Birthright Citizenship + Bye-Bye, Pamela Jo Bondi

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 defy and isolate people across our nation. The fatally flawed way this commission was assembled makes clear that the predetermined outcome isn't just un-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. Registered to attend today at bsrf.org. So, friends of the pod get lots of stuff. You get more pots of America that includes our new show, which is called pot-save America, only friends.

It's where it doesn't get to make it. For Dan gets full frontal nudity, but mostly it's a bi-weekly

subscription-exclusive podcast that is basically pot-save America

but behind a pay-wall, so it's a little bit looser and more fun, and it's love it, and fab-row, and me, and fight for it, and other cricket hosts who go deeper on the news and cover more stories. You also get open-taps, which is a weekly behind-the-scenes newsletter from the show, plus you get ad-free episodes of your favorite cricket podcast,

and all kinds of other stuff. Dan will come to your house and clean it once every morning. Dan is very busy, close, only. But along with just getting great content, becoming a friend of the pod, joining our subscription community,

is the number one thing you can do to help us grow to help independent progressive media. So, if you're ever thought about doing it, if you ever wanted more pots of America, consider going to crooked.com/friends and becoming a friend of the pod. For one, you have your own business with Shopify and business.

“And you have to be careful with the check-out with the world-fledged,”

but it's really hard. The check-out with the world-fledged, best-in-conversion. The legendary check-out from Shopify, is just the shop on your website, and is the social media, and over-earned.

That's the music for your ears. Videos, also, are used to sell shopping, can be used to a real help. Start your tests for a single-order promo. Off shopify.de/recorder.

Take their feet off our backs. Hello and welcome back to Strix scrutiny, your podcast about the awesome Supreme Court that is going to save the country. JK, those are my say-fords,

and also how you would know if I was in a hostage video. We are your host for today.

“I'm Leo Whitman, and I'm Melissa Murray,”

and what this actually is, is Strix scrutiny. Your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Put differently. We are a podcast that is not going to cave

to the trend of insisting that the Supreme Court is reasonable, now that it seems like some of the justices can read the constitutional text of the 14th Amendment. And therefore, are capable of immediately recognizing that the president's executive order

rescinding birthright citizenship for the American born children of certain non-citizens is, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional and should be burned with hot fire. They got there eventually, or they might. Eventually, right, exactly.

We'll talk about that, but a court that can only read some times, and on April Fool's Day, no less, might not be that great a court is the perspective we will be offering. So as you might have surmised, it's just me and Melissa today, which is why we're already at a 15k, is out.

She said she was interviewing for a high-level post at the Department of Justice. JK, that's a late April Fool's joke.

You know, they'll never nominate another woman to that post,

or maybe any, anyways, because it's just the two of us, we are going to be wilding out, so get ready. My local independent coffee shop actually just released their seasonal flavor, and it's a root beer float latte, and I just say beer added to my try.

So I am just going to be on this sugar high for the next few months, and I can't wait. It's been a great week. We're going to start by recapping oral arguments that happened last week, focusing on birth rights citizenship,

and then we are going to cover the bananza of legal news,

- New nick day. - Pamela, bye. - No, Pamela? - No, Bondi. - Pamela, no job, bye. - That part. (laughing) - We're going to have a few of those.

“- We're trying not to be petty, but it's hard.”

It's real hard. - I'm not trying. - Here. - No. - I was trying, I'm going to have to be the Kate here, and I'm trying not to be petty, but again, it's really, really hard.

And anyway, first up, the birth rights citizenship.

- We learned that the justices can do hard things this week, Melissa. - We did. - We did. - We did, reading. - Okay, so first up, the birth rights citizenship argument in Trump versus Barbara. This was a challenge to the president's executive order denying

the constitutional right of birth rights citizenship to children born to certain non-citizens. Namely, undocumented immigrants and individuals who are here in the United States on temporary visa statuses. We are going to first provide some context.

And by that I mean, we are going to give you some of the immediate right up to the argument, then we're going to give our high level overview and top lines of the argument.

“And then we're going to give you a summary of the cast of characters,”

and all of the quote-unquote "fuck shit" that happened during this argument. And there was a lot of it. - Oh yeah, so the lead up. The president announced that he would be attending this argument, and he didn't talk about this time.

I was curious if he was thinking, "I can mug new corsage," but he also apparently brought Hamlet Joe Bondi with him and told her on the way to the argument that she was no longer going to have a job. - Okay, so this is so delicious to me

'cause can you imagine getting fired in the beast on your way to the Supreme Court? And then you're having to sit in an argument, watching John Sauer make an absolute match of his job, knowing you don't have a job.

Like, imagine that it's a perpetual reminder

that the misogynist will never accept failure among women,

only men.

“Like, tradwives, I don't care how much homemade Coca-Cola you make for your husbands.”

This is not the way, not the way. - No, no. But this was actually the first time a sitting president attended a Supreme Court argument as a sitting president, and I personally love the specter of Trump making this argument a clown show

and staring down the justices who just deserve the entire clown show that they helped create, and I hope they were annoyed AF. - This is literally like, if Frankenstein's monster, just showed up in Frankenstein's lab and has seen this like,

what you doing, but you make it exactly like exactly. - Now, Trump reportedly left the argument shortly after the solicitor general's appearance as Cecilia Wang, who was arguing for the plaintiffs began, unclear if the president was bored, unclear if he just couldn't stand a woman

of color explaining why he was wrong, or if even he could perceive that BLM, Aimee and Brett and not Arland Neal showed up, and he knew it was over for the executive order. - Not BLM, Aimee. - Again, I'm already a 16-girl.

- Wow. All right, so let's get to high-level predictions and thoughts about the argument before we take attendance at what was the best clown show I've seen

in some time, so first of all, it is clear, thankfully,

that the president is going to lose this case because he should, because reading is fundamental, and this executive order is blatantly unlawful, and it will be declared unlawful and killed with hot fire, and will not go into effect.

What is not clear is whether the president will lose this case unanimously, which should be the case, because this is so fucking unconstitutional, like everyone should just be like, yeah, you can't do that, but no, it seems likely here that the president will get a vote, maybe more, but definitely one we think.

And that single vote, I will just say right here, is an actual travesty and a stain on the rule of law. And if you're wondering, who does that remind me of, and you're saying Samuel Alito, listener, you are correct. But leaving aside the fact that Samuel Alito is likely

to vote for this clown show of an executive order, the outcome of the case at least seems clear. That being said, even when the president loses, he succeeds in some capacity. That's sort of a hallmark of his whole presidency, one and two.

This president has been so successful in unsettling and politicizing, what is a bedrock constitutional principle? This idea of birthright citizenship. So just to be very clear here, these fringe conservatives took an off-the-wall theory that was cooked up by John Eastman,

and that just 10 years ago would have been regarded by almost everyone who could

“read as the province of cooops and cranks.”

And yet, these French conservatives managed to husbandate into an on-the-wall theory that just got a full airing at the highest court in the land as though it were a normal thing. Oh, by the way, the guy who originated the theory, "Dispard," yeah, "Dispard," John Eastman, yes.

So I mean, we're doing only the best people are on this race, and they husbandate it into an on-the-wall theory that the Supreme Court literally took seriously. And in doing so, the President and his minions have not only unsettled this idea that was bedrock,

they've now invited more attacks on birthright citizenship, and the children of immigrants who would likely claim it, they've unsettled the law even if they haven't actually succeeded in changing it,

and they've basically made the world safe for what JD Vance calls heritage,

Americans, which is to say that it means the world is no longer really safe for multiracial democracy and the rule of law, and that is probably the point of all of this. Yeah, it was also a little rich for me to hear the justices at various points during the arguments sound,

almost indignant and self-righteous in their skeptical questioning of the federal government, yes, I'm looking at you, Neil Gorsuch. When time and time again, they have embraced ridiculous arguments, they have bent the law to enable this President. And so, yeah, he's out of control and lawless,

care to look in the mirror, my guys. And we should also note that

it is an absolute choice for the court to hear this case at all, they didn't have to do that. They could have disposed of it last term, when they resolve the issue of nationwide injunctions, again, in a case involving the birthright citizenship executive order, and just then ruled on the merits as the plaintiffs in that case asked them to do,

as a three democratic appointees did see the 14th amendment. And the Republican appointees didn't do that, so they invited this face-eating leopard circus show into their house and our constitutional democracy. A few more beats on that. Again, this isn't just about the President and John Eastman and this Kaka-Mamei ridiculous,

crap-tastic theory of the 14th amendment. It's also about this court that literally uses its control over its docket to percolate ideas that are genuinely puts you off at us. Yeah, genuinely fucked up. They could have decided this last term, they could have gotten rid of this with a very spare opinion. Like, nope, wrong, moving on. No, they let it sit out there. The whole substantive

“questions just sat out there. Then they're like, you know what?”

Is this the 14th amendment? And then they decided to grant cert. And then they put it for like April 1. So, you know, as far as they could get from it. Jokes on us. Jokes on us. And they let it percolate. So, we've literally spent four months talking about whether this bullshit theory is in fact a real thing. And it's like Pinocchio. We just asked if a ruler is a real boy for four

months. And do we have a real constitution? Probably not. So, they're part of the problem here. I mean, the way they manage their docket, the way they choose to answer things on the timeline. And we saw this with Trump versus the United States and how they delayed and jittered on that. And then, oh, no, we can't have a trial. Like, this will have to decide the will. Like, this will have to give the president

complete immunity. And here we are. So, they're part of this. They're complicit in this ridiculousness. Yeah. I think bottom line, you know, Mike Dorf, a professor at Cornell said it best echoing points we phrase before, you know, what he said is this case is a gift to the Supreme Court by rejecting an outlandish position. It will earn credibility as a

“political even as the overton window moves are to the right. Let's just remember that”

they're the ones that help open this fucking window and then put like, oh, yeah, a stack of books to keep it open. Yeah. All right. Because we've already discussed how ridiculous the argument in favor of the executive order is was, let's actually just delve into it and let it all hang out. The text of the 14th Amendment, I can tell you, is as follows. Melissa is holding up a copy of her book. She literally wrote a book on the Constitution.

So, she can tell you the U.S. Constitution in a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader. And it is coming out on May 5th. I can tell you because I've written this book that the text of the 14th Amendment reads as follows. All persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Does that sound simple to you? It sounds simple to me.

Yeah. Because it's simple. It's pretty straightforward. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment responds to the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott versus Stanford where the

And the court's reasoning, of course, was racist and rooted in ideas about who is fit to be a

“citizen who is deserving and who is an American. The 14th Amendment, the whole point of the”

14th Amendment, is to reject that vision of selective citizenship in favor of a clear rule of birthright citizenship. What had actually been the default rule in the Anglo-American legal tradition which had been adopted by the colonists at the founding and was the prevailing norm until the Supreme Court in the racist screen that is called Dred Scott decided to depart from it. How's that for originalism, Leah? Is this originalism guy in the butterfly meme says

you know, in some ways like this is the original originalism? It is the right not this fake fucked up originalism that John Sauer was pedaling. Anyway, so the TLDR was we had birthright citizenship at the start. Dred Scott was like, "Hey, let me do a little racism and fuck this up." And then the 14th Amendment was like, "Let's go back to the originalism part and just have a general grant of birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States." The Supreme Court

later confirmed that principle of broad birthright citizenship in its 1898 decision, Wong Kim Ark, which held that an individual who was born to non-citizens that is people who are not eligible to be citizens, people who were prohibited from becoming citizens because of the Chinese exclusion act because we were still doing a little light racism that their child despite all of these exclusions because he was born in the United States was a citizen by birth.

At the beginning of the oral argument in Trump versus Barbara, just as such my horror quoted from the drafting history of the 14th Amendment and included specific comments made by people debating the amendment that acknowledged the amendment would grant citizenship to children of non-citizens, immigrants, including Chinese nationals who were vilified at the time, and now by the current president. The practical consequences of the federal government's position would also be

absolutely outlandish and untenable, and this is something we covered in last week's episode, but it was again so outlandish and so untenable that Justice Jackson felt compelled to unpack it on the floor of the Supreme Court. So this all came out in a very revealing colloquy with solicitor general John Sauer who may not know what it's like to give birth and what happens after you give birth and what you might be capable of doing just after you give birth.

“So we bringing pregnant women in for depositions, what are we doing to figure this out?”

Yeah, I'm not trying to have a deposition after pushing a baby out. Sorry, or having my stomach cut and having a baby pulled out, like no one's wanting a deposition. Like how does this actually work? Like, have you goals actually thought through this? Like genuinely. Unclear. I mean, like you're sitting there telling me that the straight-of-harm move is going to open naturally, but you have no fucking idea what natural child birth looks like. Like, give me a break.

Anyway, as should be clear, hospitals are not really equipped to determine citizenship. People are not equipped to prove their citizenship when they go to the hospital to give birth,

and solicitor general John Sauer's response is basically, ah, you can just sue the federal

government to establish your baby citizenship after they're born and they deny your baby's citizenship. So yes, it's up to you to get yourself a lawyer, launch a case, get it all sorted out, and maybe after about a year and a half or so, you'll get an actual answer on this. No big deal, though, not a big deal at all. Yeah, just more to stay in for pregnant people and in the interim before you get that determination is the federal government going to be trying to or succeed in

deporting you and/or your baby. It's just cruel, and that's the point exactly. Strix scrutiny is brought to you by zbiotics. We are just about on the precipice of bad decision season, which means it's time to make sure you're making some good decisions, so you can stay in the game. And that means drinking zbiotics pre-alcohol before you have your glass of wine after a long Supreme Court inflicted day or a glass of wine you have before a

scotus heavy week. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world first genetically engineered

probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a build-up of this byproduct, not dehydration that's to blame for rough days after drinking.

“Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this pie product down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol”

your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have pre-alcohol before drinks, I notice the difference the next day. Even after a night out, I think confidently plan on getting up and getting ready to go.

I was on the fence about pre-alcohol initially. But as I've said, after I drank the zbiotics pre-alcohol before the pod save show here in Ann Arbor, and it crooked-con in DC, I was sold, and believe me, it's the real deal. Not like the fake history that's being trotted out in the birthright arguments. Let's be real, usually a Friday night out means a Saturday morning spent canceling my workout class. But since I started incorporating pre-alcohol,

my glass of wine doesn't disrupt my morning flow. Remember to head to zbiotics.com/strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15% off. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Mint Mobile. So it turns out this administration, not super great at bringing costs down. Oil and gas

“are up, economy seems to be hurtling towards some sort of disaster, and that means you have to”

be careful about how and where you're spending your money. And that's where Mint Mobile comes in.

You can stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely

to fix that. Mint Mobile will rescue you with premium wireless plans starting at 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G number. You can bring your own phone number, activate with ESM in minutes, and start saving immediately. There are no long-term contracts and no hassle. So ditch over-priced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for $15 a month. I was in the

market for a new cell phone plan. Mint Mobile is where I go. And Mint Mobile is what I recommend to friends and family who are in the market. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you,

“shop plans at MintMobile.com/strip. That's MintMobile.com/strip. Up front payment of $45 for”

three months, five gigabyte plan required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full-priced plan options available. Taxes and fees extra, Seem Mint Mobile for details. We are now going to shift to explaining the vote count and why every justice save for Sam Alito and maybe also Clarence Thomas, although that was less clear to me. Partly pin him down. Yeah, I agree. I made clear that they can read and that the 14th Amendment says what it says.

We're going to start out with the textually and literally challenged Samuel Alito who opened his remarks by positing to John Sauer that because unauthorized illegal immigration didn't exist at the time of the 14th Amendment, the 14th Amendment couldn't possibly have anything to say about the citizenship of children of people without legal status. That question, of course, wasn't

“attempt to offer a framework for him. That is Alito to say, well, because things have changed,”

I can just do whatever we want. Basically, living constitutionalism for the win says the guy who has a forthcoming book coming out about how he's an originalist, offering an originalist perspective on the U.S. Constitution, the court and the country, of course. Also, Justice Alito, I'd like to introduce you to the second amendment because I am pretty sure that when the second amendment was ratified, they didn't have

machine guns or salt rifles and we can make these same arguments. In fact, we do make these

same arguments and you always literally shoot them down. Get it? I made a pun there. Uh-huh.

Pew, pew, pew. And yet Justice Alito still insists that the second amendment has something to say about machine guns and assault rifles, but, you know, whatever. Let's just try to be consistent. Like, if you're going to do it, just be consistent. But no, he's not trying. Later in the argument, the chief justice kind of got in on this as well. He had an exchange with Solicitor General Sauer that pointedly responded to the administration's selective embrace of living constitutionalism

in this case. So let's roll that clip. No, but, of course, we're in a new world now, Justice Alito pointed out to where 8 billion people are one plain right away from having a a child as a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. This is the same constitution. All right. I'm just going to say this line has been quoted so much. I actually hate it. He's going to get he by he. I mean, the chief justice is going to be credited with being

wonderfully principled and institutionally minded and wow, what amazing perspective and insight.

We should be so thankful that he is on the court. Don't buy this, right? Like, I'm 100% sure, John Roberts practice this clip in the mirror before he got to work that morning. And again, they have allowed this administration to put this on. He's the author of the immunity of him. Hey, man, like, say it again. He's the author of the immunity opinion, which has midwife this administration. He allowed this case to percolate for months and now it's here. And then

he's going to be like, it's the same new constitution. It's the same constitution. It's the same constitution.

So no, I don't buy this. No. But back to Sam Alito, who's claims that, well, things have

“changed. So birthright citizenship ain't no thing. Let him do talk about microwave ovens, which is”

how you know he really had a great argument. Alito also offered a pretty dubious interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark. Even though reading is fundamental, Sam is not really inter fundamental, right? So this all tracks. And Alito read Wong Kim Ark and said, aha, Wong Kim Ark recognize some exceptions to the rule of birthright citizenship, such as in cases for the children of foreign ambassadors or invading armies. And then from these exceptions, Alito

insisted there is some broader rule that renders in eligible. The children of all persons who have some allegiance to or association with a foreign power. But one that's not with the 14th Amendment says to that would make the exceptions to the rule rather than the rule, the rule, and the rules birthright citizenship. And three, there's just no indication that Wong Kim Ark was stating those exceptions as indicative of some broader, more general rule about the meaning of subject to the

jurisdiction thereof. I actually thought Cecilia Wang, who argued for the ACLU and the immigrant plaintiffs had the most sick burn. It was very subtle, but I thought it was great. So just as Alito, his specific hypothetical was about the child born to a member of an Iranian sleeper cell, fucking crazy. He was like, sir, well, and he was basically saying, you know, this is a child who whose parents have allegiances to Iran will likely have to serve in the Iranian army.

When he grows up and when that was never intended to be a citizen from birth of the United States,

and Cecilia Wang, weighed in to say, well, you know, if that's the measure, any immigrant, obviously has these ties to the country from which they came, do we presume that that allegiance extends to their children, we've never said that. And in fact, if we had, we would be precluding the children of Irish immigrants and wait for it. Italian immigrants from being citizens, like, boy, you better watch out. We're coming for you, too. Like, I thought that was actually,

yeah, masterful. That was giving very a time to kill for me when the lawyer asked the jury to

“remember the horrific crime committed against the defendant's daughter, who was black, and then the”

lawyer asked the jury, now imagine the girl was white, and, you know, Cecilia tried to play that exercise with San Milito, and it didn't work. He just seemed to be like, again, just the abandonment of not just the originalism, but textualism, like, we're just going to pretend that the word jurisdiction actually means allegiance. We're doing like a whole new word. Why not people? Again, these conservatives have for years acted like progressives just read what they want to

into the Constitution. It's not us. We're not the ones doing it. No. Not us. No. No. Yeah. Anyway, other justices had very different takes on Wong Kim Ark. So when the solicitor general, who was arguing against birth rights citizenship, attempted to invoke Wong Kim Ark.

Justice Gorsuch had this to say. That was, I would just first sight Wong Kim Ark on that point,

because Wong Kim Ark says you're, well, I'm not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark. New Gorsuch has drag queen and level of bitchiness and patting this, and I just wish he would deploy it better. Use it for good, not evil. I know, in addition to the clip you introduced, I'm also thinking of this exchange where he's just dripping with disdain. But that's 1898. Now I'm looking at 1868. You're telling me is when I should look in the test for domicile.

And the stuff you have about unlawfully present is like enrollment law sources you're going to. Again, sometimes the patting is just hits. And even Brett Kavanaugh's brain seemed to grasp that Wong Kim Ark meant something other than what the federal government was saying it did. And he seemed to be on the hunt for a way to make this case easy enough that even he could write it. As you can hear here. You mentioned this in your opening that if we agree with you on how to

read Wong Kim Ark, then you win. So that could be a, if we did agree with you on Wong Kim Walk, that could be just a short opinion, right? That says the better reading is response and reading. Government doesn't ask us to overrule a firm. That's, that's, that's, that. Just as Kagan, as is her want, decided to take Sister General John Sauer for a dog walk on Wong Kim Ark. She pointed out how people have, for generations, understood Wong Kim Ark to submit

birthright citizenship. And she then asked Sauer what quote magnitude of evidence we would need to

“see in order to accept this revisionist theory and in order to change what I think people have”

thought was the rule for more than a century. I mean, man, say it plain, say it loud. I mean,

the perfect encapsulation of this administration's attitude and approach to the court's

“law. People with uterus says generally. I think, let's have a listen. Senator Trumball says,”

I said not so much any foreign power. I wanted to say Bernie, the United States and, you know, only legious the United States, but I was aware that there's a quote, a sort of allegiance from person's temporary resident in the United States, whom we have no right to make citizens. So, Senator Trumball says the reason I haven't adopted the language and meeting that they say should be packed into these provisions is that everybody knows that the children of temporary visitors

should not be citizens. Thank you, General. This was John Sauer's equivalent of Butta Dow. The Dow was a, for me. He saw Pam in the audience and he's like, yeah, I'm going to do that. Gamerock, you guys, Game Girl. Exactly. Game has a job. So, we wanted to take a bit just in case you listened to the argument or have been, you know, reading coverage or you want to hear a little bit more to explain the domicile concept that was thrown out a bunch. So, as we've said, the language

“of the 14th Amendment says, if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen. If you're”

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the federal government says subject to the jurisdiction means your parents have allegiance to the United States. No, the text doesn't say allegiance. Either does it talk about parents, but whatever. Textualism. Exactly. So, you know, the federal government then tries to distinguish Wang Kim arc by saying that the parents of Wang Kim arc were domiciled in the United States. They were residents permitted to be there. No, there wasn't

such a thing as unlawful status at the time. And the federal government says they were domiciled permitted and tending to remain here. And therefore, we're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even if they weren't citizens and were prohibited from becoming citizens. Wang Kim arc does use, you know, domicile and domicile several times in the opinion, likely because the parents in that case were domiciled here, but whatever. And also domicile can't mean, you know, owes allegiance

“to the United States because Wang Kim arcs parents maintain an allegiance to China. They couldn't”

become United States citizens. And they ultimately returned to China and also textual. And it's not

the same way. We're in also textualism and also there's no indication. This is just reading. I'm not sure it's even textualism that domicile was part of the rule or holding of Wang Kim arc. And in addition to this at the beginning of the argument, just such a myor quoted from the opinion in Wang Kim arc, which had quoted Daniel Webster as saying, quote, independently of a residence with intention to continue such residents, independently of any domiciliation, independently of the

taking of any oath of allegiance or renouncing any former allegiance. It is well known that by the public law, a non-citizen, while he is here in the United States, owes obedience to this country's laws and quote, shorter, just such a myor. Can you read? Unclear. Strix scrutiny is brought to you by Cook Unity. If you didn't already know, I'm a foodie. Whenever I travel somewhere, I plan out all the meals, both sit down restaurants and also breakfast

pastries, heck, I basically only want to vacation places where I can get good food and trying to figure

out how to eat well at home without making it a full-time job is a challenge. Plus in the spring, there's so much produce and so many options. And one of the things I just cannot wait to make is a spring vegetable galette. Now Cook Unity is there to help me eat well, in last time and with fresh ingredients, they deliver chef-crafted meals straight to your door so you can spend last time, planning, and cooking, and more time enjoying the longer lighter days ahead. One of the things I love

about Cook Unity is that with the individual meal options, I can get meals that have flavor profiles that I like but my partner isn't super into. So for example, there's a tamarind, butternut, and sweet potato mix, all things my partner doesn't like. I know, it's a pollen. That is, his preference is, not the meal. But Cook Unity means I can still get those flavors, and he can get something he likes. Same thing with shrimp. Who doesn't like shrimp? My partner,

who does like shrimp? This girl. So I can get the shrimp Creole or Coconut Shrimp, no problem. I really like how the meals highlight so many different flavors and fresh ones. And as the list, I just rather love suggest there's so much variety. You can go from barbecue to burrito to Mediterranean in three days. All with no effort. With Cook Unity, there's no cooking, shopping, or thinking about how to get the nutrition and comfort meals you need every week. Cooking quality

meals takes time. But it doesn't have to be your time. There's no cleanup or meal plan. Meals are delivered fully cooked, just heat up in as little as five minutes. And you can choose from a rotating seasonal menu of over 300 meals, or you can let Cook Unity's platform provide

match your cravings with your wellness goals. And commitment for a subscription start as low as

“the lep and dollars a meal. So skip deliveries, pause, or cancel any time. Taste, craftsmanship,”

and every bite from the award-winning chefs behind Cook Unity. Go to cookunity.com/strict,

or enter Coat Strict before check out to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order

by using Coat Strict or going to cookunity.com/strict. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Stamped.com. It is staggering that to this very day, many small business owners are still making post-office loans, or their stock with expensive postage meter leases. It's 2026, not 1926, or 1826, as the federal government's arguments on birthright citizenship would have us believe. Anyways, you can mail in ship when you want, how you want, with stamps.com. With stamps.com, you can send

from your computer or phone 24/7. That means no long lines, no low supplies, and is open anytime. You can print postage on demand and get up to 90% off carrier rates, like FedEx, UPS, and USPS.

“You can schedule carrier pickups right from your door and get carrier compliant labels every time.”

That means no errors, no rejected mail, and no Easter trips. It's perfect for your business. You

can send certified mail. You can get document tracking to confirm delivery, and analytics to make sure you know exactly what you've sent and spent. For almost 30 years, millions of customers have relied on stamps.com to make mailing and shipping faster and so simple. So if you're a small business owner who's tired of the post office eating up your day, stamps.com is one of those tools that just makes sense. You can save time money and you don't have to leave your home or office,

why wouldn't you do it? Right now you can try stamps.com risk-free for 60 days. Go to stamps.com and use code strip to get 60 days risk-free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much

time and money you're saving on every shipment. That's stamps.com code strip. That stamps.com code strip.

“There's also just this huge glaring inconsistency in the federal government's position”

about how did determine what the word jurisdiction means? Because the solicitor general maintains that the federal statutes that contain the same language as the 14th Amendment don't actually codify the Supreme Court's decision in Wang Kim Ark interpreting the 14th Amendment because the federal government says, "Well, those statutes use the language of the 14th Amendment, but at the same time the federal government says that the 14th Amendment and the federal

statute guaranteeing for threat citizenship actually mean the same thing as a different statute. The 1866 civil rights act would use as a different phrase. The phrase not subject to any foreign power. So just to get this straight, words mean the same thing as other different words, but they don't mean the same thing as the same words. Textualism. I mean, I'm sure Pam Bondi was listening to this and you're like, I cannot believe that I just got fired in the piece and this

motherfucker has a job. What? I don't know. Or, or she might have been listening to Sam Alito thinking, I can do this. Maybe he'll tap me for the Supreme Court. Oh, you're not getting tapped. You go on back to Florida for a life in the private section. You don't even have a job of the shield of the American. Oh, all right. So that's where justices, Kagan, and so to my or where that's where the boys were. Just as Barrett also took a fair amount of time making her

position on all of this very, very clear. She asked the Lister general sour about how the government's theory that only people whose parents have allegiance to the United States are capable of having children who are born citizens of the United States, how that would have applied to the descendants of enslaved persons. And as she pointed out, people who were captured and enslaved often were brought forcefully to the United States and returned to the United States probably did not have much

allegiance to the United States can confirm. They may have wanted to escape. Yet, their children were still definitely citizens. As we said, Black Lives Matters Amy showed up for this argument and we applaud her. Okay. All lives matter. Not today. Black Lives Matter. Not today. All of this to say, the three Democratic appointees are sane. They can read. So by now, should be clear that the vote count against the administration is at least seven against the administration with, yeah,

likely one vote for the administration that would be Justice Alito. There's a wild card here, not surprisingly. Yeah. And his name is Clarence Dress. Yes. And I guess you kind of suggested you

to want to say something about how the 14th Amendment was just about the descendants of enslaved persons. So attractive to someone like him. Exactly. Exactly. On the other hand, he seemed to ask more softballs of Cecilia Wang than John Sauer. Different people seem to have read him differently. I just could not get a read or have a sense about where I thought he was leading. He loves that kind

of argument going back to reconstruction. He's done it before with the second amendment, like this whole

idea that after the Civil War during reconstruction, African Americans were similarly disarmed.

“And therefore, you should have a robust second amendment because it would have protected them”

during this period. I can see why the Slyster General's argument would be so attractive to him. But it would also, I think, fundamentally raise questions about other aspects of the 14th Amendment that are, I think, our due troubling for him to contemplate, like, two progressive for him to contemplate. So one is not one other person who was at the oral argument other than the president and now former attorney general, Pamela Giovanni. And that would be Norman Wang, a direct

descendant of Wang Kim Art, who told the press after the oral argument that, quote, "they, that is the justices, will be shamed for history if they get this wrong." Samuel Lito is like, "Bit." Right. Don't threaten me with a good time. All right, bottom line, just to reiterate, the case should be 9 to 0 and a clear and simple

“reaffirmation of birthright citizenship, actually. The case shouldn't have been heard at all.”

It should have been decided last year when they did that nationwide injunction, but, you know, here we are. And the case when it is actually decided, probably in the last day of this term, sometime just before July, that case when it's decided will be a gift to this Supreme Court, because generally anything that seems to be good for democracy probably isn't as good as it could

be and is always a gift to the court. By rejecting this outlandish position, the court, as

Mike Dorf says, will earn credibility as a political, even as it moves, the overturn window far to the right. Yes. Good job, guys. Great job. So the court heard oral argument in another case, we also want to just spend a little bit of time on, and that was in pitchfurd versus cane. The case is about a technical issue of federal habeas law, but the facts are quite simple and straightforward. So the defendant Mr. Pichford, who is black, was convicted of, you know,

basically a murder offense when he was 18, and during Mr. Pichford's trial, the District Attorney Doug Evans removed four black perspective jurors. Now, listeners, if you're like, Doug Evans, why do I know that name? Where have I heard the name Doug Evans before? Well, listeners,

“you'll remember that Doug Evans was the prosecutor who brought you flowers versus Mississippi,”

the Supreme Court case where BLM Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion concluding that the prosecutor Doug Evans violated that. Then the restriction on removing jurors because of their race. In flowers, the state tried the defendant multiple times only to have multiple convictions

reversed for prosecutorial misconduct. At the first two trials, the prosecution removed

all of the black jurors. At the third and fourth trials, the state used all of its preemptory strikes against black jurors. And at the sixth trial, the one that the Supreme Court reviewed, the state of Mississippi exercised six preemptory strikes, five against black perspective jurors. And even this was too much for BLM Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote an opinion for seven justices, and it's not the seven that you're thinking of. And the opinion said,

basically, yes, Mississippi, you did a racism. The two dissenters here were Clarence Thomas, no points for guessing that, and wait for it, Neil Gorsuch. So who? Flowers versus Mississippi. That was a heavy time. That was when we first started. It was, and yeah, yeah, those early days, anyways. Back to Mr. Pitchford's case, though. So during the 2006 trial, the prosecutor again, Doug Evans, the artist behind Flowers, removed four prospective black jurors and Mr. Pitchford's

Defense Council objected. And the state court basically said, no, I'll go here. No bats and problems. And then on appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had waived, I.e. agreed to forego the bats in challenge. The one that trial counsel had raised during the trial that the state court judge told trial counsel was, quote, in the record, because reasons, and maybe in part because the trial judge who rejected the bats and claim

didn't really apply the bats and tests anyways. Here's the rub. If the state court is right, that defense counsel waived the objection and state court, then a federal court can't review

The waiver argument here is kind of batshit. Not only did the state trial judge tell defense

“counsel her objection was in the record three times. And the argument seems to boil down to the”

fact that the defense counsel didn't use the magic word pretext. The Supreme Court has established

a three-part test for bats and claim. So the first part of the test is that the defense counsel

has to object. Check. Then the prosecutor has to offer a race neutral explanation. And then the court has to determine if the race neutral explanation that the prosecutor has offered is actually pretextual. I.e. fake. And in fact, the prosecutor actually relied on race in striking the drawer. The waiver argument here goes like this. The defense counsel objected. The trial court said nope, rejected. So there's no bats and claim. And then the state and several Supreme

Court justices as well as the Fifth Circuit say that the defense counsel waived the objection

“by not screaming at the trial court about how they were wrong about batshit and the explanation”

is actually pretextual. Even though it's not really clear what the prosecutor's basis for the objections were since the questioning of the jurors was limited, which would then make it really hard for the defense counsel to argue that the prosecutor's somewhat mysterious reasons for striking the jurors were actually pretextual. So again, a lot of this is very fact dependent. The fact that the prosecutor didn't offer a lot of reasons. There weren't a lot of bases for the defense

counsel to raise questions around pretext all of this. The problem or a problem is that the state court just cut off the batshit process before all of this could sort itself out. The court just allowed the prosecutor to recite some race neutral explanations without reporting to actually examine

“if those explanations were in fact pretextual or to even allow the defense counsel to argue that”

they were in fact pretextual. And the lawyer for the state, as well as the lawyer for the federal government, arguing in support of the state, as well as Sam Alito, really doubled down on this idea that defense counsel should have been more assertive as you can hear here. Mr. Perkovitch, what happened here is certainly not a model to be followed in future cases, but I wonder if you would agree that in interpreting this transcript, we can take into account the way defense counsel generally

behave in a situation like this. Justice Alito, if you can clarify that question of defense counsel general behavior. Well, this is the most timid and reticent defense counsel that I have encountered any cognitive defense attorney that I knew would have spoken up. Because we all know how much state courts love public defenders who get adamant like come on, you know, wanted to make a wonky, habeas note for my fellow habeas nerds. There's someone certainty about whether the

Supreme Court will say that the state court here made a factual mistake because they're actually

wasn't a waiver versus illegal one because the state court didn't perform that third batsin

step of analyzing whether the race neutral explanation was pretty textual and federal law in post conviction creates super complicated rules that are specific to factual challenges versus legal ones. There was also a lot of this could just be a short opinion energy in this case and it really came from Justice Jackson and part of me wondered Leah if her interest in a short opinion here is to keep her Googleish colleagues from doing the most if she can. So let's hear from her.

I see this also as possibly a very short opinion when we look at what Mississippi's Supreme Court said, it would go something like pitchford's trial counsel made a batsin objection and

re-raised it multiple times. Each time the trial judge reassured her that it was preserved never

the last Mississippi Supreme Court said it was waived that's unreasonable the end. What would be wrong with that? Not anything I can think of. I just had big no-da, dumb shit energy to me which I was here for and you know just as far as how this case is going to come out you know BLM Brett was back for this argument so my guess is there is going to be a majority for the defendant here thankfully. All right here we are. Here we are. Wait what's that me that looked that that gift like.

Yes. So excited for this. This is that that gift of the guy behind the tree looking at the lips and yeah it's time it's time folks it's time for legal news. Pamela Joe Bondi.

So many good go on. So many. We probably will in our spare time. I mean what could have made this better is if he had actually nominated Mark Wayne Mullin. This is a time. This is a place. Let's go cowboy. No one should ever say that the president of the United States is not a gentleman because after firing Pamela Joe Bondi unceremoniously in the beast on the way to the Supreme Court he wished cast it on the way out and offered this truth for the graceful

“departure of Pam. Quote we love Pam and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important”

yet unspecified new job in the private sector to be announced at a date in the near future.

Never. And our deputy attorney general and a very talented and respected legal mind

sort of Todd Blanch will step into serve as acting attorney general. Thank you for your attention to this matter President Donald Trump. So let's just step back to observe the arc in Trump's second terms attorney's general. So initially. Okay can I just say can you imagine like Janet Reno in heaven? Oh my god. Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, watching all of this like what the actual like this whole arc is so messed up. It is and that 14 months. Yeah, 14 months. Yeah. Of course,

we all remember initially Trump wanted to select and nominate one Matt Gates for attorney general. The

“guy accused of paying minors for sex. I believe Lea referred to Matt Gates as a frapp paddle that”

became a real-life boy and it really don't know. That one. And from there we then went to Pamela Joe Bondi who of course one of the most associated moments and images of her tenure is a photograph of her refusing to turn around and acknowledge the Epstein survivors during her congressional testimony. But she did acknowledge the stock market. She did, but the dowel, but the dowel is not a dowel. 50,000. And now, at least for acting, we are getting Todd Lange, Trump's personal lawyer who met with one

Glyne Maxwell and may have arranged her transfer to a lower security prison and who once had this to say about Jeffrey Epstein. So take a listen. Is there any chance that any of these individuals

“who party with Epstein and engage in relations with minors will be prosecuted? Any chance?”

We, I'll never say no. And we will always investigate any evidence of misconduct. But as you know,

it is not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein. Again, not on constitutional to have parties. It is so clear that Todd Lange was auditioning to be America's next top attorney general last weekend at the CPAC convention, where he just said, out, you just outlandish shit about sending ice agents to polling places. He was auditioning. He knew that there was Trump in the water for bondy and that there was going to be a shake up at DOJ and he wanted to put himself in the right place.

Accept Glyne Maxwell. Like my dude, you are uncomfortable. There's no way you could be confirmed. Not only were you his personal lawyer for the hush money thing, not only have you helped orchestrate all of these retributive prosecutions against people literally done nothing except dissent against this president. You also seemed to have something to do with the transfer of Glyne Maxwell or at least that is the appearance of it. Like you're not going anywhere, sir. And that is why

he called you the acting attorney general. And why he is literally considering three other people, one of who may be a box of wine to be the actual attorney general. Okay, let's break down

what happened with Pamela Joe Bondi. It was so promising. That's not true. It was never from

no. So one of the apparent problems of the president had with Pamela Joe Bondi was that she was insufficiently effective at mounting political prosecutions. And I don't know. I mean, I feel semi bad for and I actually don't feel bad for her. It wasn't really her fault. It was, you know, the constitution and the public and judges and jurors who refused to go along with this. But she did catch a lot of the stress. Why not blame a woman for everyone else's? I mean, I will say.

doing this. But we knew she wasn't capable of that kind of metal. So it was never going to happen.

“But this could have happened to, and honestly, any of this could have happened to Matt Gates,”

it could have like, if he refused to do it. Because we have alluded to this moment, we do want to invite you to relive one of Pamela Joe Bondi's greatest hits when we thought she had short circuited during her congressional testimony. So here you go. The Dow is over 50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader. As I hear, Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000 right now. Just remember, people, Pamela Joe Bondi may be out, but the Dow, the Dow is at whatever it is at

I mean, this was the bravoification of Pamela Joe Bondi. And I kind of knew when it happened. She was not long

for this world. I mean, Kristi knows how to a similar kind. I'm like, ladies, don't go testify before

Congress acting like a housewife. Well, this is why they need to get Steven Miller to testify before Congress, right? Just parade him out, dog walk him, humiliate him, and get him the F out of town.

“Amy, and just my advice. Yeah, more seriously. We all deserve this moment of shout-and-froid”

with Pamela Joe. We earned it. In the last year, federal judges have described how she, quote, lost the, quote, "trust" that had been earned over generations, quote, "destroy the presumption of regularity," and quote, lost a trust in confidence of legal communities in the public. Like, we can all mock her failures and there were many, but she did a ton of damage,

and she succeeded at a lot of unlawful aims, including the still pending,

vindictive political prosecution of, for example, representative Lamanica. Okay, let me just say here. She could have been anyone, right? I mean, like, let's just to be very, very clear. This is all the rot comes from the top. This is the president. Oh, clearly dictating the policies and priorities of the Department of Justice to be very clear, an actual attorney general who took seriously their oath as a lawyer would stand up, but that's not going to be anyone here. So,

like, this literally could have been ahead of lettuce, leading this department and the same thing would have happened, but it is delicious that it was Pamela Joe Bondi, and then that she got literally dog walked and kicked out the way she did. Speaking of deliciousness, I do wonder if we need to launch a spring or summer drink to pour one out in honor of one Pamela Joe. I know it can be per seco. Oh, that's good. That's good. Okay, fire bondy or fire bondy. Oh. Okay. I'm thinking.

Okay, that's my nomination. We have to keep it. We have to think about some of these. These are, this is great. I want to think of something with like a spritz in it. Oh, yeah, I see that. I can sort of a Hugo spritz. Pam, go spritz. Okay. I know you're not loving you, but I do, I love elder theory. Elder flower, whatever's in them. Something with like app, app oral, app oral, app, app, app oral. And we'll workshop it. Speaking of drinks, other Trump officials have also been

covering themselves in glory. And yet, they somehow managed to hold onto their jobs, even in the face of incompetence and malevolence. This administration still manages to squeeze in a little light sexism. So cash, Patel FBI director, apparently fell for a fishing scam that compromised his emails. In addition to cash covering himself in glory, the financial times reports that quote, a broker for Pete Hegg Seth attempted to make a big investment in major defense companies in the

“weeks leading up to the U.S. Israeli attack on Iran. What do they call this in the lollier?”

Attempted deal dough, also known as insider trading. Yeah, or public corruption. I mean, you name it. But obviously Uncle Drunky wasn't going to be fired for trying to get in on the grifty deal dose. You know, perhaps another reason he might not have been fired is what NBC News reported, namely that Hegg Seth has apparently intervened to stop military promotions for more than a dozen senior officers. Which ones do you ask? Well, the story notes that his interventions have

quote, "race concerns" that he may be targeting officials because of race and gender. Hegg Seth intervened to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen black and female senior officers. He has also been firing senior military officials while conducting this unplanned rudderless forever war that has not achieved any of its objectives and just created additional problems. Is this DEI? The right exactly. Yes. Dick X has been in sell in basalt. You name it.

All right, on to the institutions that are actually covering themselves in glory. We got several

the federal trial courts have to submit reports about how many cases remain outstanding and

“pending. This creates pressure on the district courts to release opinions before those dates.”

So this is known as the six month list. One of those dates that is relevant for the six month list is March 31st. And not surprisingly, we got a big batch of opinions. So judge Leon in the district of the district of Columbia halted the construction of the president's ballroom in the White House. And in typical judge Leon fashion, there are many exclamation points. And we love it. The opinion. You can hear those exclamation points. I love it, love it, pound the tables.

The opinion begins, for example, quote, the president of the United States is the steward of the

White House for future generations of first families. He is not however, this is the patient point.

Judge Leon then said, quote, the national trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the president the authority he claims to have. Judge Leon, then referred to that claim of authority as quote, a brazen interpretation. What are performance? What are performance? Judge Leon, we love this. Well, I was referring to yours

“as well. We're not like, honestly, we're not making fun. We love an exclamation point in an opinion.”

And if you can put crap tastic in an opinion, we are here for it. Okay. So Judge Mata also in the district of the district of Columbia held at some of the civil lawsuits against Donald Trump for actions on January 6th could proceed because the suits concerned actions taken in Donald Trump's private capacity rather than his official capacity. And then Judge Moss also in the district court for the district of Columbia held at the executive order freezing funding to NPR and PBS was unlawful.

And now a bad decision because bad decisions he's then never stops. A district court held that

the Trump administration can demand and obtain information from the University of Pennsylvania that identifies Jewish faculty and students and specifically groups and organizations on campus related to Judaism and that it can get individual personnel and membership information.

“The opinion is, in my view, pretty like tone deaf and callous and dismissive of what I think”

our legitimate concerns with handing over this information to the administration, but that's my note. Article two also issued some opinions. Yeah. The president who was definitely on one issued an executive order, purporting to restrict absentee ballots. Just to be clear, this has the same legal force and effect as if a flat boy wrote it on a napkin at a bar and puked on it and then wiped his face.

Executive orders can't change federal statutes. The president also doesn't have the authority to set the rules regarding federal elections as the constitution reminds us. But nevertheless, this was all the president's effort to so more and more chaos as we Korean toward the midterm elections. And then the office of legal counsel decided to one up the president and issued an opinion declaring the presidential records act a law that

just requires presidents to keep records of official business is you guessed it unconstitutional an infringement on the executive power because federal laws that tell the president to do things are apparently unconstitutional because they interfere with the president's power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, it does not make sense. And you know, the attack on the presidential records act kind of teed up this question for me, which is what the fuck are these

guys hiding? Like what do they not want to keep records of? Because what they're doing out in the open is already bad enough? I just want to be clear for our listeners. We laughed when we said that article to issued some opinions. It's kind of funny, but it's not. Yeah, really. Right. So these

executive orders are basically the president's attempt at constitutionalism and they have nothing

to do in reading. They have nothing to do with reading the constitution. This is the president wishcasting what he wished the constitution and relevant statutes said and there will be lawsuits. I'm sure challenging all of this, but there is something to be said for how he sort of normalizes these ideas by putting them out there. And so we feel like we are obliged to remind you again that these pronouncements, whether it's from OLC or the president, these are not the law,

is insisting they are not the law. And yeah, so keep saying that separately. Right. When I,

“this is fretboy wishcasting. That's what this is. When I saw this OLC opinion, I thought I heard”

a sound and that sound may have been one professor, Alon Warman, preparing an op-ed, arguing that Congress itself is unconstitutional. So O1 Warman is one of the right-wing professors that went on a bender trying to justify the president's illegal executive order. At one point during the oral arguments, solicitor General John Sauer in Votus Amicus Brief, which was definitely assigned the oral argument was not going well for the federal government. And when that happened,

Ellie Mistal, who was live, blue skying the argument, said this reminded him of that moment from

arrested development where Tobias Fuke is like, "There are dozens of us dozens." And I just,

I loved it anyways. The reasoning in this OLC opinion, such as said, is like "extreme,

“unitary executive theory, where x-treme and executive are words that begin with the letter x.”

It maintains that Congress cannot expropriate the papers of the chief executive. Those are papers that Congress paid for, and appropriated to the president. Like the next thing they're going to tell us is that Congress can't take back the chief executive's ballroom." And the OLC opinion also claims that the retention of presidential records serves no valid legislative purpose. Like these guys have truly lost the plot. All right. I can't just, what is this timeline? I don't know this.

I don't know. Anyway, it's so exhausting with an x, x-osting. All right. Briefly, some notes on the other cases that were argued last week at Skoda. So the court heard Abwama versus United States, which is about venue in criminal cases, venue is about where a case can and should be filed. The specific question in this case is whether venue is appropriate in a district where the events conduct. That's the stuff that constitutes the crime. It didn't happen,

but that the defendant's intent contemplated would have effects in the district. So the case was argued the day after the huge no kings protest that occurred across the country. And that seemed to be on some of the justice's mind. So, for example, Chief Justice Roberts asked a question about the Boston Tea Party, and he directed us to the government and he said, quote, "The Boston Tea Party takes place entirely in Boston, but it causes effects back in England." And so,

why can't you say it's all right to take these cases to England? As in, that can't possibly be right. Justice as a leader's mind also went to a similar place, which you can hear right here. You're trying to defend this particular conviction, and I understand that, but maybe when you're told that what you're doing is a violation of the Declaration of Independence, you might think about what seems to me the more important point from lasting significance.

Pot kettle, my guy. Like when people tell you, you're violating foundational principles, maybe YouTube should pause and reconsider your life's choices. There was a lot of weird no-kings, acknowledgments, slash celebrations going around among these guys, so here was Pete

“headsets. I think the president was clear this morning in his truth, that there are countries around”

the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. It's not just

the United States Navy. That's time I checked. There was supposed to be a big, bad royal navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well. I have to say celebrating no-kings and America's 250th birthday by asking the Royal Navy for help. He is America great, just yes, Meghan Markle. He's a Meghan Markle. He's a Meghan Markle. Yeah, not yet. You know, again, do these people know that you know any history? Oh my God. You know, back to this particular case,

the argument was a little hard to read. You know, if I had to guess, I think maybe the justices were leaning toward the defendant, you know, not clear what the grounds would be. The court also heard argument in jewels versus Andre Velass properties about arbitration stays. If the name Andre Velass sounds familiar to you listeners, it's because back in the go-go late 90s, early odds, Andre Velass was a hotelier who was hanging out with all the hotties. He took out Uma Thurman.

He, I mean, all the folks. I mean, he, he was, he was on the pages. Everyone knew him. In any event, this case is not about that. That's about arbitration stays. That's right, arbitration stays.

arbitration act doesn't grant jurisdiction for federal courts to enforce an arbitration award

“where they lack jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. The question here is whether federal”

courts have jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award in a case over which the court has jurisdiction to compel arbitration. But I do recommend the entire Uber of Andre Velass's dating life from the late 90s and early 2000s. That's very, very interesting. So the actual case, a kind of comes down was that the federal arbitration act kind of creates its own jurisdictional universe and exceptions or whether arbitration cases are subject to the

more general rules about supplemental jurisdiction. This argument was also a little hard to read from me. I read the court as initially skeptical of the petitioners argument that there's no jurisdiction. It's possible. The advocate at a Munikowski made some headway. Just as Kagan, who's

the author of Badgero, asked the person arguing second, respondent tough questions. But then there

were no questions for the respondent during the Syria, out-in portion of the argument, which is often a sign that that side might win. This was also the second argument of the day, those with possible the justice just got tired, which also was maybe evidence to me by this question from

“Samuel Elito. Just out of curiosity, and do you think we should ask Claude to decide this case?”

Yeah, I adhere to the wise judgment of this court. I mean, honestly related. First relatable moment from the effort. Also reminder, we got the court's opinion in Childs versus Salazar. That was a challenge to Colorado's conversion therapy ban. Leah did a short emergency episode with Shannon Mitner of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. Definitely take a listen. It was fantastic, but again, we have a couple more big cases on trans rights coming down from this court this term. And

this wasn't early reminder that it's not going to be great. Strix scrutiny is brought to you by Daddy 15. As you all know, one of my favorite things is to be active. I love to swim. I love to lift. I love to go on walks. My dog, I love hikes. So staying healthy so I can stay active is super important for me. Not just for my physical health, but my mental health too. The news makes it hard enough to stay sane so I need all the help I can get. And some

of that help comes from C15 from fatty 15. The first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered

in more than 90 years. It's an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long-term health and wellness. And you guessed it, healthy aging. Fatty 15 co-founder Dr. Stephanie Van Watson discovered the benefits of C15 while working with the US Navy to continually improve the health

“and welfare of older dolphins. Hey, I think that means Flipper Flipsa for C15. Based on over 100 studies,”

we now know that C15 strengthens our cells and is a foundational healthy aging nutrient, which helps to slow aging at the cellular level. In fact, when our cells don't have enough C15, they can become fragile in age faster. And when our cells age, our bodies age to. It helps support and optimize healthy aging. A team of doctors funded by the US Navy spent over a decade to develop the C15 ingredient in fatty fatty. And fatty 15 repairs age related damage to cells

and also protects them from breakdown. And also activates pathways in the body that help regulate

our sleep, cognitive health, and more. By replenishing our cells with the crucial C15 nutrient,

fatty 15 effectively repairs cells, reverses aging at the cellular level, and restores our long-term health and wellness. Fatty 15 is a science batch award-winning patented 100% pure C15 supplement. It's vegan-friendly, free of flavors, allergens, and preservatives. Fatty 15 has three times more cellular benefits than EPA and omega-3. Best of all, fatty 15 comes in a gorgeous reusable, class bamboo jar, and refills our shift right to your door. So they make it super easy, and she

to stay super ready to go. And when I take my fatty 15, I tell myself, I can fix some things, like cells and need of repair, even if I can't fix everything, like the Supreme Court. Fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long-term health and wellness, especially as you age. You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com/strip. I'm using CodeStrip at checkout.

Exclusive podcast that is basically positive America, but behind a paywall, so it's a little bit looser, and more fun, and it's love it, and fabrow, and me and fight for another Cricut house,

weekly behind-the-scenes newsletter from the show, plus you get ad free episodes of your favorite

“Cricut podcast, and all kinds of other stuff. Dan will come to your house and clean it once every”

morning. Dan is very busy, close, only. But along with just getting great content, becoming a friend of the pod, joining our subscription community, is the number one thing you can do to help us grow, to help independent progressive media. So if you're ever thought about doing it, if you ever want a more positive America, consider going to cricut.com/friends and becoming a friend of the pod. I hope you like your platform, continue to optimize. All is super, simple, integrated and

filling up. And the time and the scale that I can't wait for, I can't wait to invest in. For all of them, in VACS-tomb. One is to just briefly acknowledge the news. It's been reported that Sam Alito was taken to the hospital

“after a federal, a society event back on March 20th, and was released after being treated for”

like dehydration or whatnot. So we saw the news and just not sure there's that much to say about it. But now it's time for our favorite things. So as this episode has basically made clear, this has been a week, and I've got a lot of favorites. There were no king's signs. One of my favorites,

wait is the CTSA line. I loved it. Also, all of the heated rivalry signs. Those were also amazing.

Jamal Bui had a fantastic article in the New York Times, the birthright con. Also this past week, we sent emails to the people who won merchandise inspired by Melissa's forthcoming book, the US Constitution, a comprehensive annotated guide for the modern reader, and the responses were just so endearing. I loved reading those. So thank you everyone for entering. I loved reading them too,

“but I just, I got to give you some props. What a great giveaway shirt. It's such a cute shirt,”

constitutional AF. Maybe we'll do another giveaway. Maybe we'll run it again. We should. I'm sure James Madison was sitting there. You have already given James Madison such a glow up with this book.

I mean, but there are just like, I wish we thought about that constitutional AF. We should have just put it in there.

We should have done it. Yeah. So other, other favorites of mine. Oh, I'm not done, Melissa. Okay. All of the coverage of Christy Nome's cross-dressing husband injected into my veins. You know, there was this meme going around about Fock Mary Kill. You know, as Christy Nome plays it with Corey Lewandowski. Her dog cricket and her husband cannot recommend that enough. Emily Amick made a wonderful video, providing him some her husband, some advice about bras for the big boobies.

And then add to that all of the dancing on Pam Bondies great. You know, for for the people who are going to get into my DMs and call me sexist for coming after all the women in the Trump administration, I will just quote Mr. Bennett from Pride and Prejudice and say, send them in. I'm quite at my leisure. Also, Melissa, you guessed hosting the beat the night Pamela Joe Bondi was fired. Oh my gosh, sometimes karma works out and it's real and I loved it.

It was a fun night. I'm not gonna lie. I'm not gonna lie. I still not done. Wall Street journals, Rachel Bachman and Justin Leigh Hart had a fantastic story about the WNBA players relying on Claudia Golden and Nobel laureate to help negotiate, you know, more equal pay. I loved reading that. Two other things that are a little bit favorite slash promotional. So the paperback edition of my book is going to be coming out on June 16th and apparently that release date means I'm going to be

competing with J.D. Vance's shitty forthcoming book and you can preorder copies of my paperback book and get them signed. So my local independent bookstore, Literati, is running this. So you just go to their website. We'll include the link in the show notes and you can order the book, paperback version with a signed copy and I know you're not usually supposed to do this, but I mean, I could help myself. I wrote a new chapter on the Unitary Executive. I mean, I published all the chapters.

The publisher was like, this is a new edition girl. It's gonna take more time and I was like, I don't care. I love my edition. Both the band and this new iteration of your book. Exactly. Exactly. So I had a lot of fun doing that. And then on the podcast front, we have been nominated for a way we say it like J.D. Vance would. Oh, baby for the award for the best

help in voting. And so please check out the link in the show notes and consider voting for us for a

“webbie or a webbie for the webbies. We're going to get such a great series. An acceptance speech for”

the age. Oh, you know it. This episode just gave you a flavor of all of the things we might say. I mean, we're going to leave Kate at home. No, we'll break Kate. Kate, we love you. We love you Kate. Last week, you adapted to recite a line. I gave you about the consummation court fucking the country in democracy. And she just couldn't get it out. It was just like, oh yeah, Lisa, this is another consummation court. But I appreciate the effort girl. I see you. We see you Kate.

Kate's on vacation. But we know she's interviewing for a high level position. Okay. All right. My favorite things. I read a terrific new article that is forthcoming in the UCLA law review. It's called Parents' Regulators. And it's by Arizona State Law Professor, Caitlin Malat. The paper is love her work. Her work is fantastic. She's doing your scholar article. I'm working. She's great. I have great. She's my research assistant once upon a time. So maybe I'm

“biased, but I think she's just doing some of the best work. I didn't know her at all. Love her stuff.”

She's great. So this paper is so interesting. It focuses on Muckood versus Taylor, which we of course have covered a lot. But it sort of goes into this question about parents' rights. And she notes that the whole concept of parents' rights was sort of born in this milieu that was really focused on the private side of things. Like what happened in the home and like present, you know, parents exercising their rights mostly were confined to the home. But now in the context of schools

and the sort of veto that parents may exercise post Muckood when the parents exercise their rights. It's not really in the private context. It has public consequences and in that sense it functions more like regulation and we ought to understand it as a scheme of regulation. It's very, very smart, really fantastic. I think she's doing some of the most interesting work at the intersection, family law, education law, and gender people should really be looking at her and reading her.

I also read Harlem Rap City for my book group. It's by Victoria Christopher Marie Norelation,

but I'm all here for Clan Marie. I'm always rooting for Clan Marie. And it is about Jesse Redmond

Fossett, whom Langston Hughes referred to as a midwife of the Harlem Renaissance. And it is juicy though. So I learned a lot about the Harlem Renaissance. I also learned that maybe Jesse Redmond Fossett and W.E.B. Duvoise were kind of an item and she was his sort of sidepiece. I got going on here and I was here for all of it. I also want to recommend for those of you who are going through the college admissions process. It just wound down and I see you because

that was fucking crazy and I would love to kill it with hot fire. So if you made it out to the other side of the college admissions process, give yourselves a pat on the back. If your kids made you crazy the whole time, give yourself a pat on the back and congratulations to all of you just for making it through and your kids are going to be great. For those of you with little kids, I have a great suggestion for a podcast. It's called My Boo Buddies. And it's so delightful. These

“little kids that I met on vacation were listening to it at the pool. I was like, what is that?”

It's a podcast. And I'm like, you listen to podcasts? Yeah, you listen to the podcast. I'm like, well, have you heard a strict scrutiny? They're all, no, what's a strict scrutiny? This is my boo buddies. And so I was like, well, what's my boo buddies? And apparently, it is a kid-friendly mystery podcast that's packed with laughs, light scares, and lovable ghost pets. It's really cute. It's about a Latino family that inherits house in East Hampton and hijinks continue throughout

as they meet a bunch of ghost pets in. I know it sounds insane. It sounds just insane, but these kids actually loved it. So if you need something to keep the little ones in your life's busy, I highly recommend my boo buddies because all I know is this mom was at the beach. She was chilled. She was relaxing. She had a pina colata. And these kids had my boo buddies. So if you want that for your life, hop on it. Also want to say that the day before, I anchored the

demise, the whole yellow ring of Pamela Joe Bondi, I got to anchor the launch of Artemis Artifu of the first lunar mission in the United States since 1972. And I have to say, I'm pretty jaded.

This actually warmed the just the depths of my cold dead heart. It was really, really amazing to watch.

And I did love following it. Right. And one of the people who was on the show that I was leading anchoring said, you know, now little kids are going to want to be astronauts for Halloween

a kid. People would dress up as astronauts and not so much anymore. And it was nice. And it was

“nice to see that America can do amazing things. Really amazing to see that the crew of Artemis”

to was so diverse. The pilot, Victor Glover, will be the first African American on a lunar mission,

the mission specialist Christina Coke is the first woman in a lunar mission. And there was a Canadian mission specialist. So it was just so interesting in this moment where we seemed to be wanting to kill DEI with Red Hot Fire where it actually seemed to be working. Interesting. Yeah. So, all right, we've got some housekeeping and it's big. Oh, it's very big. Okay. All right. I'm going to prepare myself. Okay. So, June has the honor of not only being Pride Month.

“Pride Month. Yeah. Yeah. Pride Month. But also the month when the Supreme Court often makes”

its most controversial and worst decisions. Boo. Yes, June is complicated, but luckily this June, we strict scrutiny are coming to New York City to help all of us get through it together. Why do you want to tell? Tell people what? I've show live show. So you can catch strict scrutiny live at the historic Grammarcy Theater on June 20th as part of our bad decisions tour. The pre-sale will begin this Wednesday, April 8th at 10 a.m. Eastern time. Now, the pre-sale only lasts two days,

so get your tickets before they sell out and the code is bye bye bye bye. V-I-B-E-S. So, hope to see you in New York. We better see you in New York and judge Leon. Big, strict, scrutiny, energy. Strix scrutiny is a crooked media production. Hosted and executive produced by me, Leo Whitman, Melissa Murray and K-Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Raoul. Michael Goldsmith is our producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our music is by Eddie Cooper.

We get production support from K-Long and Adrian Hill. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. And thanks to our video team, Ben Hethcode and Johanna Case. 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 in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube at StrixCurtney.com. 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.”

If you guys like positive America, please consider subscribing to our friends at the pod program. So, friends of the pod get lots of stuff. Get more positive America that includes our new show, which is called "Pod Save America Only Friends." It's where it doesn't get to make it. We're Dan gets full frontal nudity, but mostly it's a bi-weekly subscription-exclusive podcast that is

basically positive America, but behind a paywall. So, it's a little bit looser and more fun,

and it's love it, and fabrow, and me, and fight for it. Another good host to go deeper on the news and cover more stories, we also get open tabs, which is a weekly behind-the-scenes newsletter from the show. Plus, you get ad free episodes of your favorite Crooked Podcasts and all kinds of other stuff. Dan will come to your house and clean it once every morning. Dan is very busy, close, only. But along with just getting great content, becoming a friend of the pod, joining our

subscription community, is the number one thing you can do to help us grow, to help independent, progressive media. So, if you're ever thought about doing it, if you ever want to more positive America, consider going to Crooked.com/friends and becoming a friend of the pod. [Music]