A Court of Drugs and Guns

Since the nation's founding, the values of religious liberty and pluralism have been central to the American identity.

“These values are now under accelerated attack.”

The government has no authority to pick and choose which religious beliefs to promote and which to marginalize. Religious freedom for only some is religious freedom for none. The Trump-Fans Administration's Religious Liberty Commission is pursuing a culture of Christian nationalism that seeks to divide and isolate people across our nation. The fatally flawed way this commission was assembled makes clear that the pre-determined outcome

isn't just on American, it's against the law. The Trump-Fans Administration has failed to uphold our country's proud religious freedom tradition,

and we will hold them accountable.

Be part of the movement that's pushing back and standing up for freedom. Register to attend today at thesrf.org.

“I have a lot of problems, but the platform is not one step away.”

I have the feeling that Shopify has its platform continually optimized. Everything is super integrated and balanced. And the time and the money that I can't wait for will be invested by others. For all of you in Waksthum. Now, the cost-nostestens of Shopify.de.

Take their feet off our backs. Hello, Bay Area. We are strict scrutiny. Your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Where you're hosts?

I'm Melissa Murray. I'm Kate Shaw. And I'm Leah Litman. West Coast, best coast. We are finally here.

And I can't tell you how excited we are. We are so excited. I want you to know that I wanted to call this tour the LA face with an Oakland booty tour. I know it's catchy. It's catchy. I was outvoted.

Some people thought it would not be decorous. And I have just three words for those people. Just the tip. I own that. Anyway, this is the bad decisions tour.

And you can't go wrong talking about the Supreme Court and calling something the bad decisions tour because you know bad decisions season will soon be upon us because this court truly cannot help themselves. And because they cannot help themselves, it means we have an absolutely fantastic live show in store for you tonight.

Sometimes what's bad for the country is good for our podcast and this is one of those times. So we are going to cover some recent oral arguments including an epic scotist debate in a case about drugs and guns. On the original meaning, I shit you not of the term "drunkered." Because that is what passes for constitutional law on this Supreme Court

and remarkably, this was not a case about Pete Heggseff. Alcohol and/or controlled substances may end up being a theme for this show because we also have to cover some recent shadow-docket orders. But that's not all. In addition to covering oral arguments and the shadow-docket,

“we are also going to have a little key key with an AG.”

And no, I am not talking about one Pamela Joe Bondi. I mean a real AG, not a real housewife. That's right. California, your attorney general, Rob Bonta, is in the house.

And to close out, as always, we will do a little legal news and end

with our favorite things. One of them is you.

So after a very long hiatus, the court heard oral arguments in three cases last week. But we're just going to focus on one of them. United States versus Hamani,

a second amendment challenge to a law that prohibits, quote, "unlawful users

of controlled substances from possessing firearms." Here, the government is suggesting that this unlawful user language covers someone who is a habitual user of marijuana, which is still under federal law, even if not in many states, a controlled substance.

“Remember that a nice serve of versus Bruin, the Supreme Court”

turned the second amendment into a vehicle for originalist hot boxing. Bruin declared that firearm restrictions are constitutional. Only if the government can show that the restriction is consistent with the nation's tradition of firearm regulation, which the court elaborated requires the government to identify historical analog to modern-day gun regulation.

The court requires those seeking to promote gun safety to show that restrictions on modern firearms are the same as the kind of restrictions that our founding fathers would have used to restrict muskets, right? The jokes write themselves. It's unhinged. It's absolutely unhinged. But the thing is, it's so unhinged that sometimes even the court agrees that it's unhinged, at least sometimes.

“So, you'll recall that a couple of years ago in the United States versus Rahimi,”

the court seemed to get cold feet about the Bruin historical analog test. So, Rahimi was a challenge to a federal law that prohibited individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. And, as it happened, our forefathers were not especially stringent about policing gender violence. So, weird. Accordingly, there were not a ton of laws about disarming domestic abusers at the founding,

and there weren't any at the time of the ratification of the second amendment, which meant

that under Bruin, the challenge law about disarming domestic abusers should have been invalidated. But, but the court got cold feet. So, because Brett Kavanaugh is the father of daughters, and also the first justice to have a chambers composed entirely of women clerks. That is actually true, though irrelevant, like the father of daughter's bit. Some of his fellow Republican appointees got squeamish about putting firearms in the hands of individuals,

credibly accused of domestic violence, even if that's where their own logic should have led them. So, the court leaned further into the hotboxing aspect of the originalist hotboxing, and said, "We're just going to do a vibe check on this gun control measure." And as it turned out, the vibes were immaculate. Rahimi suggested that the restriction on domestic abusers

was basically like the founding era surety laws that required certain people to post bonds before

riding armed. Sure. Fast forward to the homony argument. So, the justices and the advocates were trying to figure out if they were supposed to be applying the Bruin version of the Bruin test, which requires a pretty similar historical analog, a historical twin, if you will, or if they were supposed to be applying the Rahimi version of the Bruin test, which just requires some hand waving and vibe checking, right? So, which one? Well, so the court ended up being more

open to this second amendment challenge than I thought they might be, perhaps because they think another statute that prohibits possession by addicts will suffice to disarm people they think should be disarmed. And so this case gave the Amosexuals on the Supreme Court the opportunity to really indulge in their Amosexual fantasies. And ensure themselves that they are so committed to the second amendment, they will invalidate firearm restrictions that are applicable even to people they don't

like. Now, the two biggest marks on the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and Sam Alito, were friendly to the government, but I didn't hear a clear majority to uphold this law. I thought since we're just sort of starting with high-level impressions, this felt a lot to me like

“the 2005 case Gonzalez versus Rage, which made the law students in the crowd will remember,”

that's a case where the conservatives were very cross-pressured between various items on the kind of conservative jurisprudence wishlist. So, the case states back to much earlier in the country's marijuana legalization journey, it was a California case in which the feds were trying to go after cancer patients who were allowed to grow marijuana for personal use under the state's compassionate use law. So, the case kind of pitted the desire to limit federal power,

specifically under the commerce clause, against the desire to take a maximally punitive position

enough conservative justices back in 2005 that they upheld the federal law. Here, I think I agree with Leah that the Second Amendment enthusiasm may win out. I just want to say someone

who's never done any kind of drug and I see, I'm dead serious, I've never done anything.

The only ingestion I have done has been passively walking through sprawl plaza in Berkeley. I've never done anything. I'm straight-laced as they come, but I at someone who's never done any of these things was a little taken aback by the justices apparently very deep knowledge of certain controlled substances. Just going to say that some of the hypotheticals were incredibly specific.

“I also want to shout out Justice Jackson, who stays on her hustle, you know?”

In every Second Amendment case, she continually points out how backwards and manipulable the brewing test is. And in this particular oral argument, she repeatedly pointed out the inconsistency in the federal government's approach to this case, Hamani,

and another Second Amendment case that was heard this term, Wolford. So, Wolford

involved a Hawaii law that prohibited concealed carry on private property unless the property owner specifically authorized it. And in Wolford, the federal government said that all of the historical laws prohibiting poaching and hunting on private property were just two different from the challenge Hawaii law to count as historical analogs under brewing. Weird. But here in Hamani, the federal government is now arguing that laws prohibiting

vagrancy, which, to my knowledge, has absolutely nothing to do with the possession of a gun. These are historical analogs to the law prohibiting firearm possession by those who

“unlawfully use controlled substances. So historical twin here, no historical twin there, right?”

I've got it. That sounds exactly right. This is why we call it originalist hot boxing. The justice is light up the federalist papers, the statute of Northampton, and some blackstone, and asks whether a gun control measure has good vibes or bad ones. An approach that is totally unmoored from anything approximating law and yet they insist on. So, my take on this case is that I actually, I don't agree that there are necessarily going to,

this is going to be a win for the second amendment. I think there's a good chance that they will

invalidate the statute. But I think they may do so on due process grounds. The view that the statute is unduly vague and doesn't give enough notice about what is actually prohibited and who is targeted. So maybe, I don't know. Anyway, we should highlight some of the notable quotables from this argument. And I'm just going to say, from jump, the new DEI by which I mean Dix, X husbands and embezzles. It's a great line. You can file.

Someone tell Harmeet Dillon. The new DEI had a moment straight out of the gate. So, there was an exchange between the deputies, Solister General, who is arguing in favor of the law and justice corsage. So, let's roll that tape. "Bitchell Drunkard, the American Temperance Society back in the day, said eight shots of whiskey

“a day, only made you an occasional drunkard. We have to remember the founding era if you want to”

invoke the founding era. To be a bitchell Drunkard, you had to double that. Okay? John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of an user of alcohol. He only had three or four glasses of wine a night. Okay?" Now we know why the Georgetown Prep Squad really wants to be originalist, but basically, Neil Gorsuch wants to know what's the original meaning of hammered?

Wood James Madison have concluded that you were totally shit-faced when you threw back a few and included a journalist in your signal group chat. And Neil, if you're listening, I want to know, am I doing the originalism, right? Maybe we shouldn't call it originalist hotboxing, but originalist

luxuriating in the idea that the founders were frat rows was sort of like, since we do think they may be

listening. Maybe some of them heard Leah on a recent episode describe the current administration a great line, which I will repeat, as government by the Manisfier of the Manisfier and for the Manisfier. And the Justice has thought, yes, yes, this is the way. He's a glee animal house, but make it

“constitutional. Yeah. Toga, Toga, Toga, no, no god, no really. You're Brett saying that, can you?”

No, I do not want to see any of them in a Toga, no. Tora, to strike a series note for one minute, though, like part of the reason everyone drank so much in ye oldie days was that we didn't have real water filtration or purification yet. And so alcohol was a lot safer to drink than water a lot of the time. And because this seems to be the reality that Secretary Bill DeBayer/Ramilk is to bring in another cabinet secretary is earnestly trying to cultivate. Maybe it is time or soon we'll be

time for all of us to hit the casks, although for the record we haven't tonight, just sugar, which is our drug of choice. There was a real frat bro under current to the argument, and the Georgetown prep alums brought their usual sea game to the occasion. Take a listen to Neal's fellow Georgetown prep alums Brett Kavanaugh. In response to Justice Alito, I think you said that

drugs are distinct from alcohol for Second Amendment purposes, although there are some similarities.

Is that accurate? Yes, and I would say that, yes, I can elaborate. Please elaborate. Okay. Yes, that is Brett. I like beer Kavanaugh begging the federal government to make a case for why there's a difference between people using drugs and people using alcohol. It's almost like he's personally invested. It almost almost. This episode is sponsored by Better Health, ladies. Existing an government of the Manisfier by the Manisfier, and for the Manisfier is a lot. It seriously

feels like every single day, brings a new reminder or new way, the cultural law, government's

“society, or making it harder on women, or just don't value us, which makes it all the more important”

to support and celebrate women, and all that they carry in their many roles. International women stay as in March, and it's a moment to celebrate women's strength and progress, while also recognizing how much they carry every day. Better help wants to remind women, how much they matter, and that therapy offers a space for them to take care of themselves in the way they deserve. So they're encouraging us all to take a moment to celebrate a woman in your life, say something kind, or

affirming to them. Better help invites you, listeners, to pause and reflect on the roles they play, the expectations placed on them, and the pressures they feel, and better help is there to support them, and you, to help create balance, set healthy boundaries, and support overall while being for everyone. Better help offers quality therapists. Better help therapists work according to a

“strict code of conduct, and are fully licensed in the United States, and they offer therapists who”

will work for you. Better help does the initial matching work for you, so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences, and they're more than 12 years experience an industry-leading, match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. But if you aren't happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist anytime from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, better help is the world's

largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally, and it works with

an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. You're emotional while being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy, sign up, and get 10% off at betterhelp.com/strict. That's BetterHELP.com/strict. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Sundays. Dog food often forces you to make a choice between fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve, but our dogs and us deserve to have it all. You can

get the good without the hassle with Sundays. Sundays was founded by a veterinarian and mom, Dr. Tori Waxman, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics, so she designed Sundays. Airdried, real food, made in a human-grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. I mean, dogs are our families. Every bite of Sundays is clean and made from real meat, fruits, and veggies with no kibble.

That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers. Compared to kibble or other brands out there, Sundays invest 50 times more in its ingredients to ensure premium quality,

On the best part, you just scoop and serve. No freezer, no thying or prep, no mess.

“Just nutrient-rich, clean food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days, so you get more of them”

to share it together. As you all know, I'm obsessed with my dog, Stevie. And intent, undershoring, she is the healthiest, good-as-girl, because she has to live forever. And as she gets older, that unfortunately means I've got to watch her wait and how much she's eating, so she can stay active and stay healthy. One of the great things I've noticed about Sundays for dogs is I can feed Stevie good portions without her getting overweight, and I can put the food because

it's hard food in kibble toys so she can enjoy it for longer, and she's still getting the goods, the good stuff. The quality ingredients, if it's good enough for Stevie, I mean it's gold.

“She is my golden girl. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundaysredogs.com/strict50.”

And get 50% off your first order, or you can use code strict50a checkout.

That's 50% off your first order at Sundaysredogs.com/strict50. Sunday'sred 50 or use code strict50a checkout. Things only devolved from there. In fact, it got so weird. We're going to play a little game where we invite you, our listeners, and audience, to try to guess which justice brought up which drug during the argument. We'll pose the question. You think of the answer, and then we'll tell you which

justices actually had which drugs on their minds. Okay first, which justice invoked

anabolic steroids. If you guessed Coach Kavanaugh, and I heard a few, sorry you're wrong. That was a good guess. Justice for Brett Kavanaugh. Okay. It was Clarence Thomas. Who brought up the Royads. So real talk, I thought this was so helpful for contextualizing his concurrence slash rant in SFFA versus Harvard. I just thought he was an older black man mad that he couldn't get the younger black woman on the court to sign onto his program of completely

dismantling affirmative action. But in fact, he may just have been raging. Why not? They do have that effect. Or both. All right. Next question, which justice brought up Ambien? I heard, okay, I heard some in the audience say Barrett now, just as so to my

or was actually the first to bring up Ambien. But, but it was just as Barrett who really dug into it.

In fact, in fact, she offered the following hypothetical. Justice said to my ors to you about someone who takes Ambien to sleep. So let's assume that someone takes their spouses Ambien prescription. The spouse takes it too, lawfully with the prescription. But then you take it unlawfully because you break into your spouse's Ambien jar.

“First question. Why is there a jar of Ambien in your house? It doesn't come in a jar, right?”

I like cookies coming in a jar. Ambien does not come in a jar. So girl, what is happening in your home? She brought up Ambien four separate times after Justice Sotomayor did. She also referenced both Adderall and Riddlein repeatedly. So that was actually, again, very revealing to me. So she offered a hypothetical that involved a college student who takes his roommates Riddlein twice a week because he thinks it will help with exams.

That is a quote. To which I say, man, that is a very specific hypothetical. The details are really what kind of give it away. You're going to have been very general about that. You could. And yet Amy was also the first justice to bring up Zanix or Zanix. Okay, one other drug or drugs cocktail, as the case may be, which Justice decided to invoke

Salmolito! All right. Why do everyone know that? Whoa, I'm low key offended that

“Salmolito got more applause than any of us. Okay, they were clapping because they knew the answer.”

Okay, they listened to this podcast. And I just want to say that all of his opinions make much more sense now. Okay, Leia said that would be the last one, but I actually want to add one. More, which is sort of a compound question. So who brought up Ayahuasca? And then who seemed to protest a little too much in disclaiming any specific knowledge of that drug? Two part question. Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, they know. So Justice Kagan did bring up the Ayahuasca first.

And I actually think this is one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments of the argument. So Justice Kagan described Ayahuasca as a quote, "very, very intense hallucinogen." And then I just want to say, I just want to say, if I worked with Salmolito, Neil Gorset, Ayahuasca's band repavina, I would also be interested in very, very, very intense hallucinogen.

“It's sort of here the longing and her eyes very, very, very intense. Like am I hallucinating now, please?”

If I worked with them, I would be living in Sproul Plaza, at least. So Justice Kagan first brought up the Ayahuasca. And she also, I think, went to great pains to explain the quote, "I don't know a lot about this drug." I mean, you don't know a lot about this drug. So what I'm going to tell you about this drug, let's just assume it's a truth about this drug. Oh, okay. You say so, Elena. That was pretty funny, but it was even more hilarious that after going all in on ambient, Xanax, Riddlein,

and Adoral, and Robotussin, too. Justice Barrett was like Ayahuasca? I have never heard of the drug.

“Is that real? Girl, be real. If we are allowed to add one more drug to the list, I have to say,”

Neil Gorset, throughout the word gummy, with surprising familiarity. Gluncy, right? Like, yeah, I just tripped her tongue. And then she immediately hastened to add the word bear as if due to spell any suggestion that he is familiar with dispensary Lingo. Now, it might not be doing Coke off the toilet, but I did bring us some gummy bears to do on the podcast stage.

Like I said, I've never done this. He's a real gummy bear, just these are real gummy bears.

All right, because we are nothing if not fair and balanced. I do want to say, though, as to some of the drugs that we were just mentioning, the lawyer for the solicitor general brought up the drug in the first instance, so they didn't necessarily just conjure out of thin air, all of the hypos that we just walked through, still their fixation on certain drugs was okay, you're being way too generous. Like, she opened the door, they ran through. The solicitor general did not bring up a jar of

ambient, or I always got. Anyways, okay, so the drug fueled flavor of the Hmani argument seemed

to bleed into some of the courts shadowed the shenanigans. By which we mean the court released two shatter-docket orders that were clearly written under the influence. You all know the shatter-docket, this is your shadow-docket on drugs. So the first possibly drug influenced order came in a redistricting case out of New York, where the US Supreme Court paused a state court ruling that had invalidated the sole Republican held congressional seat in New York City. So in Staten Island,

guess, of course, and also a part of Brooklyn. So the state court concluded that the district lines

The court then ordered the state to redraw the district, which would have turned a safe Republican seat into a more competitive one. And of course, the Supreme Court would not let that happen because racial discrimination. All right, this court may actually have identified

finally an illegal racial gerrymander. Remember, racial gerrymandering is when districts are drawn

in ways that consolidate political power in ways that disadvantage minority groups. And what is the

“impermecible racial gerrymander that the court may have identified in this particular circumstance?”

It's the fact that the New York trial court decision ordering the state to draw a different set of maps that didn't dilute the voting power of minority voters. That's the racial discrimination that the court finds impermecible. Now to be very clear, this court did not conclude that it was racial discrimination when the Trump Department of injustice begged the state of Texas to redraw

new districts mid-cycle and gerrymander away majority minority districts where minorities voters

could elect the voters of their choice. Instead, they chose to save their powder for this particular instance. Yeah, now the court's order in the New York case is unexplained. Hence our caveats about possible racial gerrymander and whatnot, we don't know why these goblins paused the

“state court ruling, but when you consider the redistricting cases from California, Texas and New York”

together, the punchline seems to be that partisan gerrymanders are fine, but once you start trying to remedy racial gerrymanders where minority groups are underrepresented, that is a bridge to fall. There was one writing from one justice who voted for the state, and it was from friend of the pod, Samolito. He was definitely hopped up on something in this concurrence, so he declared that it is "unadorned racial discrimination" to create a new congressional district for the

express purpose of ensuring that "minority voters," which was in scare quotes, are able to elect the candidate of their choice. Ah, yes, we cannot have minority voters getting to cast meaningful votes to a candidate who will represent their interests. Now, if that logic sounds ominous to you, then you know Samolito and you've probably been listening to this podcast. So effectively, Samolito is suggesting that any race conscious redistricting, including efforts to remedy the opportunity

to lock minority voters out of power, that's the real racial discrimination that we have to address. And if you follow, yes, hiss, because it's terrible. If you follow that logic, then that will likely doom whatever shards remain of the Voting Rights Act, which is still up for grabs and a pending case before this court, Louisiana versus Kelle, and at this point, I can just imagine, the three Democratic appointees wrote, quote, "the courts 101 word unexplained order can be summarized

in just 7. Rules for thee, but not for me." Yeah, as just as such, my or noted, in other cases, the Supreme Court has paused federal court orders that had invalidated voting restrictions on the ground that federal courts should not interfere with election rules to close to an election. That's a so-called Purcell principle. But that's exactly what the court did. The did exactly what they tell federal courts that they shouldn't do, which is to change election rules when

the election is looming or very close. So from what I can get from this, the true meaning of the

Purcell principle is that it's always too close to an election to do something that would result

any multiracial democracy or wins for the Democratic Party, but it's never too close to an

“election to do something that would benefit the Republican Party. Am I getting this right?”

I think, yeah. Am I doing the jury-mandering, right? Yeah, great, okay. Yeah, and that is the kind of emerging, I think, lesson from the courts cases in this area, and as bad as previous cases have been in some ways, then your case is actually a new low. And that's because the court did not have authority to intervene in this case at all. So by law, the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction, right, the power to hear cases from a state court,

has done so, and that did not happen here, which means the court didn't have authority to issue this order, and yet they did it anyway. In the concurrence that Justice Alito wrote that we were

“just talking about, I think he arguably really misrepresent the background suggesting that New York's”

highest court had refused to intervene, even though they hadn't been asked to rule after the

intermediate appellate court ruled here, but he basically, I think in a somewhat misleading way,

describe the procedural background, and then said the court's intervention here was just fine, because it's just like other cases, including one in which the court intervened to protect, Nazis right to March and Skoki, Illinois, like that's the best case that he could find. But whatever you make of that decision, the state courts, in that case, had denied relief that wasn't what happened here. Yeah. So I have a controversial take I would like to offer,

and it's this, is Sam Alito the real Pete Hexeth of the Supreme Court.

“People might think it's Brett Kavanaugh, I'm not sure, because Sam's opinion here honestly had echoes”

of Pete Hexeth standing in front of the lectern firing off. There are no rules of engagement.

We are not going to abide by those woke rules, and basically admitting to war crimes in front of

the entire world, like it just coded Sam Alito to me, I don't know. Princeton? Yeah. All right, we haven't even scratched the surface of the shadow dock of the shadow docket, is the gift that keeps on giving. It takes a lot more than a little hypocrisy from this court to really kick off that decision season. So the courts or public injustices decided that get things started this year by making substantive due process great again. And they did that in a case called

Mirabelli versus Bonta, yes, that Bonta. So this is a shadow docket decision arising from a case here in California. And let me give you just a quick refresher. Substantive due process refers

to the idea that the Constitution protects rights that aren't specifically and explicitly listed

in the Constitution's text. So these include unenumerated rights like the right to an abortion.

“Remember that one? It was a good one. It was a good one. Also the right to contraception don't get”

attached. Anyway, in dogs, the court overruled Rovers' weight ending the constitutional right to choose an abortion and making clear that going forward any unenumerated right that would be understood to be entitled to constitutional protection had to be one that was quote unquote deeply rooted in the history and tradition of this country. And this past week, the guys and the dobs majority decided that one right that is deeply rooted in our history in tradition is parents right to be

notified if their child identifies as transgender at school. Effectively to have the school out their children as trans. And they did so in a gratuitously nasty opinion. So these schools could have avoided using pronouns instead they chose to use she and daughter over the child's objection. And in addition to the court's hypocrisy on substantive due process, which Melissa was just talking about, Justice Kagan, who penned a lengthy descent, called out the court's hypocrisy on the issue

of parental rights between this case and this grammatic case. So recall that in last year's decision in Srimedi, the court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, they're although it was asked to do so, the court opted not even to weigh in on whether the Constitution protects parents right to ensure that their child can obtain gender affirming care without undo interference from the state. So refused even consider the parental rights question in Srimedi

and here, on the shadow docket decided to sashay in and declare that the Constitution does afford parents the right to have their child out of them as transgender. The other thing that makes us really egregious is that this is obviously a major question of substantive importance and they decided to issue this decision on the shadow docket rather than taking the opportunity to resolve it on the merit stocket. And there are plenty of opportunities

to do so on the merit stocket. There are a number of petitions that are pending before the court that would have raised this issue. They could have waited for the Ninth Circuit to finish its consideration of this question. But they were so impatient that they couldn't do any of these things and they disagreed with every single court of appeals that has so far considered this matter.

anything that benefits multiracial democracy but never too close to an election to do things that

benefit the Republican Party. This is now the punchline of substantive due process. Substantive due process is bad when abortion but good when anti-trans. Parental rights are unnecessary when the right is to support your trans kid but their an emergency requiring immediate action when the asserted parental right is to out your trans kid. As Justice Sotomayor said in the New York case rules for the but not for me. And that that is our update on one first street.

Still sucks! Strix scrutiny is brought to you by Mint Mobile. I don't know about you but I like keeping my money where I can see it. Emotional support billionaires probably like that too and Mint Mobile offers you a way to save money from the traditional big wireless carriers who make you overpay. So maybe you can aspire to be an emotional support billionaire one day. Stop overpaying

“for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely to fix that. Mint”

Mobile is here to rescue you with premium wireless plans starting at $15 a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network.

So you can chatter with everyone about what's going on at one first street. You can bring your

own phone a number and activate with eSIM in minutes and start saving immediately. No long-term contracts, no hassle. Ditch over price wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for $15 a month. Bives in the market for a new wireless plan, Mint Mobile is where I would go. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at Mint Mobile.com/strict. That's Mint Mobile.com/strict. Up front payment of $45 for three month 5G by plan required equivalent to

$15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full price plan options available. Texas and fees extra, C. Mint Mobile for details. Now I'd like to tell you about a new podcast, the briefing, with Michael Wollman. Michael is a former White House speechwriter, lawyer, and constitutional scholar. He leads the Brennan Center for Justice, which works to repair and strengthen American democracy across a range of issues, from gerrymandering to abuse a presidential power

from Supreme Court reform to corruption and more. We've all worked with Michael and his team of experts and we can tell you that no one understands these challenges better than they do. What makes the Brennan Center unique is that it's more than a think tank. It's focused on turning ideas into

“policy, and that's what we like about the briefing podcast. You're going to hear new ideas,”

but you're also going to learn about the strategies, the political fights, and the deal-making that will shape the next phase of American democracy. If you care about American democracy, this is a podcast for you. You can listen and subscribe to the briefing with Michael Wollman, wherever you get your podcast. For a change of pace and breath of fresh air, we'd like to talk to a lawyer who believes in the

rule of law generally, not just selectively. Which is why we are delighted to bring on to the stage our very special guests for this show, your attorney general, California Rob Bonta. - Good evening everyone. - Welcome to the show. - honored to be here. - We're thrilled to have you. We're going to cover a lot of friends.

“I'm going to jump right in by asking you to tell us, so we're recording on Friday,”

and yesterday, you filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. - Yes. - It sounds like the people of the city know that, but for the listeners who don't, can you tell us about that lawsuit? - Absolutely, and let me first say this was our 60th lawsuit that we brought in. Less than 60 weeks, we're bringing more than one lawsuit a week. We're winning repeatedly, we're winning 80% of the time, we're securing restraining orders,

and final judgments, and sometimes when we sue Trump, just backs down and says, I give up.

We've protected $200 billion of funding that California is owed, it's our funding that

Congress appropriated, the branch with the power of the Perse. We're protecting constitutional rights, like voting rights, and birth rights citizenship, and this was our second case challenging Trump's unlawful tariffs. We had just won a prior case, our AG coalition striking down his unlawful tariffs under the International IEPA, and International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and he is dead set on his commitment to unaffortability and to raising prices. He is working

over time, he is stretching and reaching, even doing unlawful things to make to create tariffs

look, because he shiggins out on everything else, and he refuses to chicken out on attacking

“affordability or territory. He's fully committed, he's all in, he's going to finish the job,”

the job's not done yet, and so he brought another lost weeks on the day, the Supreme Court issued their decision under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and he has no basis to bring these

tariffs. This statute has never been invoked before, in 52 years of existence and never,

and it's based on an archaic system based on a balance of payments, deficit analysis, and at a time when we had fixed exchange rates instead of the floating exchange rate. So the bottom line is he's acted unlawfully again, he has no basis for this lawsuit. Congress has the power to tax tariffs or taxes. Trump can't issue these tariffs, so we're at went to court again to strike them down and fight for affordability for Americans.

And we should say, so obviously you lost big in that ebook case in the Supreme Court, and one additional piece of legal news we haven't had a chance to cover is that the court of international trade, right, after the Supreme Court ruled, issued a pretty sweeping ruling last week

on the issue of refunds, basically finding that refunds are owed and the court's decision last year,

and the cost of case about universal injunctions actually doesn't apply in the court of international trade. So according to that court, everybody, not just the particular plaintiffs who came to that

“court, is entitled to their refunds. And so I think that is probably because the Trump administration”

is already saying it can't possibly comply, that is likely headed back to scotus, and I wouldn't be surprised if this trade act, section 122 case, is on a fast track as well, but so far, he's striking out, and I think there's every reason to believe that he's going to keep striking out. I think he's going to continue to lose here, and he needs to give all the American businesses and American people who are hurt by his unlawful tariffs, so he victimized, give them refunds

with interest, and do it immediately, and stop waiting, stop dragging your feet, give them

the money that they're owed, you took it from them, and I do want to point out that this was in front of the US Supreme Court, this was his centerpiece economic policy, there was a belief among some that we might win at the lower court. You might even win at the intermediate appellate court, but if you get to the US Supreme Court, he's got three appointees there, they're going to rubber stamp him, and they didn't on there. There was also the 401(k)s

of the justices. I'm not going to get back to the reasoning and the rational. But I like the outcome, it's a good outcome, it's a right outcome. We also want our national guard, California Prop 50, we want on that. All in front of the US Supreme Court, and my staff will get nervous, as I say this,

“because they don't never want me to predict what the court will do, but I think that we're going”

to get a positive ruling on Lisa Cook and the Federal Reserve Board. I think we're going to get a positive ruling on birthright citizenship. So we'll see how that goes, but we can, and we do win in front of the US Supreme Court sometimes. So you've already kind of begun to talk about how you, as a state, you know, are stepping up to the play when the federal government is not only declining to protect people, but actively harming them. And we've talked about on the show,

the possibility of state prosecutions, and federal immigration officers. Recently, it was reported that Mary Moriardy's office in Minnesota is investigating Colonel Lockjaw. I mean, Greg Vino after news, that a whistleblower alleged that FBI forensic experts were ordered to stand down from processing the scene where Renee Good was killed because Cash Patel didn't want Good referenced as a victim. And I know, you know, your office has been doing a lot of this work.

So could you tell us about some of what your office is doing to address federal law enforcement overreach and what states can do more generally on that front? Absolutely. You know, we've been standing up for a accountability of federal officers to make sure that they don't act with impunity. Make sure that they know even though JD van says otherwise, wrongly that they don't have absolute immunity. They don't. I mean, that that's a fact. He went to Yale. So. Ouch.

Yeah, I said that to your face, Melissa. You said to his face, too. My face, too. We're both nearly. You know, we don't claim him. We don't claim him. Fair. So we've been making it clear that there is accountability and that we're reserting the rights that we have, and affirming the rights that we have as states as law enforcement officers as prosecutors to tackle crime that occurs in our states, even if a federal officer is the one committing it. We actually also joined them as an

amicus to Minnesota lawsuit, challenging the militarized occupation of their state based on equal sovereignty and state sovereignty grounds. And the governor and I issued a bulletin to all our law enforcement community members here in California saying that if a federal officer commits

and prosecutors have the right to investigate, to prosecute, to secure a crime scene, to gather

evidence, to do what we do investigate and prosecute crime. And the fact that we have to say that, because unfortunate, but we had to say that. And we even opened up a portal inviting members of the public to share with us information if they think a crime has been committed by a federal

“officer, oag.ca.gov, dot report, misconduct if you want to share anything that you may know or”

someone you know knows. And then we also believe that civil liability pathways are important, just like section 1983 for local and state officers, but bivons was supposed to be or used to be before it was weakened. There needs to be a civil pathway in California stepping up to put

a line to place this year on that in that regard. I love it, cheering for bivons and state bivons.

This is my kind of crowd. You mentioned affordability briefly. One of the things that's contributing to the inner affordability that's playing so many Americans is the federal government's refusal to enforce laws that would protect consumers, including anti-trust laws and laws that prohibit corporate consolidation. We've talked a lot about this on the podcast. For example, last week Leah alluded to the consolidation of the Manisfier Media in the hands of Larry Ellison and one

of his large adult sons. Yeah. He's a very tall man. He's purely descriptive. This is the paramount Warner Brothers merger. But you also have some pending litigation against live

nation and ticket master. So I know there's a lot going on in the state and we know you have

pending cases. So if you could sort of speak generally, why is it so important for the state to address these questions of oligarchism and corporate consolidation when, for most people, they seem like really big picture issues. How do they sort of get to everyone's bottom line? How are they really kitchen table issues? Yeah. No, thank you. And when you talk about things like anti-trust law and Manopolis, it can sometimes people don't know how that affects them. But it goes to exactly what you

said, it goes to affordability. Corporate consolidation has proven objectively historically that it raises costs. So we have a role as a state to independently investigate and bring lawsuits when we believe that anti-trust laws broken when there's anti-competitive conduct. The federal government has long and traditionally been engaged in that role. The FTC, the U.S. DOJ. What they

“will do going forward, you know, TBD and some already determined that, you know, I think they've”

really withdrawn from that role. And so into that gap and into that void, we must step to continue to protect consumers. And when there's corporate consolidation, you see prices going up, you see wages for workers going down, you see lower quality, less choice, less competition. And that is what we look at in these lawsuits. And so we're looking at that. It's a public that we are with respect to paramount Warner Bros. We have, we're in court right now in the Southern District of New York,

on the live nation ticket master case. We're looking at other corporate consolidation possibilities and their impact on consumers. But this is about affordability. And so it's not just Trump's tariffs that are raising costs. It's also his lack of enforcement of anti-trust law, allowing for corporate consolidation that raises prices for Americans. And that's wrong. Someone needs to do it in California and the states are stepping into that void.

Good night. Can I ask you to talk kind of generally about sort of coordination and collaboration. So you've now referenced a few times, working with other states and other state agencies, whether it's national guard, birthright citizenship, some of this anti-corporate consolidation work. So can you just talk a little bit about those collaborations and sort of how,

“you know, as I tell my kids, teamwork makes the dream work. But like how does that work?”

And then can you also tell us how my understanding is that this, some coordination has been happening even back, you know, as far back as 2024. So like when did you start deciding you were going to work together? And what does that look like? Absolutely. And that there are now 24 democratic attorneys general across the country. There were 23 when we started, we had to pick up in Virginia last year. And we are all sort of independent sovereign officers in our state representing sovereign states.

And we've banded together because we think that we can be more impactful and deliver more to those who need it as a whole than we can as some of our parts. And we do it voluntarily. There's no leader. We're all equals we've come together. And we started preparing and thinking about what might come before the election. Knowing that we couldn't guarantee it wouldn't be Trump and that we

planned, we charted, we looked at all the campaign promises, we read project 2025, you know, he put

“in writing what he was going to do if he took office. And so that horrible as the contents of project”

2025 are, it gave us an ability to prepare and respond and plan. And so we have like briefs and actions that are prepped and ready. We just have to dot the eyes, cross the T's, press print and file it. If it happens. And we believe if he says he will do it, we take him out of his word. We can't take the chance that he might not. We have to be ready. So I'm grateful that the

24 AG's have been working and preparing to get there. And you know, one example, we were the first

state in the nation where the National Guard was deployed and fertilized. And we went to court. We got restraining orders that were successful in preventing the deployment and also preventing violations of the Pasi Commitatus Act. And then Trump announced a plan to do this in DC and do it in Portland and do it in Chicago. And so our ability to share information, you know, we basically handed over our briefs and our best thinking and our strategy and gave it to our colleagues. And

they used it as, as it could be helpful. When they were fighting the same battle. And then the

California National Guard was deployed from California to Oregon. You know, the day after

the judge there had struck down the deployment of the Oregon National Guard. And so I was on the phone with Oregon AG Rayfield. And we were talking, I was at my mom's birthday brunch. And when she turned 88, and you know, I was stepped away to talk to AG Rayfield. So, but we really value, and I so valued my colleagues who are in this fight together who are helping each other, who are sharing information, who are bringing passion and commitment and talent and knowledge to

“the table. And we believe that we're really accomplishing some important things for the people of this”

country. So we also wanted to ask some more kind of personal questions. We've talked a lot about really personal, but we've talked a lot about on the show how Brett Kavanaugh is really into being a father of daughters. So can you talk a little bit about what it's like being a dad or father in these times? Yeah, you know, I love and I'm so honored and privileged to be the Attorney General

of the state. A state that's given me so much. It's a title I'll always cherish, but far from being

the most important title that I have. Most important titles I'll ever have will be husband to my wife Mia and father to my three kids, Andreas and Rayne and Iliana. And often, as a public elected official, I have thought deeply about a decision I'm about to make, wonder if I'm doing the right thing and I've often gone back to, can you explain what you did to your kids and they'll understand it and

“believe dad did the right thing and they'd be proud. So I think about a lot of what I do through”

that lens and I worry about them. And so I look at a lot of my official work through the lens of a dad. I look at the safety work that we do when we're trying to make online platforms and social media and AI safe for children. I think about them when we're doing our affordability work and making sure that there's more housing production in the state of California so that more people can pursue and realize the dream of home ownership. So Mia and B's in the house? And I think about their

rights and freedoms and I think about a, I just want them to have a world that's fair and just and good. And if I can help create that, then that really drives me. I think about the rights and freedoms and I think about my oldest daughter Reina, I want to think about that. She's a professional soccer player and a filmmaker. She met her wife, playing professional soccer in Brazil. They got married intentionally and deliberately before the inauguration of Donald Trump because they weren't

sure they could after the inauguration of Donald Trump. And they eventually want to come to America her wife's Brazilian. I want to make sure there's a fair immigration policy and process and they want to have a family someday. So I don't want their choices of who to love, where to live, if when and how to have a family to be taken away from them. And so that gives me motivation, it gives me passion, it gives me more energy, more in these fights. Can I, can I just say really candidly like,

such an incredible breath of fresh air. So thank you for reminding us that public official public

“servants should sound like this. So maybe this is, you know, some of the last couple of answers”

you gave sort of stepped into this. But I'm going to maybe just ask explicitly, things are grim as I just referenced at the federal level. I don't think we can downplay just how bad, how much damage that is going to be very hard to undo, how much damage has already been done at the federal level and just the year and change of this administration. But, you know, we try all the time to find things to put our energy into and places to sort of seize onto to find hope. And it sounds like

there are lots of things that do that for you. But can you just talk a little bit for people who are

finding it difficult right now? Like that practice, like how you find sort of hope and places to put the rage that and the kind of energy that a lot of us have right now? Yeah, for sure. You know, I am a hard-wired hopeful. I'm just hopeful and I'm a glass-huffle guy. And why? So many things give me hope right now. My team at the California DOJ gives me hope and they are here in the house

“by the way. So those particularly loud cheers, I think are from them. And there are some of the most”

committed, passionate talented attorneys that I know. They do this for the work. They don't want the

recognition. I want to recognize them. I want to thank them. I'm honored to be able to believe

this office. I'm grateful that you're here and shameless plug. We're hiring in our office. So if you want to be like them and doing our team, we have our job postings online. My democratic attorneys general give me hope, the fight that they show, the commitment, you know, and like in Minnesota, A. G. Ellison, in the middle of the toughest fight, stand and strong, holding his ground, speaking truth, that gives me hope. Lough firms that fight and don't cave, give me hope.

My prior law firm, Keckerman Vanness is one of the ones who fought. So shout out to Keckerman Vanness, judges who do their job and follow the law, follow the facts, and while fending off, criticisms out their activist judges and their so-called judges and calls for their impeachment, but just do it and let the chips fall where they may, that gives me hope. All the elections since Trump was elected, give me hope. The midterms of coming midterms give me hope, the Trump

pulling in the tank gives me hope and he's earned it, he deserves it, it's appropriate reflection where he should be, the blue wave that's coming gives me hope. Same more about that. I mean, I got my crystal ball out today and my on Supreme Court ruling is on what's going to happen. But, you know, folks with good values and who care about the people are going to be taken over, and the folks are, they are not happy with where we are, and that shows up empirically in all the

“polls, and I think that's what's going to happen in the upcoming election. So that's my hard”

world hopeful part, but I'll just say this. You, us, we, the people, give me hope. When we show up, when we are engaged, when we know we have power, when we are not hopeless, because we know we're not helpless, because we can do something about this moment and make tomorrow more fair than today, when we stay engaged, when we stay enraged about the abuses of power, and when we know that people of power is the most potent power that there is in a democracy.

The bosses of Donald Trump are not as billionaire buddies, they are not greedy corporations, they are you and me and us and we, and there are many chapters yet to be written in the story of the state and the story of this country, and we are going to write them. We will choose what happens next. We will choose what happens tomorrow, and so that gives me hope. And when people show up in crowds, when they show courage, when they show up for no kings rallies, and hands off rallies to demand

something from their government and to refuse to accept the unacceptable, that all gives me hope. So, I know that we are going to get through this. To me, it's inevitable. The one thing that is required is that we fight, it's that we stay engaged, but if we do, I know we're going to have a tomorrow that's more fair, more just where the rule of law is intact, where we have separation of powers and rights and freedoms and checks and balances and all the

person is called to step up. Sometimes the moment picks you, you don't pick the moment,

and it is what you do in response. So, a room full of dedicated committed folks ready to fight, knowing that we can have a better tomorrow, that gives me hope, and I'm grateful to be here with all of you.

“That just wore my cold jaded heart. I think I'm going to go apply for a job at the cost of your time.”

We're ready. It's not now. No, no, sorry. General, get over. Audience, please give it up to Rob Bonta. You're 18! Strict scrutiny is brought to you by fast growing trees. Did you know fast growing trees is America's largest and most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants in

over 2 million happy customers? They have all the plants your yard or home needs, including fruit

trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and houseplants, all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's like your local nursery, but anywhere you live, with more plants and you'll find anywhere else. Whatever you're looking for, fast growing trees helps you find options. They make it easy to get your dream yard, and their alive and thrive guarantee promises that your plants

“arrive happy and healthy, no green thumb required. Just quality plants you can count down. Plus,”

you can get ongoing support from trained plant experts who can help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants, and learn how to care for them every step of the way. I am not a great, let's say, home decor person, and I'm even worse when it comes to plants and yard work. If you pointed to a tree, I'd say that's a tree. Couldn't tell you more than that, and I couldn't chop her plants to save my life. Fast growing trees, however, makes it all easy.

So I live in Michigan, which meant I focused on their Michigan collection. Seriously, they make it so easy that even tailored the recommendations for where I live, and given my attitude toward landscaping, I knew I could easily pick items that would last the entire year, and that wouldn't require a ton of care. And there were so many options. I'm obsessed with lavender, and so ordering

“up sensational lavender plant made a ton of sense. You don't need a big yarder, a lot of space.”

The experts at fast growing trees have curated thousands of plants for every climate and growing zone, and every plant is backed by their alive and thrive guarantee, guaranteed to arrive healthy and ready to thrive in your yard. Fast and easy ordering online, you just click order and grow from over 1,600 varieties of trees and plants. And with their plant experts on call, you can help plan your next project find the right plants and learn how to care for them.

Right now, they have great deals on spring planting essentials, up to half off on select plants,

and listeners to our show get 20% off their first purchase when using the code strict at checkout.

That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at fast growing trees.com, using the code strict at checkout. Fast growingtrees.com code strict. Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use strict to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time, terms and conditions may apply. For all of them, in Vax-tomb.

Now's the cost-and-lost test of Shopify.de. Dare I say, I feel hopeful. He is making the police power great again. That part where he said he, when he did things, he was like, "How could I explain this to my children?" He was like, "Does DJT think about that? How would I explain this to John Jr?" It's just like, it feels like government service at the federal level has been so debased to

I know that to be reminding us about what it is. It just looks like, yeah. Yes. I feel like Kate. Bad Melissa, it's okay. It just feels so weird. It just feels so weird. Let's bring you back and let's touch on some legal news. This will be bracing and sobering, actually. Okay. All right, folks. We have talked a lot on this podcast about the executive orders

targeting the law firms and as the Attorney General noted, rather than settling with the administration, a few intrepid firms decided to challenge the orders and the courts invalidated those orders in every single case in which they were challenged.

Actually, all one. Anyway, well, friends, early last week, the Wall Street Journal

“reported that the Trump administration decided that it wasn't going to appeal those”

lower court rulings of government even filed motions to dismiss the appeals. And then David for it, J.K. The New York Times reported that DOJ said vaccines and they filed a motion to withdraw the motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeals. The law firms unsurprisingly objected to DOJs about face. So we actually don't know and maybe we'll just talk through

now like, what do we think happened? The one possibility is the president just changed his mind

after seeing kind of favorable coverage by places like the New York Times praising the law firms that had challenged the orders targeting them. Another possibility is that the solicitor general, who has to approve decisions about whether to appeal, initially made the decision to stand down and then informed the court of that decision and then the Attorney General or the White House Council overruled him, like those are possible, regardless of the reason, this is all completely

humiliating for the Department of Justice, like they should be humiliated to the list.

“This is just the tip, as I said, or but you know, honestly kind of just another average work day”

at the Department of Justice of sort of debasing and humiliating yourself, but actually a little bit worse than your average day. This was bad. Yeah, agreed. Speaking of another humiliating work day to different federal agency, we're delighted to announce we have a new nickname. The new nickname is "Christy No More!" Yes, beloved, "Christy No More" is out at DHS after Trump, after Trump all yellowed her.

So easy. What can I say, folks? Karma is a beach poo. Anyway, the president announced on Truth's Social Warehouse that "Nome will become a quote-unquote special envoy to the shield of the Americas" and I was very surprised to learn that this is definitely a real thing and not part of the Marvel Universe. Of course, you'd be very clear that the shield of the Americas predictably is very villain forward. This is the regime's plan

to occupy the entire Western Hemisphere and similarly execute people. So, very, very normal. Yeah, you can be alarmed by it. It is alarming. But again, this is a story of failing up. And the best part of this failing up story was that when the Truth's Social Post announcing her ouster hit the interwebs, "Christy No More" was speaking at a press conference. And it was some I unclear if she even knew at the time she was speaking that she had been fired.

Awkward. But, maybe this is exactly what a puppy murderer deserves. Justice for cricket. Justice for cricket. Cricket is like tell Christy. I want you to know.

I want her to know. It was me. Always you cricket. Yeah.

Just to talk about that presser for a minute. At the press conference, Christy No More, misquoted, but actually misquoted or well. We have to get her credit. I mean, ending a tenure at DHS that was marked by vicious lies and carnage by misrepresenting or well is

“incredible top-tier legendary you have to hand it to her. Yeah. It gets better. Oh, yeah.”

Because Trump announced that he intends to nominate Senator Mark Wayne Molin of Oklahoma to replace no. Yep. No less evil. Probably dumber. Which is saying something. This is after all someone

Anyways, we thought we would take this opportunity to introduce you to the new nominee for

Secretary of Homeland Security. So this is a time. This is a place. You want to run your mouth. We can be too consenting adults. We can finish it here. Okay, this is fun. Perfect. You want to

“do it now? I'd love to do it right now. We'll stay in your butt up there. Do you stand your butt up?”

Oh, hold on, hold on. Stop it. Say your solution, every pull. Oh, no. Sit down. Sit down. Okay. You don't know. You're United States Senator. Let them fight. This is a time. This is a place. Of course. This is a man who has no space between

his first middle names. Like, I will say it is a little on the nose to pick an MMA fighter

to be your secretary of Homeland Security. Well, he actually was, right? Yeah, the record is debated. Some say he has a five to zero undefeated records. Some say he's a three to zero undefeated record. I want to know where the other two plays like just two are missing. Where? What happened? But he definitely fought. Yeah. And he won some matches. Yeah. So that clip for folks who hadn't seen it before is the witness testifying as Teamsters President Sean O'Brien. And then, of course,

Senator Bernie Sanders at the end shutting it down. And you want to know what happened to

Jimmy Hoffa? Like, I mean, I was not backing down. But I also, this was not, I don't think,

I mean, the, you know, MMA matches and it suggests as much as well that this was not necessarily like a one-off. So last week, Mullin had this to say about a time that Senator Rand Paul was assaulted

“by a neighbor of his. People might remember this from a few years back. So Secretary”

Designate Mullin said, quote, I, I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did. I told him him being Paul. I told him that to his face. Okay, bad enough. But guess who the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee is? It's Rand Paul. But I mean, obviously it's funny, but also this is like incredibly dark and disturbing because between that and Senator Tim she evidently breaking a marine veteran veteran protesters arm last week, it does feel very field of blood,

right? The wonderful Joanne Freeman book about, you know, actual physical, a moment in which, like the shedding of blood was commonplace in the United States Congress, it feels like we are inching back toward that very dark place rather, rather quickly. All right, let's go back to Chris Let me move more. Yeah. That was a great history. All right, in more tales of Christy No More, I just want to note that in what I am sure is a total coincidence, community pain,

Corey Lewandowski, it's also reportedly out at DHS. According to a statement, the two of them are going to quote "spend more time with their families." "Wink wing." Monogamy for thee, but not for me. I'm just going to call him Corey Lewandowski, a future assistant to the special envoy for the shield of the Americas. In order to commemorate the departure of these two legends from DHS, we wanted to play this from now soon to be former Secretary No More's recent appearance before

Congress. So Secretary No, at any time during your tenure, as director of department of Homeland Security, have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski? Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that we're going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today, reclaiming a man one thing that I would tell you is that he is a special government employee who works for the White House. There are thousands of them in the federal government. So reclaiming his advisor, usually able to instead

what we do at the Department of Homeland Security. Every single day, every single day is to protect. If someone is out to make decisions, you or any federal official, it's like with their support,

“and that's how easy it should be. You should be wanting to answer that question.”

I love that someone in the audience shares my discomfort with that. We played it as we were getting ready for the show tonight, and I was like hiding my face. I could not watch it.

was about. That's the part of the reason. In case you missed it, one thing she didn't say

“in response to that question was no. She did not deny the allegations. And she”

was repeatedly asked. She is never beating these charges. Definitely asked to do so.

But more seriously, inject this into my veins. This is a reminder that accountability is possible that the Trump regime is weaker than they pretend they are, and that good things can happen when people and democratic leaders decide to hold alleged, perfidious adulterers to account. I feel hopeful. Yeah, and this seems about as good a time as any to get to our favorite things. All right, so we've got a couple to share with you. One is something I'm going to just read a

couple of lines from it's a judicial order actually in a habeas case from West Virginia late last

month that we haven't had a chance to mention on the show. And I just wanted to read a couple

“of sentences from it because I think it kind of crystallizes this moment. Maybe better than any”

judicial opinion that I've read so far. So here is what this district court judge wrote quote, "Across the interior of the United States, agents of the federal government, masked, anonymous, armed with military weapons, operating from unmarked vehicles, acting without warrants of any kind, or seizing persons and imprisoning them without any semblance of due process." The systematic character of this practice and its deliberate elimination of every structural

feature that distinguishes constitutional authority from raw force, place it beyond the reach of ordinary legal description. So there's more, but I just think that so beautifully crystallizes why it is so hard as we've said many times to kind of talk accurately about what's happening right now and not sound like a crazy person because the assault is so profound and unremitting on the very idea of law and the constitutional order that you sound unhinged if you just calmly describe it.

“And I think that this judge is a beautiful job of not sounding unhinged,”

calmly describing the flagrant violations of specific constitutional violations and the idea of a constitution without sounding unhinged. So I really salute that judge and I wanted to share it with you. And then briefly, a handful of listeners that I've met recently, I was at Harvard Law School a couple of weeks ago and I wanted to say hello to Jenna, Faye Lucilla, Taylor, Hannah, Jennifer, and the rest of the wonderful group I talked to at the Harvard Law Review. Thanks so much for listening.

So on my favorite things is the recent announcement of the continuation of the Mossverse. So Sarah Moss announced new books in the Court of Thorns and Roses series and I am so excited, so excited. Not as excited as I am about another forthcoming book. We are about two months away from the release of Melissa Murray's book. The US Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader. I also have some personal shoutouts, wanted to shout out some guests in the audience.

So A. G. Bonta mentioned that there are lawyers here from California DOJ wanted to give a special shout out to California DOJ's reproductive justice unit. And to at least one aspiring lawyer in the audience, Maya, I know this shout out isn't as exciting as getting one from Justice Sotomayor, but this wants for you and you can thank your dad Jonathan for the heads up. So I am also very excited that the book is coming out in two months. I'm excited. Me and my co-author

James Madison are just really, really excited. No one is more surprised than James Madison than

I'm as co-author. Never thought coming. Truly. This week I was on the road a lot. I was in Iowa at

the beginning of the week and I hung out with some really fantastic stricties at Drake Law School, Melissa, on New and Andrea, thank you so much for the warm welcome to Iowa's fantastic. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that my absolute favorite thing. This week is that my

And this amazing Bay Area weather because it sucks in New York right now. Absolutely sucks.

There's some other real highlights of this trip that I want to highlight. First, this morning, one of my favorite things was when Kate reported that she saw her first penis pump in the tenderloin.

“It was like 11 o'clock in the morning. I think it was the evening and 11 o'clock in the morning.”

Never changed the inferences go up. Seriously, folks, it's so great to be home in the bay.

I was in Oakland this morning. Love you Oakland. I want to shout out my Berkeley law. Former colleagues always colleagues are in the audience tonight and my homies from our dance floor

“in Albany, California, who are here tonight as well. We're strict scrutiny and we love you, West Coast.”

Strix scrutiny is a crooked media production hosted an executive produced by Lea Littman, Melissa Murray, and me, Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Rappel. Michael Goldsmith is our producer, Jordan Thomas is our intern, music by Eddie Cooper, production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Magic Road is our head of production. Thanks to our video team, Ben Hethcote and Johanna Kase. Our production staff is proudly

unionized with the writer's Guild of America East. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe

to Strix scrutiny and your favorite podcast app and on YouTube @strixfruitnewpodcast 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.”

I'm Charisa and my experience in all entrepreneurs started a choppy fry at full-time. I recommend choppy fry for the first day and the platform makes me no problem. I have a lot of problems but the platform is not one step away. I have the feeling that choppy fry is a platform that can only be optimized. Everything is super-integre and full-time. And the time and the money that I can't be able to invest in there.

For all in the boxtom. Now, the cost list is on choppy fry.de.