Vulo versus NRA energy, right? So that's the case in which the Democratic appointees all join their Republican colleagues. So to my even wrote the opinion, right, finding that the NRA was targeted by blue state officials right here in New York. And that there, too, the ACLU was on the side of the NRA as it was, you know, on the side of first choice in this case. So, yeah, I think if we could be assured that the justices will neutrally and fairly treat future targets like this is a strategy that makes a lot of sense. But obviously, it's like bringing principles to a gunfight.

34:16It's like, OK. One other observation that is, I think, similar to the one that Leah was just offering, but like a slightly different cut is just kind of how thoroughly the politicization of law enforcement under the Trump administration has poisoned all of our assumptions about the enforcement of the law. So just even the kind of discussion that we're having suggests that the Democratic appointees might be nervous about red state targeting of unpopular left-leaning causes. And that is just like the world we live in. This is not – Wait, Donald Trump literally announced that in an executive order.

34:46Yes. Right? Like he is going to be targeting like left-leaning NGOs and whatnot. Yeah. And that is just where we are. And so, yeah, maybe it would be better for nonprofits to be able to get to federal court to raise First Amendment challenges if law enforcement is going to proceed that way, like at the state as well as the federal level. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol. I have to tell you about this game-changing product I use before a night out with drinks. It's called Pre-Alcohol. From holiday parties to festive toast by the fire, the holidays are full of those moments where you're going to be sharing a drink with friends and family.

35:20So whether you're celebrating a year's end wind or just relaxing after a busy day being ready for the next morning still matters. 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. And here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. And it's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow.

35:58When I was at Crooked Con, I really wanted to go out to celebrate the wonderful event, and there was an after party with amazing drinks, and Melissa and I weaseled our way up to Tommy, who was standing close to the bar, so we could get some. And then, before we raised our glasses, toasted and celebrated, we all had our Z-Biotics. No joke, we actually took our Z-Biotics pre-alcohols, kind of like a shot. So we knew we could enjoy the evening and the day after. And I did. I had my drinks, had a great time. And then the next day I was up super early to go pastry hunting, which is what I always do when I travel.

36:30Make the most of every toast this holiday season. Just don't forget to bring pre-alcohol along for the ride. Go to zbiotics.com slash strict to learn more and get 15 % off your first order when you use strict at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100 % money-back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15 % off. Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted? If you said yes to both, welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco.

37:09And we're the hosts of Hysteria, the podcast for women who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms, and everywhere the stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero handholding. Listen to Hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube.

37:42We have some other recaps to get into. We will go shorter on some of these. The next case that we want to talk about is called Cox Communications versus Sony. This case is the latest to ask the justices to grapple with what sorts of upstream liability might attach to the misconduct of internet users. So earlier cases on related questions have involved the liability of platforms like Twitter and Google for terrorist attacks. At issue here is a jury award against an internet service provider for user copyright infringement. The petitioner in this case, Cox Communications, is among other things one of the country's largest internet service providers.

38:20And the respondents, Sony and other record labels and publishers, say that Cox users infringed their copyrights by doing things like file sharing and that Cox is secondarily and vicariously liable for that copyright infringement. A jury sided with Sony awarding over$1 billion in damages, an award that was affirmed in part by the Fourth Circuit, though the Fourth Circuit did order a new trial on the question of damages. Cox says that letting the Fourth Circuit opinion stand would fundamentally change ISP's relationships to its users, requiring them to engage in massive evictions of alleged infringers and possibly result in service being pulled from entire universities, towns, and communities.

39:05Sony says that Cox was told again and again about all of this copyright infringement, and yet the company took no action in response. So the case has a complicated procedural history, as Melissa was just alluding to. It also involves a number of intersecting bodies of law. So there's tort doctrine, including contributory and accessory liability. There's substantive copyright law. You have the federal statute, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA, folks who know both platform regulation and copyright law seemed pretty unimpressed with the performances in this case. And by that, I mean both the justices and to a degree, the attorneys in the case who are Supreme Court practitioners, but not really experts in either kind of platform governance or copyright.

39:46So maybe the justices in this case, recognizing that they are not in the immortal words of Elena Kagan, the nine greatest experts on the internet, will try to go small in a similar way to their approach to kind of other cases on related topics like Twitter versus Tomna, like Gonzalez versus Google. Yeah, it did seem as though they are likely to side with Cox and reverse. They seem troubled by the notion of this sort of broad imposition of liability here, in particular in the context of some of the consequences they were told would flow from letting the lower court opinions stand. You know, the idea that ISPs would be forced to cut off service to entire communities, universities, military bases, in order to guard against the prospect of crushing liability like this.

40:33But they also seemed a little troubled by the just trust us attitude of both Joss Rosencrantz for Cox and Paul Clement for Sony. So it's not clear to me how they are going to get there. I think Brett Kavanaugh will like the way. Honestly, there was a lot of the invocation of like cutting off service to military bases was so obviously pandering to Brett Kavanaugh. Be like, will you throw a temper tantrum for me, too? The court also heard oral argument in Urias Orayana versus Pamela Jo Bondi. At issue in this case is the relationship of the federal appeals courts to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

41:13That is the agency tribunal that individual immigration judges' decisions get appealed to. And in this case, the question is about whether an individual who had requested asylum experienced persecution. Under federal law, to obtain asylum, the noncitizen must establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. And the question here specifically is about how federal courts review a Board of Immigration Appeals determination that he said of undisputed facts does not rise to the level of persecution. So the individual in this case, or actually an individual and his family, requested asylum on the basis that he and his family had been targeted by a hitman working for a drug lord in their home country of El Salvador.

41:53The immigration judge, and that ruling was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, held that these events, which did occur, did not rise to the level of past persecution that would qualify these individuals for asylum. So federal immigration law structures judicial review differently for questions of law versus questions of fact. So the statutes require courts to defer on the BIA's findings of facts, but not on questions of law. So the question here is how a court should treat a determination that a set of undisputed facts doesn't rise to the level of persecution. Is that a legal determination that the federal court gets to review, exercising its own independent judgment?

42:33Or is it a factual determination which requires courts to give significant deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals? And in this case, the court seemed inclined to think that this kind of determination just had too much kind of factiness in it, too much factual content for the federal courts to be second-guessing administrative judges' determinations, which I have to say, yeah, I know, it's a little different after the court's decision, which we talked about in our emergency episode, to entirely second-guess the lower court's determination in the Texas redistricting case. It does feel to me like there's this like chasm opening between the rules and the law sort of mattering in some places.

43:14Like they will take seriously this question of what kind of review. Yes. But it's like – so there's all these different ways that there is this chasm. So like between the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal courts. Like the lower federal courts are still acting like the law and the Constitution matter. Supreme Court not so much and even on the Supreme Court across different categories of cases. So we're just going to jettison all of it if we want to give the Republicans a few extra seats in the House of Representatives. And we're going to take very seriously these questions about the exact relationship between the federal courts and an administrative agency on some questions versus other questions in a case like this.

43:50It is pretty hard to keep the faith, you guys. I can think of a unifying principle. Tell us. So when we're trying to deport people of color and the BIA said we should do it, we defer to their fact finding. When we want to disenfranchise people of color and the lower federal court said we can't do that, we don't defer to their fact finding. That's called colorblind constitutionalism, right? Yeah. Yeah. It all makes sense. You see it. I see it. Yeah. But back to this particular oral argument, my read of the argument was similar to yours. It seemed like they're going to say this particular question, at least, whether the facts give rise to a claim of persecution is subject to substantial evidence review, even though, as Justice Kagan acknowledged, you, that is the government, quote, have some good arguments in this case, but honestly, none of them come from the text, end quote.

44:43Womp womp. Okay. The court also heard oral argument in Olivier v. Brandon. This is a case about a significant federal court's doctrine, sometimes called Pryser Heck, which was set down in part in a case called Heck v. Humphrey. That case established the set of rules for when you can raise certain kinds of challenges under Section 1983 rather than under habeas law. And this matters because it is much easier to proceed under Section 1983 than it is under habeas review. And the decision in Heck, which is a Scalia decision from 1994, makes clear that the court doesn't want Section 1983 to be used as an end run around limitations on habeas, which would invite what are essentially challenges to sentences using something that's not really supposed to be used for assessing challenges to sentences.

45:35So the petitioner here, Olivier, was arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting protests outside a public amphitheater. He argues this limitation violates his religious freedom because he is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel. And so he filed this Section 1983 claim seeking an injunction against enforcement of the state law in the future. And the question is whether his prior conviction under the law precludes his Section 1983 suit because it is a challenge to a criminal process that belongs in habeas. So his lawyer, Alison Ho, had to do a pretty delicate dance to try to represent her client and maintain that his claim was not barred by this heck decision while remaining appropriately deferential toward the great man himself because, as Melissa said, this was a Scalia opinion.

46:22So that was kind of a tightrope. I will say I am not sure I've ever heard Justice Thomas be friendlier to an advocate. I don't know if you felt the same way. So Ho is married to Judge Jim Ho, who we don't even talk about that much on this pod anymore because he has been so overtaken by some of his colleagues on the Fifth Circuit and some of the writings that they have issued. Just wait for birthright citizenship, the resuscitation of Jim Ho. Well, what else is he going to have to say about it? It's going to be at SCOTUS. No, but the logic of it. And he's going to get props, I think, for how people start thinking about it.

46:54That's entirely possible. In any event, I have no idea if she and Thomas know each other. I assume so, because Judge Ho and Justice Thomas are very close. You sweet summer child. I just don't. I don't think you clerk for him. But he's not usually this friendly even toward his own former clerks when they are arguing there was one takeaway from this argument. All right. I'm going to let that drop. On the substance, this is a genuinely tricky case. The claim that Olivier is raising necessarily implicates legality of his prior conviction, even if he is not technically trying to challenge or reopen it.

47:28And there will be other cases like Olivier's where someone does remain under some sort of sentence of supervision. And so their claim really would seem to be more squarely barred by Heck. A lot of the justices' questions in this case seem to circle around what the implications of ruling for Olivier would be for cases like that. Yeah, so my take on the argument was that a majority of justices understand intuitively that this particular challenge can't be barred and isn't barred. And a problem that they are running into is that Justice Scalia wrote some, in my view, pretty sloppy opinions in this area with way overly broad language.

48:07But it seems like a majority of justices see some ways of limiting it and distinguishing the prior cases. Justice Alito might be a holdout, but who knows? He might say that at least this particular petitioner gets to challenge the prospective enforcement of a statute. I actually thought they were more skeptical of him than I expected, given that he was a Christian plaintiff raising a religious liberty claim, even if that's not exactly what was before the court. Because they are very cross pressured, right? Like they have to treat his gospel everything that Justice Scalia wrote. Exactly. But then as you just said, Leah.

48:41You can't question the great man. Right. But, you know, he wrote some stuff that I think might mean Olivier loses and they don't want that either. So I truly don't know which is their major preference and which is their minor preference. We will see how it shakes out.

48:58Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by CookUnity. Okay, the holidays are here, which means you're probably doing a lot of cooking for a lot of people for big occasions, but you still need those day-to-day meals too. And with all of the extra cooking you're doing, you might be looking for something of a break without sacrificing delicious foods. So let Cook Unity chefs take healthy meal prep off your plate with festive yet nutritious dishes. Cook Unity is actually making festive holiday favorites available for a limited time, but only in select markets. So there's maple whipped sweet potatoes and candied yam cake.

49:33Yum! Here's some of my recent favorites, including Art Smith's turkey chili with corn pudding. If you know Art Smith, you know he's full of joy and warmth, and he puts that into his cooking too. The meals are like comforting hugs, and the turkey chili was no exception. It's perfect for the season, especially now that it's getting cold here in the Midwest. All of Art's meals have flavor and joy and personality built in, and the ingredients are high quality and fresh. I mean, how awesome is it knowing that CookUnity's roster of all-star chefs includes Food Network alums, James Beard Award winners, and acclaimed restaurateurs who balance bold flavors and nutrition in small batch meals delivered fresh, not frozen.

50:11With CookUnity, there's no cooking, no shopping, no thinking about how to get the nutrition and comfort meals you need every week because their meals are delivered fully cooked. You just heat them up in as little as five minutes, and there's a huge variety of options and fresh ingredients to choose from. You can choose from a rotating seasonal menu of over 300 meals, or you can let their platform provide personalized recommendations like apple pie bread pudding. You know I matched with that one. Menus are updated weekly, and new chefs are always joining the team, so meals will never be boring or repetitive.

50:44Taste comfort and craftsmanship in every bite from the award-winning chefs behind CookUnity. Go to cookunity.com 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 STRIKT or going to cookunity.com slash STRIKT. Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted? If you said yes to both, welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco. And we're the hosts of Hysteria, the podcast for women who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms, and everywhere the stakes are high.

51:30It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero handholding. Listen to Hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube.

51:51Let's move on to some court culture. First, we have a unanimous 11th Circuit opinion. This is now like a week and a half ago, but we recorded our Thanksgiving episode a bit early. So we have some things to kind of catch you up on. This was an opinion authored by another noted liberal squish, Judge Pryor, upholding sanctions against Alina Habba and others. Pretty interesting. So in addition to that 11th Circuit opinion bench slapping Alina Habba for frivolous lawsuits, we also got a Third Circuit opinion, this time on Trump's efforts to install hacks as the temporary U.S. attorneys in various districts.

52:29And this one, again, involved Alina Habba, who had been appointed the interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey. This opinion had a different rationale than the opinion bench-slapping Lindsay Halligan from the Fourth Circuit. Here, the court said that because Pamela Jo Bondi relied on other authority to appoint HABA, the appointment was unlawful. But nevertheless, the opinion strongly casts doubt on Halligan's appointment as well. And just a reminder that next week, going into all of this, it's going to be a big one at SCOTUS. We have lots of cases that are on the docket to be argued, and a lot of them relate to some of these opinions in that they are big questions about the authority of the executive branch, in particular about the future of the interaction between the executive branch and independent agencies and the administrative state.

53:23Also, questions about the global economy are at stake in at least some of the cases tangentially. So we are flagging all of those because, again, what could go wrong? But we did get these glimmers of hope from the intermediate courts of appeal. In terms of the slaughter case that's going to be argued on Monday, if you're listening on Monday, it's like the arguments are too early in the day for drinking games, at least in most time zones. I do sort of feel like we should be coming up with slaughter argument drinking games. Wine o 'clock somewhere, Kate. Right. So, okay. So here are my quick suggestions.

53:59What are you actually opening, Melissa? Is it a seltzer? Is it something spicy? It's a seltzer. It's a seltzer. All right. We are recording on a Friday afternoon. That would be fine if it was something stronger. Okay. So here are – if we were going to do a slaughter drinking game, here are my ideas. One, we could just also do place over under bets. But like how many mentions of Scalia's dissent in Morrison are we likely to get? How many mentions of the executive power? All of it. All of it. Which they have like tried to redline into the Constitution but is in fact not there, not in Article 2, not anywhere.

54:30Wonder about every derisive reference to bureaucrats. every tendentious comparison of Trump to FDR. If you adopted all of these, you would honestly be drunk. You would be falling out of your chair. You'd be that raccoon in the liquor store bathroom. By 10.30 in the morning. I think there are also going to be some references to Alexander Hamilton. Yeah, for sure. Energy, dispatch, et cetera. Yeah, the vigor of the super manly presidency that is being held by this super old guy who falls asleep all the time and is being manipulated by some real psychopaths, but is very unitary. So that's all how it works.

55:14Some other court news, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the birthright citizenship case. So it will now decide whether the president's executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to some people born in the United States is legal. And a part of me thinks that Sam Alito is like frantically preparing a list of people he thinks aren't actually American and should be deported that he will include as an appendix to whatever he writes in the case. Did I just speak Jim Ho into existence? Yes, you did. Yeah, because when we started recording this episode, we did not yet have a grant in the birthright citizenship case.

55:58And because Leah monitors breaking news like a hawk during our recording sessions, we now have had a grant. I didn't even see it come across the transom, but there it is. I didn't mean to manifest that. Sorry. But you did that. Yep. You know, another kind of piece of news that happened. The chief justice granted an administrative stay and another request for emergency relief brought by the Trump administration as against a lower court ruling. This is in a challenge to the limitations on what immigration judges are allowed to say publicly. So shadow docket season really seems to be heating up just in time for the holidays.

56:36Just so I understand the nature of that case clearly, the president who vowed to make the First Amendment great again and to allow people to express themselves freely and fully wants to crack down on what immigration judges say publicly. Yes. This is not cancel culture or censorship. This is some third thing. To be determined. Right, exactly. All right. Cool. All right. Since those are our least favorite things, let's turn to our real favorite things. Things that we did, saw, bought, or read in the last week that we really like and think that you might like too. So Kate, why don't you get us started?

57:18All right. So this is, again, like a week or two old at this point. But I'm not sure how exactly these came into the public domain. But Chris Geidner posted a bunch of the transcripts from the depositions in the Chicago case challenging the use of force by CBP and other DHS officials led, right, remember, by Greg Bovino. And the transcripts, I've just never read a deposition like this. Oh, yes. You read the Laura Loomer Arby's in her pants one. Okay. There is no Arby's in – this is okay. It's hundreds of pages. And so I cannot guarantee there is no Arby's in the pants type exchange anywhere. But it was, if anything, substantively more insane.

57:56So, but, you know, like sort of legendary Chicago civil rights lawyer, Locke Bowman, and this DOJ lawyer. It truly somebody should just set it on the stage because it is that dramatic a set of exchanges. So that's all I'll say about that. That case, we should say, which we've now mentioned a bunch of times, was voluntarily dismissed. It had been pending on appeal in the Seventh Circuit. A couple of other things to mention. Sarah Stillman in The New Yorker has an incredibly difficult but really amazingly reported and horrifying piece about the third country removals, which we have talked about.

58:30My one critique of the piece is that there is not enough focus on the Supreme Court's culpability in allowing this outrageous campaign of sending people to just unspeakable horrors in our name. But she really did very difficult reporting to even get in touch with folks who kind of by design have been rendered almost unreachable. And many of these people who lived decades and raised families and held jobs in various parts of the United States have been sent to places that they have no relationship to, sometimes incarcerated. It's just like unbelievable horror show. So definitely recommend that.

59:09Lighter note, I have been listening to a lot of Olivia Dean. Maybe you guys knew Olivia Dean. I did not. She's amazing. and also, I guess, bridging those two, both music and, I don't know, immigration horrors, Sabrina Carpenter, whose politics I didn't really know, delivering this just like furious slap to the administration when it tried to use one of her songs in a vile propaganda video depicting brutal ICE tactics, really gave me a lot of joy this week. Go, Sabrina Carpenter. Didn't know she had politics. She has good politics, and I'm so happy. She's petty as fuck. Yeah, I really like the petty as fuck.

59:40So you think it's more that than politics? It's more just like, you took my song? No, I think it's both. it can be both it can be both um do you remember that guy what's that guy Barry what's his face yeah like she dated him and he cheated on her she literally did a concert like he's Irish so that's the backstory he cheated on her she did a concert where she had everyone dress up in the Union Jack like I was like wow um that's some petty shit like nothing Irish people love more than being reminded of the British Empire. Okay. My things are also probably in the petty register. So the dunks on Sarah Isger's New York Times op-ed in defense of the Supreme Court, I lived for those on Friday morning.

1:00:24Like the gist of this op-ed, which I don't think this is an exaggeration, is that the court's steady stream of decisions empowering the executive branch to be a dictator is actually a big master plan. If you squint enough and look closely enough to empower, wait for it. Wait for it. Congress, real howler, got to hand it to her. You know, we do try to make this podcast lighthearted and inject some humor and levity into it. I just don't think I can come up with a funnier bit than that. Like, yes, the Supreme Court might be massively expanding executive power, but what if maybe they weren't? Yeah.

1:01:02OK. So it was all a ploy to make Congress great again. Right. Exactly. Um, number two, seeing slash reading Republican women coming to the realization that the patriarchy is never going to be totally cool with them. Enjoyed some of this. So here I'm talking about the reporting about Nancy Mace, Elise Stefanik and others being unhappy with Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. And I'm just going to read a quote from a New York Times story about this quote. Some of them said privately that the speaker had failed to listen to them or engage in direct conversations on major political and policy issues, suggesting that doing so was a cultural challenge for Mr.

1:01:45Johnson, an evangelical Christian who has often voiced firm views about the distinct roles men and women should play in society. End quote. Ladies, it was in his name, Mama Tried to Tell You. Exactly. Exactly. So that's my number two. Number three, I am wearing my hands off Chicago t-shirt. You probably can't see it in the video, but I am wearing it. Was in Chicago for Thanksgiving. Absolutely loved it. You know, there were protests all over the holiday, which was very cold, you know, against ICE's presence in the city. A great way to spend the holiday. Also, in other Chicago-ish news, this is unrelated.

1:02:27did. I scored a touchdown in Turkey Bowl and it may or may not have involved me pushing over a 13-year-old, but I still won. Okay. I need to tell you. So my son David takes the bus to middle school every day. And the one lesson that I've really imparted is you have to really shove sometimes to get on the bus in New York City because it's crowded in the morning. And I'm like, you cannot step on anyone smaller than you. That is the lesson. You cannot do that. In my defense, it's unclear if I actually like caused this person to tip over, right? I did tag them and then they fell over. But, you know.

1:03:04Uh-huh. All right. Well, David also doesn't always heed me. So it's fine. Okay. I'm just going to note we are recording this on Friday. Friday was the morning where the temperature in New York was unseasonably fucked up cold. So cold. 18 degrees when I got up this morning. And I typically don't wear a hat because I feel like hats mess up my hair. Like it just like smushes it down. But my friend gave me this way soft cashmere beanie. And it was so fucking cold that I'm like, let me put this hat on. And I loved it because it was like big enough and oversized that it didn't actually smush my hair.

1:03:39But it kept me very warm. So I may be getting on the hat train. So there it is. But my other favorite things this week are something that you all can get into right now. So I am loving the mayor emeritus, outgoing mayor, Eric Adams, lame duck interview with Z-Way. And this is absolutely, I don't know if it's performance art or what, but it's my favorite thing ever. She asks him a question about whether or not someone of his age should be out in the club. And his response is basically, let your haters be your waiters when you are seated at the club night of success. And I want someone for the holidays to gift me a lingua franca sweater that just says club night of success because that is where I am going to be in perpetuity for the rest of this administration.

1:04:29He also discusses being 64 years old and getting out of the shower and noting his glistening six packs, plural, so he has more than one of them. I don't know how that is physiologically possible, but respect, sir. It is absolutely hilarious. And whoever did the editing on this clip, you, ma 'am, are a top tier editor. It's just excellent the way it ends. It's fantastic. Also on YouTube, Prince Harry on Colbert. A plus content. Loved it. And I am also very much enjoying the biography of Jessica Mitford. She is one of the famous Mitford sisters, the communist Jessica Mitford. It's called Troublemaker, The Fierce, Unruly Life of Jessica Mitford by Christina Delane and Carla Kaplan.

1:05:18And it's fantastic. And again, because I'm an Anglophile, I just got into all of the Victoria episodes that just dropped on Netflix. And this is a very good salve for people who just cannot keep watching The Crown over and over and over again, although I have been. So this is nice. I'm enjoying it. All right. Some housekeeping before we go. So first, from Hysteria, holiday season is basically here, which means we are all one burnt appetizer away from calling in Ina Garten for help. Man, I wish I had her on speed dial. That would be so helpful. But good news, Erin and Alyssa actually did call her in.

1:05:57So they are talking with the Barefoot Contessa, no other, a host about everything, about her early days with her husband, her time in the White House, her secrets to hosting without spiraling. So new Hysteria episode drops today. subscribe so you never miss an episode. Have you followed Tom Hurd on Instagram? No. Tom Hurd is this amazing comedian. And one of the things he does is he dresses up in a brown bob and a blue shirt as Ina Garten and has this enormous cosmopolitan. He's like, hello, isn't that fabulous? I called my friends Jeffrey and TJ. And the whole thing is like, If you watch The Barefoot Contessa, it is supremely funny.

1:06:39So listen to Hysteria and then go check out Tom Hurd on Instagram and it'll be amazing. It's a good FYI. So one of the things, maybe the thing I am most excited about in the new year is we are heading to the West Coast for the first time ever. So this is for you jurisprudence heads. This year, the courts aren't just shaping policy. They are throwing the Constitution into a blender and reshaping the entire future of the country. So we are bringing the full strict scrutiny treatment with us to California. The breakdowns, the historical context, the side eye, the feminist legal rage, the puns that might have some innuendo.

1:07:18All of it. So we are so excited. Melissa lived for years in Oakland, taught at Berkeley. Leah is like kind of home of her heart is really in California, if I'm not mistaken. She's teaching Irvine. Yeah, but not for that long. But I just feel like her connections are – But I'm just saying I think of you as more deeply connected to California than just because of your time in faculty. Yes. No, that's totally fair. I think that is like your sole home. I'm going to bring the most special T-shirts to California. And she brings a lot everywhere. So get excited. So we will be on March 6th in San Francisco at the Herbst Theater, on March 7th in Los Angeles at the Palace Theater.

1:07:55We are going to get into election law, executive power, reproductive rights, the cases keeping us up at night. And there are a lot. But, you know, we will do all of this in a fun way. So buy your tickets now because this West Coast jaunt is going to be so chaotic and so epic. You definitely, we are like, we are going across the country. I will be eating LA quality donuts. That sugar is unparalleled. Wow. So come for the legal analysis. Stay for the sugar-fueled roasts of Wet Kavanaugh and Sam Alito. You can grab your tickets right now at crooked.com forward slash events before they sell out. Just going to say, I think this would make an amazing holiday gift for a strictie in your life.

1:08:42Like be a hero. This is the way. This is the way. Just a tip.

1:08:51Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, Melissa Murray, and me, Kate Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our associate producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Katie Long and Adrienne Hill. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. And thanks to our digital team, Ben Hethcote, Joe Matoski, and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube to catch full episodes.

1:09:20Find us at youtube.com slash at Strict Scrutiny Podcast. 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.

1:09:49Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted? If you said yes to both, welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco. And we're the hosts of Hysteria, the podcast for women who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms, and everywhere the stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero handholding. Listen to Hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube.

1:10:27Hey, Chicagoland, the Wayfair store is in your neighborhood at Edens Plaza and Wilmette. Finally, you can feel the fabric, sit on the sectionals, and even open the refrigerators. Plus, our in-store designers will help you bring it all together with free one-on-one design support for any project on any budget. Yep, we said free. Oh, and did we mention the cafe? So what are you waiting for? Come see all that's in store. Visit the Wayfair store today at Edens Plaza and Wilmette. Wayfair, every style, every home. Music, food, art. These things define and unite us. And they come in colors that breathe culture.

1:11:04Colors that connect us with their variety and richness. You'll find that same variety in Valspar Ultra paints. Great coverage and durability starting at$29.98 per gallon. Enjoy everyday protection against scuffs and wear with a smooth, washable finish. We're made of colors. And with Valspar Ultra, you can reflect that pride of culture you have inside on every wall of your home. Available at Lowe's.