Affirmative Action for Mediocre Men

The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move

“toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And those most caught in the”

crossfire are specifically federal workers. A multi-faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution. Our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State received emails from multiple USDA employees. A handful of employees reached out saying the proselytizing Easter emails sent by Secretary of Agriculture

Brooke L. Rollins to more than 100,000 USDA employees is an abusive power that violates the

separation of church and state promised in the first amendment and they are absolutely right.

Again, separation of church and state if you can read the first amendment, you see that the government cannot establish a national religion, cannot endorse a national religion and here we are sending a proselytizing Easter email to 100,000 federal employees. The hits just keep coming from this administration and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against creeping

“Christian nationalism. If you want to help head over to AU.org/cricut to learn more about their work”

and how you can get involved. I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet or for my next. Hello and welcome back to Strixhurtney, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Where you're hosts, I'm Melissa Murray and I'm Lea Lipman and it's just us this week which means let the wild rumpus begin. That is correct folks without the tempering

influence of Catherine Shaw who knows what we two chaos goblins are going to get up to. Maybe Lea we will draft a concurrence saying that section two of the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply to redistricting claims or something crazy like that wrong chaos goblins Melissa.

“That's clearance and Neil I think we would write a different concurrence but fear not listeners.”

We can ensure you that this is going to be wild and here's what we have on tap. We'll start with

the news including some updates on the slush fund then we'll turn to the opinions that the court issued last week and we'll close with the dab of court culture or favorite things and an interview that Melissa did with Yale Law Professor Judith Resnick about her recent book in permissible punishments. How prisons became a problem for democracy and speaking of problems for democracy we have some breaking news. Listeners as you know the court's decision in

Louisiana vs. Calay nullified section two of the Voting Rights Act which had prohibited states from drawing districts that resulted in meaningfully less political and electoral power

and political and electoral opportunities for minority voters. Basically before Calay under section

two states could not effectively pack and crack the black electorate by consolidating them into a single district and then diffusing the remainder across several districts when it was very possible to draw two or more nice reasonably configured pretty districts where black voters could actually have political opportunities. And in ending the prospect of minority opportunity districts Calay insisted that it was merely making the Voting Rights Act closely tracked those cases where the

Constitution itself would limit states redistricting so the Constitution prohibits redistricting that is intentionally racially discriminatory and intentionally disadvantages black voters. Footnote or maybe it doesn't will get to that in a second but Calay said it wasn't adopting an intentional discrimination requirement or rule. It was just limiting the Voting Rights Act to occasions that are likely intentional discrimination and give rise to an inference of intentional

discrimination and just to be clear we've seen these goals run this play before in 2013 decision Shelby County vs. Holder the nation's leading institutionalist. John G. Roberts assured us that even though he was eliminating the preclairs regime there was no need to worry because section two remained in place and prohibited discrimination in Voting. Now the court tells us we shouldn't be alarmed that Calay gutted section two of the Voting Rights Act because the Voting Rights Act

and the Constitution still prohibit intentional racial discrimination. Again, hold that thought for a second.

apostasy that is Calay, these goals decided that the last shards of law that prohibited intentional racial discrimination against black voters was just too much equality to bear. And so this court granted Alabama's request to re-instate a set of maps that a three judge panel that included to Trump appointees had twice concluded was racially discriminatory. Let that settle in to Trump appointees twice looked at these maps and were like yep, seems like racial

discrimination to me. In any event, the court did so by requiring a showing of racial discrimination to establish a section two violation and then they made it virtually impossible to prove intentional

racial discrimination. Basically, the lower court looked at this and said yes, this map seems like

it was drawn to fuck over black voters and the court was like well can you really tell that they meant to fuck over black voters were not convinced because racial progress. And also it's so mean

“to call someone intentionally discriminating on the basis of race. But folks, here's the thing.”

We know that these maps that the court blessed are in fact racially discriminatory because this same court told us they were back in, let's think back to I don't know, three years ago, 20, 23, this court held that a similar Alabama map which included only a single minority opportunity district in the state where black voters are more than 25% of the electorate likely violated section two. And Alabama said, you know what? Let's try that whole massive

resistance thing again. It went so well for us in the mid-1900s. So it went back to the drawing board and drew another set of maps that also distributed black voters across a bunch of white districts and contained only a single majority minority district. And a very fast, rather secretive legislative process, nothing to see here folks, it created yet another map that

“diffused black voters across several white districts and then included only a single minority”

opportunity district. After Alabama instituted those maps, a lower court said, you can't use them. They both violate the voting rights act and their intentional racial discrimination and violation of the constitution. Alabama immediately went up to the Supreme Court. This is back in 2023 and said, please daddy, let me use these discriminatory maps. And the Supreme Court said, no, they did not stay the lower federal court decision. And so that litigation continued to play

out. And now fast forward to Calay. So after the Supreme Court decided Calay, it vacated the lower court opinions on the new but also old 2023 maps for inexplicable reasons. It told the lower court to reconsider the maps in view of its holding in Calay. And on remand, the lower court reconsidered the maps in light of Calay and came back and said, we said what we said. And also we

“said what you said in Calay, which is that the constitution, the voting rights act,”

still prohibit intentional racial discrimination. And then the Supreme Court said, oops, vaccines, unconstitutional racial discrimination is fine, actually. In fact, intentional discrimination against black people might not violate the constitution at all. Again, this comes back to something we haven't talking about since Rucho versus Common Cause. In many districts especially in the South, partisan affiliation and race are closely correlated. In those districts,

white voters are often Republican and black voters are likely to be Democrats. And what the

court is saying basically is that if every single black person votes one way and every single white

person, both the opposite way, every election, that's not even relevant to determining whether voting is racially polarized as long as or maybe especially as black voters are likely voting for a different political party than white voters. Like the court only sees this as states consolidating partisan advantage, but not like the obvious racial undertones of partisanship. I mean, there was a real line between the two political parties based on race. Like the passage of the

voting rights act and the civil rights act it literally lies underneath our entire literally why we talked about massive resistance. Like massive resistance is why white people on the South are Republicans now because they used to be Democrats. Yes, but Leo, what about the smoking gun of Alabama being hell bent on using a map that a court had twice determined was discriminatory. Well, according to the Supreme Court, the three judge, lower court panel, quote, interpreted

the state's legal disagreement with the court's earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory

animus. Y'all, legal disagreement is the new massive resistance. Basically, shorter scotists.

that scotists didn't really mean what it said in Bill again. An Alabama knew that scotists would later recant and say that actually, it's not discrimination for a state to draw a map with only one

majority minority district. Basically, Alabama is the deon warwick of states and it anticipated

that what was racial discrimination before Kelle would not be considered racial discrimination in Kelle's wake. And if you are marveling at Alabama's clairvoyance, don't, anyone could have seen this coming with this court. Yeah. Also, I would just like to note that all of my characterizations of Brett Kavanaugh's intellect are just legal disagreement and all of the cusswords I used to describe the justices are also just legal disagreement. So just for a note going forward. But

“for when you next testify before I'm actually blackbird. Exactly. Oh, you mean my legal disagreement?”

Are you talking about my legal disagreement, man? But the real crux of the court's Tuesday night decision in Milligan is that it imported the Kelle rule that had made it impossible to show a

violation of the voting rights act into the constitutional context. So Kelle had said, you basically

cannot show a violation of the voting rights act unless you can show that a state could have drawn a different set of maps that had the same partisan result. But more majority minority districts, that is, if the state wanted five out of six districts to go Republican in order to establish a violation of the voting rights act, plaintiffs would have to show that you could make one of those five districts that are all supposed to go Republican a majority minority district. Wait, wait, wait,

are we asking black people to vote for a Republican? You are saying, right, black people only have rights under the voting rights act if they vote Republican. Like a minority district in

“which black people electoral Republican candidate is the only way to show a violations of the voting”

rights act. That is a null set. There are no such cases. There are no such districts. Given the correlation between race and partisan affiliation, there are no majority black districts that would elect a Republican. Probably because Republicans are doing racist stuff like trying to disenfranchise black voters. But I digress. It's almost like black voters like to vote their interests. So you're almost. Now the court in Milligan, this is the new Milligan, the one that was released

just last week, comes along and says in order to establish that this map with six out of seven Republican districts and one majority black district was intentionally discriminatory. You planiffs are going to have to show that the state could draw a map that also had six of its seven districts be Republican. While also having two of its seven districts be black. That is again to say what

“Lee is talking about. One of the black districts would have to be a Republican voting district. And”

again, that's kind of a practical impossibility. A null set. It doesn't exist. And because it doesn't

exist, you will never be able to prove intentional racial discrimination in order to satisfy

their requirements for pleading under section two of the voting rights act. Unless, of course, black people in Alabama start voting for Republicans against their interests. So are you seeing why all of this is a trap? Do you see it? I'm starting to get the picture. But just to put this starkly, I mean, look, the reasoning in Milligan is slap dash. We don't know how far it extends and how much to take it for. But like if one political party literally called itself the anti-black

party, like with that matter, right? Like would you still say, you know, like minority voters could only establish a violation of the voting rights act and racial discrimination if they voted for the anti-black party? Like if the legislature came out and said, we are diluting the voting power of racial minority because we don't like people who aren't white, like would playing to still have to show that the legislature could draw on that with the same partisan distribution,

like it's utterly unhinged, just again, to put this starkly. I mean, to put a fighter point on Leah saying, they've actually ratcheted up what was already very high bar to prove intentional discrimination to make it even higher, maybe even impossible. Like literally nothing you could show would be sufficient to establish that the state was doing intentional racial discrimination. And they talk a lot in this opinion about the sort of presumption that the state

is acting in good faith. Like why would we presume that after all of this? It's very unclear. You know, the only real reason is because it's mean to call someone a racist and that's way meaner than actually doing racist things, right, is a major through line in the court's decisions. So another inconsistent and unprincipled part of all of this is that the KLA court insisted that it was not adopting an intentional discrimination requirement for the voting rights act,

even though it basically did, they told us they were not. So this is a little confusing, but again,

and KLA said it wasn't saying plaintiffs had to show intentional discrimination. Why on earth

“is the Supreme Court now? In this Alabama case, invoking KLA to speak to a claim of intentional”

discrimination. There was admittedly a lot of double-speak in KLA, like on one hand, the court said it was interpreting the voting rights act to quote "bokees" on intentional discrimination, and to cases where there was, quote, an objective likelihood of an intentional discrimination. But it also said it was not adapting an intentional discrimination standard, acknowledging that its quote interpretation does not demand a finding of intentional discrimination

and mocking the dissent for, quote, stating over and over again that our decision requires a plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent. And some of this double-speak is in a footnote, literally, it's all over the opinion, and even if, even if, the court did own up to adapting an intentional discrimination standard for section two, which they said they were not,

that would still not resolve the claimant issue in million, because in Milligan,

the plaintiff was also alleged a state had violated the Constitution's prohibition on intentional discrimination. So I said this on a YouTube rapid reaction, I did with Duel Ross, of the NAACP LDF, and Recosen, who's a professor at UCLA. But this decision in the Alabama case was for me, the Supreme Court's equivalent of the insurrectionist slush fund. Like Trump and Karp Lange were saying, "Go ahead,

insurrectionist, do a little insurrection, do some treason, overturn an election, will legalize it, pay you for it." Here, the Supreme Court is saying, "Go ahead, states, do unconstitutional racial discrimination." Like nullify the will of the voters,

lock out a third of the state from political power, will legalize it, will even tell you to go ahead

and do it. It's a legal regime for white supremacy and white minority rule, like the 1776 fund was a slush fund for insurrectionists. And listeners, when everyone, at the end of this term, is praising the Supreme Court for rebuking the president and telling him that he cannot nullify

“the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship, we want you to just remember that these”

are the same folks who just told states that they can nullify the Constitution's prohibition on racial discrimination. So don't give them credit for reading the Constitution because they don't read all of it. No, they do not. I miscade. And then yet, in some ways, I'm glad she isn't here to have to talk about this, given that I'm not sure if you're going to expect it, the court to stupid this low. This would be hard for Kate. I think Kate might be in a fetal position on this one. Like it would it would challenge her

her desire to see the good or at least the outside of everything it would. Straks here needs brought to you by smart credit. Here's something that most people aren't told about their credit score. It's not just whether you pay your credit cards, it's when you pay them. Most people don't realize that, but smart credit's data experts understand how credit bureaus operate. So they created something called the best pay-down date that's built around how

credit reporting actually works. So instead of guessing, you get a personalized strategy that shows you what to do and when to do it to help you maximize your credit score. And that matters because better credit can mean lower payments and more money in your pocket. And this is where it gets interesting. You can see your full credit picture in one place, your score. What's affecting it? And if something needs your attention, you can take care of it right there. So before you apply for anything, a car,

an apartment, a refinance, it makes sense to start with smart credit. Go to smartcredit.com/strict and try it for just one dollar. You may be surprised to see how many points smart credit estimates you can gain. That smartcredit.com/strict results vary. You can cancel anytime. Straks here needs brought to you by Zbiotics. Hey folks, I would love to tell you that I am one of those people who can have three glasses of wine and still wake up glowing. But guess what?

I am not. Somewhere in my late 30s, the morning after a few drinks just started to hit different.

“That's why I am so happy that I discovered Zbiotics pre-alcohol. Zbiotics pre-alcohol”

probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD

scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, the alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's the buildup of that byproduct, not dehydration. That's to blame for your rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme that breaks the byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best the next day. I tried pre-alcohol when I was going out in the summer

about the news and let me tell you, you wouldn't believe how on top of things I was. There was no sluggishness, I didn't feel tired, just had pre-alcohol, had a glass of wine, maybe two, and then

got up the next day and did my thing. Between weddings, the US open and the first real beach weekend

of the year, June barely leaves a Saturday open. So don't let a rough morning after cost you your Sunday, drink pre-alcohol Tuesday ahead of it and make the most of every weekend this month.

“Just remember to head to zbiotics.com/strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15% off.”

In what may be, listeners, a development that is entirely unrelated to the disenfranchisement of black voters in the south, we would like to note that Texas Secretary of State, Jane Nelson, just announced her resignation, effective July 17, 2026, that is just four months before the upcoming election. No further details were provided about why Ms. Nelson was leaving at this moment or who

would be her replacement. We should note though that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, i.e., are you there

God? It's me, Greg Abbott, had appointed Nelson to the Secretary of State post in 2023 and he will be the one to name her replacement. It goes without saying that the Secretary of State is charged with administering the election and this year's election is especially consequential in the

“Lone Star State. Every statewide elected office is on the ballot this year, including a very”

anticipated Senate race between the states impeached Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose wife incidentally is divorcing him on Biblical grounds. That seems relevant and James Telleriko, whom the president, has continually derided on many different grounds, none of which seems to be accurate. Last week, the Department of Justice announced it was abandoning the apostasy that was the slush fund for victims of law fair, i.e. insurrectionists. Apparently, Speaker of the House,

Mike Johnson might actually be good for something. It was widely reported. I know that was kind of a joke. It was reported that Johnson managed to convince his overlord Donald Trump to abandon the slush fund on the view that opposition to the slush fund was mounting among Senate Republicans. Again, I have to insert here that sometimes it be's your own people. But, apparently, the fear over giving insurrectionist billions in taxpayer dollars was preventing

the Senate from voting to give billions in taxpayer dollars to ICE and CBP to harass taxpayers.

As Mick Jagger saying, you can't always get what you want. Or can you. So if you try sometimes,

sometimes what you need and what you want may actually be the same thing. As we learned, because last Tuesday, auditioning attorney general Todd Blanche, more on him in a moment, appeared before the House of Appropriations subcommittee where he was pressed on the decision to leave the slush fund in a lock box at a local fire station. And A.A.G. Blanche's answers were, how do I say this? Very revealing. Listeners, according to Blanche,

although the administration is abandoning the slush fund more on that in a minute, it is not actually jettisoning the part of the wink-wink settlement that insulates the president, his family and their corporations from IRS audits. And to be very, very clear, Blanche stood 10 toes down on this. Hmm. Hmm. Some other interesting nuggets emerged in the Tuesday hearing. When pressed on whether he would commit in writing to rescinding the order to create the weaponization

slush fund, Blanche refused. It seems like he learned what Leah and Stringer Bell have long

“advised. Listeners, you never take notes on a mother fucking criminal conspiracy. I think he learned”

the opposite lesson because he put the mother fucking criminal conspiracy the slush fund in writing. And now he's refusing to put in writing the end of the criminal conspiracy. Maybe, maybe Stringer Bell would counsel different advice there. I just liked that he's like, I'm not writing anything down right now. That becomes relevant. Right. So instead of memorializing the end of the slush fund in writing, as many of the legislatures were asking, Blanche simply assured the members of the

subcommittee that he would abide by his word. So kind of a pinky promise between friends. I know I feel reassured, Leah. I don't know about you. Most trustworthy guy in the country. Or yeah, anyways. But the administration's posture toward the slush fund is giving me real

And then psych, right? They like did the very thing we were all concerned about. Well, not all of us were concerned, but okay, that's fair. That's fair. That's some of us were concerned about. Also on Blanche's, you know, whatever he is saying about the slush fund,

“I think he's unwilling to be very clear about how he's going to kill the slush fund with fire,”

right? I mean, he says it's being killed at all. Yeah. He's just like he's abandoning it, but

maybe he'll come back to it. It's hard to say. There's the first amendment. A band in the

exactly overruling, you know, any different shades of things you can do exactly. I mean, this doesn't seem like the first amendment's establishment clause where, you know, it's just been a band-in and it really is going to be killed off with hot fire in some later decision. Yeah, it does not. And his posture toward the slush fund kind of tees up questions about what's known as mutinous doctrine. So mutinous doctrine is, again, set of rules about when federal courts can

no longer hear cases because there's no longer a live controversy or dispute. And as we've discussed, a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the slush fund. Now that the slush fund

“has been, quote, abandoned, wink, there are questions about whether those suits are now moved.”

Under Article 3, federal courts can only hear live cases or controversies when an underlying issue is mutin that is no longer a question to be resolved, cases no longer reviewable in federal court. So here, the fact that the slush fund has been abandoned, wink, might suggest that any suits challenging it are now moved. But, and it's a big, but there are a number of exceptions.

Two, the mutinous doctrine. One of them is what's known as voluntary cessation. Basically,

we're a litigant voluntarily, ceases the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit. It doesn't necessarily mean the suit is automatically mutin. Instead, in a 2000 case, friends of the Earth versus Leidlaw, the courts said that the party claiming mutinous had to show it is, quote, "absolutely clear," that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur and quote. Not sure that absolutely clear describes words coming out of auditioning attorney

general cart blanches mouth and the opposite would or the opposite end. And the fact that the auditioning attorney general won't even commit in writing to killing the slush fund might suggest that the slush fund like a zombie could be resurrected under more favorable political conditions. Also doesn't help that the president also unclear whether he is abandoning the slush fund, so maybe these lawsuits continue just to ensure that the slush fund is, in fact, dead, dead. Another reason why

it might be wise for a court to weigh in is that it seems that the number three at DOJ thinks that the administration might cry other means for providing reparations to January 6th insurrectionist, which again, they just call victims of law fair. So Stanley Woodward retweeted something by Lindsey Graham talking about how even though Senator Graham appreciated that the proposed weaponization fund wouldn't be moving forward, he was, quote, "still of the firm belief that there are many

victims of the weaponized Biden just department." And the number three at DOJ retweeted that and said, "We're on it." All of these developments are especially concerning given the legislative landscape. Now, as you may have heard, there's been a lot of outcry from the Democratic caucus about the need to have codified limits on this proposed settlement, a codified end to this proposed settlement and the slush fund that it engenders? Well, guess what? Early Friday morning, the Senate passed

legislation to fund President Trump's immigration enforcement agencies. That was the basic compromise to kill the slush fund to allow the funding for ICE and CPB to go forward. And Democrats had wanted to include some guardrails in that package in order to keep the slush fund from being resurrected or being used to pay insurrectionists. However, despite efforts to include amendments to the creation of the weaponization slush fund, all of the proposed guardrails failed

to secure the required 60 votes. Basically, despite broad concerns, a majority of Republican senators

banded together to defeat multiple attempts by senators on both sides of the aisle to codify ending or changing the settlement fund. And when pressed about the lack of restrictions on the

“settlement fund in the final bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, remember him, noted that auditioning”

attorney general Todd Blant had already told lawmakers that the administration would not proceed with the fund. As Thune said, quote, I think what was talked about and then ultimately done away

Neil Gorsuch, Amy Barrett, and others described row as settled precedent because it's also

giving me that. Does this mean that I get to play Susan Collins and tell the world that I have some concerns? Well, no, not yet. You're allowed to say, at this point, you believe them. They gave you promises. And then when they turn around to resurrect the slush fund, you can express

“some concerns. Okay, that's how I do a Susan Collins. Yes, exactly. All right. And now we are back”

to auditioning attorney general Todd Blantch, who might have been announced as the winner of America's top attorney general. So one reason why Todd Blantch is assuring or might be assuring the senators that he is 100% definitely against ever having an insurrection slush fund is that he might be halfway to the finish line. And he needs these senators on his side. So last week, the president nominated Todd Blantch to be the nation's top law enforcement official. That's right,

folks. It seems that Wallace, Cicophancy, actually does pay off. But as is often the case,

getting the nod from the president is really just the first hurdle. Lange still has to clear

the Senate confirmation process because the Constitution. And then that may actually be quite contentious for Blantch since he does have a lot of Epstein baggage. And he does have a lot of slush

“fund baggage. Basically, he's got more baggage than United Airlines right now. And he's going to need”

all of the Republican votes, which may explain why he is standing 10 toes down on definitely 100% killing this slush fund, though not in writing. It's very hard to please two masters, y'all. But as you can probably tell, the ladies of strict scrutiny are rooting for Todd Cart Blanche. And some late breaking news after we recorded auditioning attorney general slash maybe America's next top attorney general, Todd Blanche decided to put something in writing.

After even Republicans were pushing back on Blanche's refusal to put anything in writing, the Department of Justice filed a brief in federal court arguing that a lawsuit challenging the slush fund was moved because the plans for the slush fund had fizzled up. But the brief really went no further than Blanche's testimony in that it put his non-denial denial in writing. The brief noted that the acting attorney general told Congress that although "the reasons for the fund

“remain important," the fund is "not going forward" period. And it cited a YouTube clip of Blanche's”

testimony to Congress. So there you have it, folks. Something in writing. And now back to our regularly recorded episode. Speaking of mediocre men getting promotions, now that Tulsi Gabbard has stepped down as the director of national intelligence, it's time for another wholly unqualified person to take charge of our national security. And that person, his name is Bill Pultay. If Pultay's name sounds familiar, it's because he is the sion of Pultay group, a residential home

construction company. I first became familiar with Pultay homes when I was living in California,

and I would see people twirling, Pultay signs at busy intersections, pointing the way to Pultay developments. You may also be familiar with Bill Pultay because he's served as the head of the federal housing finance agency in the chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 2025. Obviously preparation for his new gig as the director of national intelligence. And it was in that role that Pultay may be better known to strict ease as the dude who referred New York Attorney General

Littisha James to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution alleging James quote falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms. And quote, the accusation was James listed another resident she bought as a primary residence when it was not in fact her primary residence in July 2025. Trump accused California Senator Adam Schiff of mortgage fraud, citing a memorandum from Fannie Mae sent a Pultay.

Notably, the memorandum did not alleged that Schiff committed mortgage fraud, Trump also called for federal reserve board of governor's member Lisa Cook to resign after Pultay accused her of committing mortgage fraud, days later, Trump stated that he had fired Cook for cause. Cook sued to contest her removal, and that case is currently pending at the Supreme Court. In perfect timing, last week, ProPublica reported that records show that quote Trump did the

very thing he's accusing his enemies of, which is to say that in 1993, Trump submitted mortgage applications for two different homes. And both applications indicate that the homes would be

Indeed, as ProPublica reports, it's not even clear, Trump ever even lived in the two Florida houses.

It's like Donald Trump wanted to do some mortgage fraud mugging on everybody else. This is all to say that Pultay seems to be exactly the right kind of sick event to be in charge of national intelligence. Again, a reminder, the director of national intelligence is someone who has

“weren't less access to all of our communications. I know Will Sleep Better. What could go wrong?”

And now, Melissa, I found a clip related to Bill Pultay that I wanted to get your reaction for, and that I avoided sharing with you in advance of the episode. So, this is real time and live.

Here's the first ever, man. Live fucking till the slap on the P.B. Live. Pultay, look at this

fucking thing. All right. Come on, partner, daddy. All right. Fine. There you fucking have it. The first Dildo slap in history live. So, Bill, this says Bill Pultay, Bucks. All right. Yeah. And then if you notice on, it's got a tramp stamp with a butterfly. I like only the one. One asked cheeks. Yes, it does say, uh, it does say only the young on the back here, only young December fan like pretty badass. We have a mushroom

“stamp on the head of it and a bed bath on one cheek and GME. Oh, fuck. GME on the other. I got too”

excited there. Melissa. Greatest. What the fuck did I just watch? You watched our new director of national intelligence. He was on the suit. He wasn't getting sensed. Yes, he was in suit. So, he was not actually getting slapped with the Dildo. He was just observing it. But he was on stage as a guy who was about to hand him an award that was, you know, carved with something like, fucks only the young, watching that guy slap another man with the Dildo. I mean, I, I, I, I, I'm genuinely in shock,

I, I, I, I, I, I, it, it takes a lot to shock me. What the fuck did I just watch? I, I don't know. I really don't know. How did you find that? Who gave that? The interwebs. I found it on the interwebs and I sent it to you. Did you find it in the Manisfier? Because that seems like it was made by the Manisfier. So, I have been doing a little research into the Manisfier for a potential project I might be working on, um, put a pin in that and do you shower after the research? Because I

genuinely, I have to clean myself seriously, no joke. Like, um, oh, my, I just genuinely, I don't even know what to say. Thank you for not sharing that with me in advance. Um, I, I don't even know what to say.

“Straks Newton is brought to you by Wilde Alaskan Company. Wilde Alaskan Company offers the best way to”

get wild caught high quality seafood delivered right to your door on your schedule. Each Wilde Alaskan box comes with individually portion filets that are vacuum sealed easy to prep and great for any meal, no matter how quick or how elevated. All of their fish is quick frozen fresh from Alaskan waters, which helps to lock in the freshness texture flavor and key nutrients like omega threes. This is fish you can trust. There are no GMOs, no antibiotics or other additives.

Every order supports sustainable harvesting practices and Alaskan fishermen whose history is tied to the region and the practice. My absolute favorite fish from Wilde Alaskan Company is the Pacific Halibut. I love, love, love this. You put it in a little parchment bowl, you put some other herbs around it, maybe some vegetables, pop it in the oven, boom, magic. Really, you just can't mess it up. It's that easy and the flavor is absolutely fantastic. It tastes fresh. It doesn't taste frozen and the

texture is so firm and lovely. It's a chef's kiss. Even I look like a good chef. One, I use this. Wilde Alaskan is so confident that their fish is the absolute best and I can see why there's so confident, but they are going to offer a 100% satisfaction and money back guarantee so you can

try your first box risk free. Just go to Wilde Alaskan.com/strik for $35 off your first order

of premium wild caught seafood. That's Wilde Alaskan.com/strik for $35 off your first order. Many thanks to Wilde Alaskan for sponsoring this episode. Strik, scrutiny is brought to you by horror frames. Father's Day is right around the corner folks and let me just say, horror frames is the perfect gift for the dad in your life. Are there memories of your dad, your husband,

this frame? I've got to do this. Maybe from a family vacation. Maybe it's time with the grandkids,

“something from the first day of school. Maybe a night out at your favorite restaurant.”

Horror frames allows you to preserve all of these memories in one place and make them accessible to everyone that you love. With Orra you can add as many photos and videos as you want via the Orra app or by simply texting the photos straight to your frame. You can even preload photos before your horror frame ships making it the perfect gift for the dad or grad in your life. It couldn't be easier to shop for all of your special people who have special days in the month of

June. Orra frames was named Number One by Wirecutter and you can save now by visiting orraframes.com and for a limited time listeners of Strix Grootney can get $35 off select frames with the code

strict. That's AURA frames.com promo code strict and you can support the show by mentioning us at checkout

terms and conditions apply. It's time for the opinions we got last week from the court. Speaking of Deldo's across the face. Deldo's Deldo's and Supreme Court opinions.

“So we got three opinions from the court last Thursday. One of them was Hickmo Pharmaceuticals versus”

Amarin. This case concerns a dispute between a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Hickmo who's product can be dispensed for uses that both do and do not infringe on patents. So Amarin which holds patents on uses of the branded pharmaceutical. A Skepa a medication for which Hickmo's product is a substitute filed suit to hold Hickmo responsible. When pharmacist dispense Hickmo's generic product for uses that don't infringe on its patents but Amarin alleged Hickmo was kind of

elbowing people giving them the nudge to use the generic product for patented uses. So at oral argument the justices had seems skeptical that Hickmo, the generic manufacturer, was doing anything to compel pharmacists to dispense the generic for uses that infringed upon the patents. The justices seem skeptical of holding someone liable for someone else's conduct and that skepticism bore out in the opinion. The court with Justice Jackson writing for the majority

said that Amarin did not establish that Hickmo, the generic drug manufacturer, was actually trying to get people to use the drug in ways that would infringe Amarin's patent. The case was commanded to lower court where Amarin can try again to make out its claim. We also got an opinion in street patch versus SEC. This case pitted the conservative supermajorities in tipathy for the administrative state and financial regulation against its antipathy for criminals. In a

unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the court held that the SEC can recover money that companies and individuals gained illegally even if the agency cannot prove that investor suffered a financial loss. Writing for the court, Justice Gorsuch explained that, quote, "A showing of pecuniary loss is not required before an investor may qualify as a victim of an offender's wrongdoing entitled to compensation." We noted that this was a unanimous

opinion, but as is his want, Justice Thomas would have gone further, which means it's time for another, we need to talk about Justice Clarence Thomas segment. In a separate concurrence, that nobody joined, Justice Thomas suggested that there might be a seventh amendment problem when the SEC seeks discouragement in proceedings within the agency's adjudicative structure, and that discouragement cases may have to go to federal court and be heard before a jury.

Now, as is often the case with Justice Thomas's concurrences, this is an invitation to lit against

to now challenge discouragement proceedings on seventh amendment grounds, basically,

"Jarkacy only make it discouragement." Is it unconstitutional to send invitations to have a party Melissa? I don't understand the problem. Not if the party is to completely rewrite the seventh amendment. Exactly. Speaking of the seventh amendment and needing to talk about Clarence Thomas, the court issued a surprisingly sane-ish decision on agency's adjudicative authority in FCC versus AT&T. There, eight members of the court, no points for guessing which cheese stood alone here,

said that the FCC could impose what are called forfeiture orders within the agency's own adjudicative structure, and therefore, without a jury. The Supreme Court said these forfeiture orders did not definitively resolve the party's legal obligations, or even definitively settle factual matters, and that before the agency can make a party pay, the statute requires the agency to go to court and prove the case to a jury. While it's heartening, that the court didn't

“go full throttle against the agency, I think it's important to note that the agency ended up”

kind of obeying an advance, conceiting to some limits on its powers to avoid a seventh amendment problem. And this decision could also mean companies, fueling boldened to give the agency, FCC a harder time, and say settlement talks by threatening to drag out proceedings and go to court.

So, just some notes. We do, again, need to talk about Clarence Thomas, who descended,

the cheese stands alone. He said that because the companies paid under the understanding that forfeiture orders did definitively determine their rights, the case required some additional proceedings and re-litigation, based on the understanding that actually they were not so required.

“All right, let's do a little court culture. So, folks, do you remember district court judge,”

Jeb Boesberg, who tried to enforce the rule of law in the face of the administration's for calcitrants, that earned him brick bats from the president, as well as an effort to impeach him from his judge ship? Well, guess what? Far from cowering, Boesberg decided to step up to the podium at Yale Law School's commencement to exhort the graduates to stand 10 toes down

on the rule of law and their own principles. Take a listen. The legal profession faces a pivotal moment,

one that tests not just how lawyers practice, but the institutions they serve. More than ever before, our news headlines feature lawyers in both the private and public sectors and the cases they are litigated. So, when you decide where you will lend your talents, make sure to take a close look at your selected institution and ask yourself whether it's principles and its values align with your own. For private practice, do you actually believe in the mission of the firm

of which you are a member? For those entering the public or non-profit sector, how comfortable you with the priorities this entity espouses? Ask yourself if these are the missions you were proud to stand up in court to support. Now, do not mistake my message. There are very few

jobs in which you will always believe that every client you represent has the better the case

to the moral high ground. If you were to quit the moment you didn't believe your client deserved to win, you wouldn't hold many jobs for long. When you are representing a public entity for example, a municipality, a state or a federal government, there's a meaningful difference between isolated disagreements with your client and helping to defend policies that are wholly antithetical to your core values. I encourage all of you to have your own red line. Each of you

“will put it in a different place. But if you are asked to cross that red line, you must decide”

whether you can do so and still look at yourself in the mirror or whether it's time to start searching for a new job. Word up. Speaking of standing tentos down on the rule of law, the DC circuit concluded that the ban on transgender service members is on constitutional discrimination. Procedural note, the Supreme Court had earlier stayed a district court order in the case that had also concluded that the ban on transgender service members was illegal. And so as a result of

this DC circuit decision, this is going to put the case on the Supreme Court's regular document. So the DC circuit wrote that the case in part came down to weather quote, "We are going to fall for the old groucho marksline." Who are you going to believe? Mirror your line eyes. Given that there was quote direct evidence that animals motivated and quote the ban on transgender service members. Now, this is a welcome instance of a court being willing to call BS on the administration's

“pretextual rationale, something that the Supreme Court has been low to do even when it has ruled”

against the administration. We should also note that the DC circuit did limit the scope of the district courts and junctions such that only current trans service members are protected. The injunction does not apply to aspiring service members, at least during the tendency of litigation because this was a preliminary injunction. The DC circuit used the Supreme Court's lack of explanation against it, saying that they didn't know why the Supreme Court had stayed the

district court order, and maybe it was because they disagreed about the scope of the remedy. So this again, almost certainly, he's up the case to go back to the Supreme Court, but on its regular argued document. One final piece of court culture, which is I wanted to highlight something that is happening in my home state of Michigan, which is supposedly represented by two democratic senators. So in May, the president nominated one Michael Martin, the criminal chief for the U.S. Attorney's

Office for a district in Michigan to a district court judgehip here in Michigan. And we are apparently still waiting to learn whether our esteemed senators, again, both of whom are ostensibly Democrats, Senator Alyssa Slotkin and Gary Peters, will return a blue slip on Martin and allow Martin to get a confirmation vote, which would almost certainly result in his confirmation, or whether they will instead deny a blue slip, which would block Martin's confirmation.

Putting aside general issues with returning a blue slip, given current conditions, doing so for Michael Martin would be astonishing, appalling a perfect example of by Democrats hate the democratic party. Let me elaborate for a bit. So while Martin was head of the criminal office, two esteemed career prosecutors were fired from the office, seemingly because those prosecutors

act, which prevents threats of forest or intimidation against reproductive care facilities.

As head of the office, Martin almost certainly would have had to sign off on those firings and removals. Also, even though Martin is a U.S. Attorney in Michigan, he may also have been involved in the even dictative prosecutions arising out of Operation Metro Search in Minnesota, and the killings of Rene Good and Alex Pretty.

“The investigations related to those as well. So remember, there was a mass exodus of U.S.”

attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, because the Department of Justice was reportedly investigating Rene Good's widow, rather than the immigration officer who shot Good. And while the principal of U.S. attorneys in Minnesota refused to go along with these cases,

there's some evidence that Martin may have volunteered to step in, specifically at least one

case against a Minneapolis protester was filed in the district where Martin is the criminal chief. Again, given that he is the chief there, and that the case was filed by an assistant U.S. attorney who reports to him, it seemed somewhat likely that Martin would have had to sign off on what many view as the politically motivated prosecution and persecution of protesters. Democratic senators, if you are returning blue slips on a guy who may have fired people

for enforcing the face act, and may have jumped into facilitate the administration's efforts to terrorize Minnesota and if people, after the administration's actions in Minnesota prompted

“mass resignations of federal government lawyers, what are you even doing?”

Democrats don't have a ton of power right now, but blue slips are one area where they do. Grow a spine, grow up, do something. I have called your offices, and now I am blowing this up on my podcast because this is my right. And now be sure to stay tuned for a great conversation that Melissa had with Judith Resnick about her recent book. This episode is presented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you listen to Strix scrutiny, you already know. This administration, Congress, and the courts have spent the last few years making it harder to get health care in this country, at its patients who are playing the price. Take the Supreme Court, for example. It paved the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood health centers from state Medicaid programs in Medina versus Planned Parenthood. This undoubtedly violates patients' rights to get care

from quality providers that they choose. And last year, the Trump administration and Congress defunded Planned Parenthood, trying to shut down Planned Parenthood centers and block patients with low incomes from accessing birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and so much more.

“That's why Planned Parenthood is fighting back. But fights like these take resources and supporters”

just like you. No matter the size, your donation makes a real difference. Helping Planned Parenthood meet this moment and protect patients' access to care when and where it matters the most. If you believe all people should get health care, no matter their income, donate now at PlannedParenthood.org/defend. In moments like these, it's easy to fill overwhelmed and even easier to fill powerless. But we are neither. I'm Stacey Abrams, and on my podcast,

assembly required, I take on each executive action, legislative battle, and breaking news moment by asking three questions. What's really happening? What can we do about it? And how do we keep going together? This is a space for clarity, strategy, and hope, rooted in action, not denial. New episodes of assembly required drop Tuesdays, tune in wherever you get your podcast and on YouTube.

All right, shifting gears for a moment. As we've discussed in prior episodes, there have been a couple of cases on the merit stocket this year that concern the rights of prisoners and the administration of correctional facilities. In November, for example, the court heard oral argument in lander versus Louisiana Department of Corrections in public safety. That was a case that considered whether a government official can be sued in his individual capacity for damages

for violations of the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000, also known as Relupa. We're still awaiting a decision in that case, but the court has actually heard and decided to other cases about habeas relief for prisoners, Klein, and Beau. In addition to what's been

going on at one first street, we also have an administration that has also had prisons on the brain.

This administration has been unceremoniously sending people to foreign prisons and building prison style immigration detention centers all throughout the United States. All of this suggests that this might be an especially opportune moment for us to consider prisons, prisoners, rights, and our

Judith Resek is the Arthur Lyman professor of law at Yale Law School in the founding director of the Arthur Lyman Center for Public Interest Law. She's a prolific scholar and her research interests are truly wide-ranging. Everything from procedure and federal courts to equality and citizenship. And at the intersection of all of these topics is her interests in prisons. She's one of the nation's leading experts on prisons, prisoners, rights, and carceral conditions. And she is the author

of a recently published book in permissible punishments how prison became a problem for democracy. Judith, welcome to Strix Church. Delighted to be here. This book is a very heavy book. The book is sweeping. It is historical and it begins in Arkansas. As you explain, Winston Talley, who was an Arkansas prisoner, made at the time a radical claim that he and other incarcerated men were being whipped and their weapons were actually in violation of the Eighth Amendment's

prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Can you tell us more about the Talley lawsuit and what happened at each stage of a litigation? As far as I know, he was convicted of very low-level crimes, not part of a political social movement, but he had an idea that makes that we need to understand he's a significant theorist of prisoners of rights in general. So if I just back up for a minute, Enlightenment era, the Enlightenment interruption was excuse me monarchs. You can't just be

“arbitrary. You need to be purposeful. These people, these Enlightenment thinkers, these great men,”

brought us to a contemporary world in which it is accepted that punishment is supposed to be purposeful. What Winston Talley adds to this understanding is, while you may punish me to turn into retribution, you can't punish me like this. And he asserts the idea that he's a right-sparing member of this polity and saying, you, the corrections establishment, you, the state of Arkansas, are limited. Yes, you can punish me, which can't win me. All right, so there's a lot going on here.

And I think it's great that you're connecting it to the past and the theories of punishment that many of our one-ell listeners will be familiar with, retribution, utilitarianism. The government just can't punish people. There has to be a reason for it. This is one of the principles of limited government on the very basis of democracy. Winston Talley, who, I think, under most circumstances, would have been understood as someone who is civilly dead because he has been in prison,

is actually saying, I'm not civilly dead. I need to be incapacitated for this purpose, but I have rights that you are obliged to recognize. And one of those rights means that you cannot punish me using an impermecible punishment. And to his mind, the whipping violates

“the eighth amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. What does the court say?”

First, again, thanks the judge, let the guy in. Second, appoint a lawyer. Third, no retaliation.

Fourth, sorry, the eighth amendment doesn't rule out whipping because we defer to correction officials and furthermore Delaware whips other places with it's not cruel and unusual punishment. And this is in the 1960s. Delaware whipping? Well, Delaware has a statute that permits it. It's 1965 and the judge says it's only not cruel and unusual punishment if it's limited to no more than ten lashes at a time. If it's based on a list of factors that you, the prisoner,

no one advance, if you violate this, you could get whipped. And if the decision is made not by the person who's lashing you at the moment, but by some administrators. Okay. And the next step

is we'll actually have two steps. First is one might assume because it's perfectly appropriate to

assume that enslavement and whipping are intermashed and therefore that Winston Talley was a black man. Winston Talley was a white man. Winston Talley and a whole group of other white men and lots of black men were mercifully whipped in the Arkansas system for not working as they were told or other things and of cotton. Not picking enough or not in subordination or whatever. A couple of years later, three more white guys, William Jackson being one of them, go back to prison and they say,

actually those rules aren't being obeyed plus you shouldn't whip us at all. Okay. The judges

“again say great lawyers Arkansas step up. There's a three-day trial and you can if you want to”

look at the URL read the 640 pages of the transcript of the trial. And federal judges here people who are the staff in Arkansas saying, we were raised by the whip, we whip our children.

This is what we do. And second they also heard the person with the former head of the bureau

prisons of the US saying whipping is medieval and actually out of bounds. And they also hear from

shows the injuries. And the judges say, it's not cruel and unusual punishment. You can whip

“if and again with these limits as a matter of eighth amendment law. Not procedural due process,”

but it's only not cruel and unusual if you whip within these constraints. So this is sort of interesting. And it reminds me of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund strategy for dismantling plus eversus Ferguson. They don't start with Brown. This is just per se in constitutional. They

argue first that separate but equal has standards. Like it actually has to be equal if it's

separate. So the initial litigation that ultimately culminates in Brown starts off is just trying to hold the South to account. Like you don't actually have equal facilities. They're separate. Yes, but they're not equal. And this almost seems like what the courts are doing here. We set out these standards for what constitutes appropriate whipping in the context of prison and you're not doing this. We have all of this evidence that you're not quite doing this. Yes, and no. First of all, these

“prisoners are one-offs. They're not part. The ACLU will come in. Well, the judges all treated as”

if it's a class action. Okay. It's going to apply to everybody, white and black and the facility.

But there's the lawyers who represent them are the head of the commercial bar of the bar association.

They're not civil rights lawyers. They're not the ACLU or the Inc. Fund at this time. More will come. But the way to appreciate what the judges are doing is they may well have thought that because they put these constraints on it and it's a hugely public read every day, the Arkansas Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat that the executive branch would in fact stop whipping. We've turned back. Well, both to turn and also we don't we vulnerable Arkansas federal judges.

Don't need to spend our political capital because it's going to end. We spent our political capital by putting it all in front of you as vividly as we could. And they are sort of right because there's a move to stop it executively, but sort of wrong because it keeps going on. And then in 1968, when Judge Harry Blackman before he became Justice Harry Blackman was sitting on the 8th circuit, he wrote the opinion which he called the whipping case for the three judges saying,

"You can't whip." It violates the 8th Amendment. Okay, you're out. Terry Blackman as a judge of the 8th circuit, which is the appellate tribunal that hears the appeal from Arkansas. From one of these aren't we got to get the can't. Arkansas is the only former conservative in federal and federal state that is in the 8th circuit. And the Congress did that and purpose stuck this state in. It made Fed courts everywhere. It's like stuck it in to get

Northern control over Arkansas. All right, so Harry Blackman's like, okay, we're done with the whipping. There's no standard for whipping, whipping is per se an impermecible punishment. And you are you that that decision reflects what you call an anti-ruination principle. This idea that impermecible punishments are those that ruin the person. And you're not just talking about physical ruin, but just the dignity of the person, the mind and body and spirit of the person,

and that whipping is one of these punishments that utterly ruins a person and the government cannot do that. They can do a lot of things to punish you, but they can't do that. Blackman is taking

out for the first time in US history, a punishment that is justified as disciplined as in making

you do the discipline of the work in the routine. First time ever across the board for anybody in the Arkansas system, but he is not prepared to say, I'm going to give you a grand theory of the limits on punishment. I'm just going to say this one's out and I'm going to distinguish it from some of the other stuff that you can do by the way he mentions voting disenfranchisement. As something of course, you could be able to do. The district judge who had first appointed the lawyer in 65 sits

and presides over civil rights indictments criminal by the Nixon administration of prison staff that is brutalizing these people in ways I don't even want to talk about. And then those juries acquitt in Arkansas. And in 1970, this district judge says the entire system of Arkansas's prisons is cruel and unusual. It's an evil and dark world and it's unconstitutional. So within five years of opening up and listening to the grotesqueries inside the system, a federal trial judge

“says you have to stop the system and for the next one is a problem. And for the next 14 years”

they're debating what that means. So the cost of the question is between, once prisoners are rights holders and persons, not civilly dead, what does it mean to be a rights holder in prison? Right. And what are the limits? What are the permissible and what are the impromissible? And then I say,

what we should understand is an endemic radical order. You can't set out to ruin people.

“Right. And so you can, you can deter, you know, maybe able to think about it. You can be mad”

and retribute if you want. You can't use things that take people down and out. All right. So the anti-ruination principle is your invention. And you use it to sort of render legible what the courts are doing during this period where they are invalidating the use of whipping in the Arkansas prison. They're invalidating the Arkansas prison system as utterly cruel and unusual and inconsistent with the eighth amendment. And in your view,

what undergirds all of this is this idea that this is a system that is meant to ruin people.

It goes beyond simply deterring other people from doing crime. It goes beyond incapacitation.

It goes beyond retribution. It's about ruining people. And in a democracy, that can't be what the government does. So I want to focus on this anti-ruination principle because you've talked about it in the book in the context of the eighth amendment. But one might argue that shards or glimmers of the anti-ruination principle are evident throughout constitutional law. And maybe even in this whole idea of limited government. So in Planned Parenthood versus KC,

which is the very famous abortion case from 1992, the court talks about the impact of a forced pregnancy on the life of someone who is forced to bring a child into the world against her will.

And they talk about the idea, like it fundamentally changes your life. It might even ruin your life.

“So I think we might see a glimpse of the anti-ruination principle there. And a decision as momentous”

as whether or not to become apparent cannot be one made under the compulsion of the state. In a similar way, we might see evidence of the anti-ruination principle. And just the fact that the Constitution itself is about designing limits on the state. Have we moved away from an anti-ruination principle not just in the context of the eighth amendment, but in the context of our government. And what we understand to be limited government? So prisoners suffragettes in the English system

in the 1920s say rights. When the world of rightslessness, it's after World War I that a group of people in England, a wonderful group of women feminists, were bringing to the fore the need for an international convention for rights for prisoners because prison could be torture and you had to treat every person in detention, political or not, the same. And they proposed a standard set of rules that this international organization took over, but didn't exist. This is the International

Penitentiary Commission. And it agrees to draft rules that it promulgates that the League of Nations promulgates in 1934. In 1934, Hitler's took Germany in 1933. So and this organization meets in 1935 Berlin where they hear how great Hitler's just eugenic system is. The idea that you want to save, this goes to your general idea that limit ungovernment power, and we also have to talk about obligations of government. But limits ungovernment power, fear of arbitrariness. Prison is the

or place where you have sovereignty encompassing you. And terrifying power. And it is at 1950 when this International Penitentiary Commission is about to close its doors that it has its final meeting at the Hague. And a man who had run the Belgian prison system speaks, he'd been briefly interned by the Nazis. And he says prison will be seen as primitive as corporal punishment because of its radical intrusion on autonomy. Somebody who's been interned is now speaking to that

experience even though he's been a prison official. So if we're looking at the idea of both obligation and constraint, government can do something to you if you've done something wrong. But let me also get to this idea of it should be the government can't set out to ruin you no matter who you are, whether we call it punishment or not. So if I'm in detention because you're a migrant,

“if I'm trying to take you off the streets because I think I should be taking people off the streets,”

whether I've convicted you or not, the insight is you can't take people down or out because we're all equals in this democratic order. And that's a stumbling block. It makes it harder for punishment and taking on the burden of putting someone under your care and supervision is a burden that you should do as little as possible because it's a huge amount of activity. Jeremy Bentham said, some people begrudge giving prisoners anything and other people bemoan that they don't have things.

storm the capital, if you want that as an example or just off the top of your head. How do you

“express the wrongness of that? And at the same time, don't you begrudge giving those people something”

because they did something so bad. So there is Bentham's emotive analysis of the complication of punishment, which is that it's a reciprocal relationship in which now in a democratic order you have to recognize the equality of the person and it's also hard and we shouldn't not catch our breath to say it's a both a burden in the logistics. It's also a burden emotionally because you have mixed emotions about giving to people who've done something really bad. So you could

also just pardon them. I've heard that's been done separately. The point about reciprocal obligation is really important here. So you note that one of the things as unusual about punishment, maybe even particular about punishment in the American style is that this prisoner now becomes a ward of the state almost. It is under the care of the state and indeed becomes dependent and reliant on the state for care. And in your view, that engenders certain obligations of

affirmative obligations on the part of the state that may continue even after the period of imprisonment. So what are the obligations of a democratic society to the people that are imprisoned both while they are confined and then when they are released? So we'll get you right back to constitutional law and strict scrutiny because here we are with the U.S. Supreme Court saying

“in 1976, if you incarcerate someone you have to give them health care, you can't be deliberately”

indifferent to known medical needs because that's cruel and unusual punishment. They could have said

that violates their liberty. And of course the answer is that both cruel and unusual

and it violates their liberty. But so the idea is that one of the rare pods of affirmative government obligations is health care of some form, however limited it might be, because you have incarcerated. For no Jeremy Bentham said in the Penopticon contract, we got to give him health care. We got to give him food. We can't kill him. We got to keep him safe. In fact, you want incentivize that they want to go work. So we're all in on that. So there are affirmative

obligations. One way to read food clothing, the 1.5 million person housing project called incarceration, is you are provisioning, sadly provisioning for people who should be not incarcerated

“as well as for whatever number you think should be punished in some way or other. But you are”

in the middle of a burdensome relationship that is a matter of constitutional law, statutory, take care of law and moral obligation is to take care of the people who are in your care and custody. Now then the question is what does that mean? And one of the purposes of the book is to show

you what a incredible construct prison is. There's nothing normal about it. It's a group of people

who sit in fancy European capitals and rationalize sets of radical control over people. And so you could be incarcerated and where you're on close. You could be incarcerated and if you're in Italy with its constitutional court cook because you have a right to cook because normal people cook. So the sort of what's the normal is what we make normal and once whipping was normal. So of course the reason to start with whipping is to get people's attention to say, wait a second,

how can I help you see how utterly abnormal the practices of prison are? The idea that these carceral conditions are entirely socially constructed like we do this. In vents solitary confinement, in vent whipping, in use whipping for this you didn't invent it but you applied it in this in this way but you did invent the incarceration state and there are different versions of it. It's not the only one and then the question is, is it doing anything that's okay? And the answer in terms of

Ruin is, let's talk about the staff. Mental illness, physical illness, blood pressure, the people who live there whether it's four hours, 14 hours, 28 hours, whatever period of time, people are not doing well in a metal, concrete, noisy, dirty environment in which high security is apparently everywhere but everybody's really insecure because it's really scary. How do we think about the relationship between prisons, this anti-ruination principle,

the idea of limited government and where we are right now as a democracy and like I'll be very bald about it, many people think we are on the precipice of no longer being a democracy. How does our approach to prisons reflect that precariety? One way to respond is to say there's been

a federal government being willing to order the murders of people in boats offshore to grab

“people off streets. So the continuity of treatment which comes back to your light motif of”

limited lawful government, it's not just limited government, it's lawful government. And so if you're looking the treatment of the people inside and the treatment of people outside, if they're pushed aside as the people who could be subjected to horrible treatment is ungodly terrifyingly comparable. And so therefore the joint project is to reject those forms of treatment in or outside. And one of the things Europe is validated as oh look at Europe,

they do better. What they do better is provide social services inside and out, coming back to your health care in prison and annoying how come they get it and I'm not in prison and I don't get it. The answer in many European countries is everybody gets it and some education. So I'm not giving prisoners more than I'm giving other people. I'm treating people the same. And of course the purpose of this concern is the ruin isn't just of the person but of the body ballatic.

It's a really terrific point. The book is called in Purvisable Punishments. How prison became a problem for democracy. The author is the indomitable Judith Resnek, a fantastic scholar, a really

incredible thinker and someone who has made the question of prisons accessible and again just

urgent for this particular moment. Thank you. Thanks. And now for our favorite things. One of my favorite things are elected officials who hold political power actually standing up for democracy and doing the right thing. And so I wanted to highlight a speech by Pennsylvania State Senator

“Maria Collette who gave a speech to the Pennsylvania Senate on Louisiana versus Cali. Very I think”

important that again officials are not letting this one go and speaking to their colleagues and the public about it. There's also a recent just published law review article on autocratic judging that just came out in the UCLA law review and it is written by two law professors Rebecca Brown

and Lee Epstein, very important timely work and worth reading. Another piece, Megan Wachspriss wrote

at liberal currents called AOC for President. I just think has a really nuanced and sophisticated discussion about feminism and feminist politics and I really enjoyed reading it. Megan is about to start as a professor at the University of San Francisco so definitely watch out for her writing. Also I wanted to highlight Mara Gaze opinion piece in the New York Times. She went to

“Alabama to kind of report on the aftermath of Louisiana versus Cali and the redistricting there.”

It is a searing read and worth reading in full. It's called a shocking betrayal of black Americans. It's kind of hard to rebound after that Mara Gaze citation on because that was a searing piece in the New York Times but I will just say that it was a fun week for me because I was on the road promoting my book, the Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader. I went to Philadelphia. I was in Washington, D.C. It was super fun. Especially excited to get back home

though and find some new reading delivered in advance for me. Well, it's the building. It's so light. It fits in my bag. I had no objections to carrying around the hard cover but I do like this paperback for summer. I also like the new material which is so fun, so funny. It almost makes living through this moment. Okay, but not really. No, not really. You got close but you did naturally. I wasn't trying for that. I was not trying to make it okay.

You did not stick that landing but this is fantastic. I highly recommend. Please go and read. Because I was on the road, I got to meet a lot of people. I just want to shout out some of them. Shout out to one of our favorite friends of the pod, attorney general forever attorney general, Eric Holder who joined me in conversation at politics and prose in D.C. on Wednesday evening. Such a great night, packed house. Thank you to everyone who showed up.

Guess who showed up, Leah? Best intern ever. Best intern ever, Jordan was right there. Also with Jordan was Anatolia, a rising one out at Harvard Law School, kit my former student all there in the crowd. I met lots of great people. Shout out to Eleanor who is a high school student who is thinking about law school and has read all of our books. So good for her. I also got to attend in Philadelphia, the committee of 70s women in public service

that I ran into is a really great event where they honored Kitty Colbert who as we all know

was the person who argued planned parenthood versus Casey and is continued to fight for equality throughout her long career. I also want to give a big shout out to recurring friend of the pod, Skye Perryman and the great folks at democracy forward who let me crash their retreat. They were

“fantastic. It was an amazing retreat at outie field in DC. That's how big they are. They're”

fighting for democracy and they need a whole soccer field to hold them and it was fantastic. Also shout out to Stricty Rachel who I met standing in line at the Pretty Munget in Union Station on my way home. It's a little embarrassed to be holding two sandwiches because I couldn't decide it wasn't going to eat them all but I wanted to be able to try both of them. It was really great to meet her. Finally, DC Stricties. If you have an opportunity, please check out the artist

EMR Lyman's amazing exhibit at the Krieger Museum. Lyman is an amazing artist who by training is a

lawyer and his work is infused with themes of law and justice and equality and it's just truly

“arresting. It does a lot of work in multiple media, collage, sculpture. It's just really fantastic and”

the Krieger Museum is an unsung gem as well. It's like nestled in a neighborhood in DC, a private home that's been turned into a museum and they have just a fantastic collection. So please get out there and see it. The show runs until July. Speaking of undersung gems in Washington, DC, if you haven't heard yet, tickets for CrookedCon 2026 are on sale now. You can expect potential presidential candidates. Campaign strategists, pollsters, organizers, journalists, creators, and Crooked podcasts host like

me who know is maybe I'll even deliver a read to some potential presidential candidates. I'll law my take on the Michigan Senators. Anyways, CrookedCon comes just days after the midterms. We will have a lot to learn and a lot to do. A lot to get ready for for the next two years. We'll kick it off on Thursday, November 5th with a Pod Save America live show. Then on the evening of Friday, November 6th, you can catch us at strict scrutiny line. Oh my god, the pod bros are opening

for us. I know. I know. It's finally nature is made. Nature is healing. Touch grass, touch grass.

And on Saturday, November 7th, join us for a full day of CrookedCon panels and meet-ups. Head to CrookedCon.com to get tickets and more details, including how to become a Friends of the Pod subscriber. For a special discount, we can't wait to see you there. Stuk scrutiny is a Crooked Media Production. Our show is produced by Melody Raoul and Michael Galsmith, Jordan Pommes is our intern. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hescott,

Johanna Kase, Kenny Mothet, Eric Shoot, and our music is by Eddie Cooper. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the writer's skill of America East. Artificial intelligence is moving very, very fast. And it's raising new questions just about

“every day about what it is, what it is, and all of a sudden done, what is the end game?”

I'm Chris Hayes and as part of my podcast, why is this happening? I'm speaking with leading experts each week to help ground that conversation. We're right now in a situation where it's very difficult to understand what is real and what's not real. Why is this happening? The AI end game, a special mini series from MSNow. Start listening today wherever you get your podcast. In moments like these, it's easy to fill overwhelmed and even easier to fill powerless.

But we are neither. I'm Stacey Abrams and on my podcast, assembly required, I take on each executive action, legislative battle, and breaking news moment by asking three questions. What's really happening? What can we do about it? And how do we keep going together? This is a space for clarity, strategy, and hope rooted in action, not denial. New episodes of assembly required, drop Tuesdays, tune in wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube.