The Malicious Incompetence of Trump's DOJ

The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building,

“as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Those most”

caught in the crossfire are federal workers specifically. 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 U.S.D.A. employees. A handful of employees reached out saying the proselytizing Easter email sent by Secretary of

Agriculture broke L. Rollins to more than 100,000 U.S.D.A. employees is an abusive power that

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

Not only is it in the first amendment, it's in the first sentence of the first amendment, quote "no law respecting an establishment of religion" and "no means no" as in "no" proselytizing government employees. The hits just keep on coming from this administration. An American's United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism.

“If you want to help, head to AU.org/truckit to learn more about their work and how you can get involved.”

I also have my name and I am the founder of Yaui, a singer of Kunstwerke and Han Gefertig the "Optialized" object. My name is Vail, a lot of Shopify, because Shopify is in the same way as the other

platforms I tested with at the start of the first amendment. I have already thought about the future.

All tools that are important for the development of the government are, for example, from the law, are found directly in the dashboard. The state has now been a cost-effective test of Shopify.com. There are about 2,000,000,000. We are now in advance. The biggest advantage of Shopify is that we are going to need a technical advantage for the company. We can all look at the background and the front end of it, and as soon as they enter the online shop. If you have a Shopify driver,

then you will get the platform that is actually a product. It is simply the main task. Our whole business is over. Now it is a cost-effective test of Shopify.com. In our experience to a beautiful lady's life, there is going to have a lady's work. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity, she said, "I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet

all far next." Hello and welcome back to Strix Grootney, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We are your host today. I'm K-Chall. And I'm Leo Lippin. This is Alas, another just the two of us episode. We are without Melissa Murray today. But if you're not, the Department of Justice may have but clown themselves just enough that we think we have some

gags even without Melissa jokes and humor. Okay, so today we're going to be covering the opinions that the Supreme Court managed to release, spoiler, not that many. So most of it is going to be a schmorgasport of news that includes judges going wild as in feral. The Department of Justice is doing a lot of oopsies, and the White House signaling that it basically views all of anti-discrimination law as unconstitutional. More precisely, it appears to think that conventional anti-discrimination

laws unconstitutional because anti-discrimination law is itself discrimination. As always,

it will make a lot of sense, and we will explain it. Two things, one, when you said it is just the two of us, the rhythm of your voice and just the sound is like yours is just the tip of episode,

“and I just want to say that it is not. I was honestly thinking of just the two of a song,”

as I was saying it like in that rhythm. Okay, well why not both? And yes, as Leah said, the DOJ has been very busy this week, we will explain, but does it sort of feel to you like there's this little bit of a gap because the Supreme Court is taking its sweet time and issuing like the horror show of decisions to come, and so DOJ has seized the opportunity to kind of step into the breach. Anyway, we will elaborate, and because we will spend a fair bit of time talking about

the Department of Justice, including what prosecutors should not be doing, we're going to end this episode with a segment about what they should be doing, and that is a segment with a first-time strict scrutiny guest that we cannot wait to share with you. So, if you are wondering what can be done to check federal law enforcement and their overreach and protect our democracy in the lead-up to the election, please tune in for that last segment. And now to Supreme Court opinions.

So, we got three opinions last Thursday. None of the big ones. This means there are now 20 opinions left

bananas next two weeks, and possibly more if they go into the week of June 29th. It seems like they are likely to start adding opinion days, so brace yourselves for that, and possible bonus episodes to go along with those good times. I just want to say like, "What is taking them so long?" Because I wrote an updated version of lawless, while you guys were doing shit, and it's actually out tomorrow. So, if you are looking for something to read, and it's in the absence of Supreme Court

opinions, you can get the paperback version of lawless out tomorrow, just an FII. It is an antidote both to the Supreme Court's bad decisions, and also to the absence of their bad decisions. It will cure all your ailments. Why not both? The paperback, and it's new material, and newly lighter format for easy shoving in your shoulder bag, on your bicycle, wherever you're going. D-C-B-U, to follow the flawless version of lawless. Which in terms of the kind of opinion-pays

“issue, so people who have been following this for a long time will, I think, no, but maybe,”

sort of nowhere listeners don't realize. The end of the Supreme Court term is always insane,

but they are really concentrating so many huge cases in the last two weeks of the term, like, "Gird your loins, hydrate and rest. It's going to be a wild stretch." And as Leia said, it could be the next two weeks, and they're just going to get a ton of the dumped tons of them on us in, like, three or four opinion-days, or they could go into the week that ends on July 4th, which they typically really try to avoid doing, but I don't know if they can get everything out

before then, so we will either be two or possibly three more weeks of this anyway. So, I guess, marathon, and not as sprint, is the TLDR. Okay, onto the three opinions that we did get last week.

The first Abulomo versus United States is a case in which the court unanimously held that a

“defendant who was charged with knowingly falsifying a document, with intent to obstruct a federal”

investigation, had to be charged in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, rather than where the federal investigation was located. So here the defendant who was a former Twitter employee allegedly took a bribe from the Saudi government in exchange for giving them information about Saudi dissidents and their activity on the platform, and then made a false invoice to support his claim that the payment was just like for consulting services. He made this false

invoice in Seattle, so he was actually being questioned by federal officials, said it was just payment, they said, "Do you have any supporting material?" And he went upstairs and printed out a allegedly fake invoice, so all that happened in Seattle. But he was charged in California where the investigation was based. And here the court in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan said

“that this California charging was improper he had to be charged in Washington. It is possible that this”

case might affect DOJ's ability to continue to persecute a Rhode Island Hospital for providing gender affirming care. Recall that DOJ is using a Texas district court to issue subpoenas to the Rhode Island Hospital, maybe saying it's investigating this from Texas, and the Texas district judge went along with it issuing an anti-suit injunction that reports to forbid the Rhode Island Hospital or Patience from filing to challenge this conduct anywhere other than the Texas district court

or Fifth Circuit. At a minimum, the Supreme Court's decision suggests that any prosecution resulting from this, perhaps none, right, the investigation, hopefully might be the point, but any prosecution would have to be in Rhode Island. And hopefully there's no criminal prosecution and, together, there are statutory venue issues that are distinct from the kind of general constitutional venue issues at issue in the case we just talked about, but the kind of high level observation

that there's something troubling about DOJ, like in one place seeking to target conduct that happens somewhere totally different, does seem, you know, at least to have echoes of the Rhode Island situation where this Texas district judge and DOJ together are trying to affect activities in Rhode Island. Okay, next case, Keith Lee versus Buddy Aeros Construction Inc is a case involving this situation where a debtor who files for bankruptcy might lose their ability to pursue a

potential tort claim because they didn't list that tort claim as part of the bankruptcy estate. So the bankruptcy code has a lot of parts of it. One of them requires debtors to list as part of an estate, quote, claims against third parties whether or not the debtor has filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment. Here, the debtor filed for bankruptcy then was in an accident, then filed a personal injury lawsuit growing out of that accident and informed bankruptcy counsel that he was

doing so, but the bankruptcy court was never informed. The defendant in the tort suit filed to dismiss

bankruptcy court, 18 months into the litigation, and the Supreme Court said that the right

“inquiry in this case, which wasn't the inquiry that the law court had used, is to ask whether”

the totality of the circumstances suggests that this omission was inadvertent or mistaken. We also got a very interesting federal courts opinion and by interesting, I mean, another opinion that makes a muck of federal courts, private rights of action, and statutory interpretation. Only by side here was a dissent by Justice Jackson defending consideration of legislative history and trying to reorient the enterprise of statutory interpretation. So in this case,

FS Credit Opportunities versus Sava Capital, the court held that the Investment Company Act does not provide a private right of action, which is the legal authorization for an individual or entity to bring suit, for private litigants to challenge contracts that allegedly violate the act. The opinion by Justice Barrett leans heavily on an opinion by the great man himself, Antonin Scalia, that narrowed the availability of private rights of action, which he had said

must be created by Congress. And because Scalia's and now the courts method of interpreting what Congress has done is a wooden form of textualism that asks, "Did Congress use the words private right of action?" They concluded there was no private right of action here. Now, that's a little bit of an exaggeration. They can actually require Congress say the magic words private right of action, but close to it. There has to be rights creating language

that focuses on a particular class of people and if Congress explicitly created another remedy as it did here by giving these securities an exchange commission, enforcement authority, then the court infers, there's no private right of action. So, Leah said the opinion leans on the great man, Justice Scalia, it definitely does that. It also leans on him not just as jurist, but also, I don't know, like author of treatises.

There's this treatise by Scalia and Garner reading law. I'm the presence of the scy authority on all things. Yes, it uses him in all those ways. Also, Judge Easterbrook's statutes domain, another sort of foundational text in textualism, but it feels to me like these are some pretty dated citations here, Justice Barrett. These very tired critiques of a caricatureed version

of legislative history. It's improper, it's on democratic for us to read things that committees of Congress wrote or that were said in the course of considering statutes or amendments. These are critiques that have been around for decades. I feel like they're actually more interesting recent sort of like discussions and statutory interpretation that don't really go mentioned at all, but there's also one thing that's a little bit of like a kind of in the

weeds observation, but if you'll indulge me on a quickly make it. So, the opinion uses statutory

history, like amendments to a statute and reads significance into those amendments. Here's what Congress

was trying to do with amending the statute. That is actually trying to divine legislative intent, which is also what legislative history is supposed to speak to, and I'm not sure just as Barrett quite realizes that she's not really doing anything very different when she is assigning meaning to Congress's, again, changing or retaining statutory language, that doesn't feel very different from doing legislative history. I was thinking about this because Anita Krishnuk Kumar, it has a

“forthcoming book about textualism and has, I think, a really convincing argument that much of”

the time when the court uses this statutory history, it's not really very different from the way the court uses legislative history, but of course, the great man would say statutory history was okay and legislative history was not, and so she is just trotting those canards out. In any event, I find it a pretty maddening opinion, the three democratic appointees agreed, although two different degrees, the principal descent, the one that found the majority of opinion, the most maddening,

is by Justice Jackson, who after concluding that text structure and statutory history support a private right of action also explains that properly contextualized legislative history does too, and as Leah already alluded to gives this really forceful defense of considering that legislative history. Justice Kagan did it join those portions of the Jackson descent, wrote a very short

separate descent basically saying her views on legislative history fall somewhere between the

majority and the dissent's views, but that she generally agrees with the dissenters, that even without legislative history, other material makes clear that there is a private right of action here. The observation that the majority opinion is relying on these old sources of textualism is interesting because to me, it just kind of reinforces a sense in which, at this point, this is just

“dogma, right? You have to believe a particular thing, it doesn't matter how that debate has evolved,”

you just cite the foundational texts, and then you're in the club, and you're doing the right thing, and it's just so silly. Right. And you throw in, doing legislative history is like picking your friends out of a crowd, like we need to update this, at the very least, if this is a little

the entirety of it, but you should. Ideally, with Doja Kats, boss bitch playing in the background,

“just a few lines to highlight, quote, "the reports" as in the legislative history reports,”

say what they say. She adds, unable to explain this compelling evidence of Congress's intent, the majority pivots to arguing that I ignore the most relevant portions of the legislative history. Prentices, I welcome the majority's close reading of the reports. Yes, girl. She also describes analyzing legislative history as a, quote, "worthy and necessary effort," because it prevents the preferences of judges from supplanting the will of the people, "ever the pro-democracy justice." And

then she asks what I just think is the most devastating question, which is, quote, "what interest doesn't really serve to blind ourselves to the congressional record when we interpret Congress's handywork, who benefits from that? There's no flattering or straightforward answer to such questions.

I just love that she has this fight in her." Yeah. Yeah, this is like, I mean, I can't tell

if it's because we're sort of steep in these debates that we sort of see just like how spicy the exchange, I mean, on both sides is, but it's not a friendly disagreement, I would say,

“between Jared and Jackson here. And she's also like, I just think, now I don't know, I think”

Kagan, you know, just actually does feel differently about legislative history and statutory interpretation in general, but I just feel like it could be tempting if you were Justice Jackson to just say, like, the legislative history fight is not one that we're going to win in my lifetime. And so, like, let's, I don't know, pick other battles. And I actually think that she is principled and right, not in saying some committee reports should decide definitively what a

statute means. But in just saying, it is crazy and dogmatic, as you said, Leah, to just refuse, to put on these blinders as this article of faith. Like, we will look at that stuff. And so, she is just not willing to let this one go, and I too really appreciate it." Strix scrutiny is brought to by Kozierth. I'm a baby when it comes to clothes. I don't like regular clothes. I like soft, comfy clothes. You know the kind of clothes that feel like PJs and actually

feel good. And Kozierth makes a case that what you wear at home matters just as much as what you wear out of it. Maybe more. What's the outfit I actually live in? duh, it's my brushed bamboo jogger set, seriously. I'm wearing the pants right now, brushed bamboo joggers. Seriously, every day is a rotating cast among my brushed bamboo jogger pants, whether it's in black, navy, or like a cool blue slate. They're the comfyest pants that have the best fabric that's both

soft and cool, as in, like, not too hot. The fabric is also fluid, so the jogger set moves with you through the whole day. The viscous from bamboo means it's breathable and soft in a way that actually holds up. So wash after wash, it just gets better. I've also been using the Lake House clogs as my going out shoes. The shoes I use when I'm taking Stevie out for a little walk around the block, or the shoes I pop on when I'm walking down to my local coffee shop and farm stop.

Why does Kozierth stand out? It's the details, the fit, the fabric, the way the pieces are made to last. This isn't fast fashioned for the house, it's something you'll still be reaching for years from now. You can try Kozierth risk free, really, try it for yourself. Kozierth backs everything with a 30-day return policy, because they're confident you'll feel the difference, and if you don't returning it is simple. And they offer a lifetime warranty. These are made to

last. A lifetime warranty on your homeware isn't something you see often. It's a kind of commitment that tells you something about how they're made. This spring give yourself the kind of comfort that lives with you all day, not just the moment you get home. Head to Kozierth.com and use my code strict for an exclusive 20% off. That's code strict for an exclusive 20% off. And if you see a post purchase survey, mention that you heard about Kozierth right here. Comfort lives here.

strict scrutiny is brought to you by Kozierth. Here's this season's take on why I'm Kozierth

pill. Some are always changes. How I get dressed? I want pieces that feel lighter and more

“breathable. Things are easy, but still put together. That's why I keep coming back to Kozierth.”

They focus on high quality essentials. That feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton, while made basics, but without the luxury markup. It's that rear balance where everything feels elevated, but still effortless. Kozierth pen linen pants and shirts are the perfect warm weather upgrade to add to your rotation, starting at just $34. They're cuten breathable and make me feel like I'm back on my Mediterranean vacation. Everything at Kozierth

is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so your paying for quality, not brand markup. Kozierth goes way beyond clothing. Custom upholstered sofas, ceramic cookware, premium bedding, it's the kind of brand you end up recommending to everyone for everything. The Quince Europeian linen is the go-to summer workout fit, like when I need to be presentable to people, but also don't want it to be like business casual,

or during the academic year, the fabric is breathable and forgiving, but also professional. Business in the front in the back, but also party in the front and the back. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com/strict for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.

Quince.com/strict. So while we're on the topic of Skoda's opinions, let's continue on with some judicial crimes. That was my attempt to doing a Melissa Marie-esque segue. I'm not sure how well it worked, but, you know, we press on. Okay, and here we're talking about literal actual work time. Not using sort of hyperbally that we sometimes are prone to when discussing what the court does.

These are literal actual crimes. And if you somehow missed this story, let us bring you up to speed. Last week, Judge Ryan Nelson on the US Court of Appeals, this is a Court of Appeals judge, was charged with misdemeanor battery. He was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump during the

first Trump administration. He's on the ninth circuit and he was actually on the panel

that stayed the district courts in juncture and that had blocked the president's

“federalization and deployment of the National Guard against, remember this?”

The Portland chicken? The Portland frog? The National Guard was not explicitly deployed against those adversaries, but they did have to face the guard when the guard was deployed in Portland. So the majority had, so there was a panel that he sat on, that panel had blocked the injunction because the lower court had issued because the panel concluded that the president had a colorable basis for deploying the National Guard given the very serious crisis that the Portland

frog presented. It's not what they said, just the crisis in general. But Judge Nelson

concurred to go way further and basically to say the president's decision to deploy the National

Guard was not reviewable by judges full stop that the president could just terrorize the country at whim and judges were powerless to do anything about it. Speaking of terrorizing people at their whims, let's watch the video of the events that led to Ryan Nelson being charged with misdemeanor battery. It's going to be kind of hard to hear slash make out what's happening, but you can see the video linked in the notes and on our

YouTube channel if you watch the episode there and we're also going to try to narrate it for you.

“So at least what I gleaned from the video is, first Ryan Nelson can't park for shit, right?”

He's like, basically, it's quite spread there. Angled into another stalking line and another

truck pulls up like in a spot that's like adjacent to one of the spots that Ryan Nelson's truck is kind of occupying. And it sounds or looks like the person who pulled up was like, can you park something? And the judge's response to this was to grab the glasses off the guy's face and hurl them into the air from what I can tell. There's so like some seeming to kind of stalking following around the areas surrounding the parking spaces. So we should say, there's no audio.

We don't know what words if any were exchanged like after this like parking. It's not as though the cars came anywhere close to actually like coming into physical contact. So whatever the predicate was was like not that it would justify like a federal judge knocking glasses off of someone's face if that someone had like sideswiped him. But that definitely did not happen at least as far as the video seems to reveal. So free speech, the elegant glasses off your face when you

say things they don't like. It seems, again, from what you can see in this video, Sam's audio, like an absolutely unhinged reaction by a sitting federal judge who has now been criminally charged with misdemeanor. I think it's both battery and maybe destruction of property. So, you know, I think that judges behaving badly in all kinds in very different ways has been a theme of the last couple of weeks on this podcast. Indeed. So in addition to judges wilding out,

the last week the Department of Justice and the White House were also on one. So what we're about to talk about actually happened at the end of the previous week, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the case challenging the president's destruction of the East Wing/construction of a monster energy drink branded U.F.C.K.? I cannot believe that is

“a sentence that is now utterable. And I can out, if people haven't seen it, it's not, you have to”

look at it. It looms over the entirety of the White House. It is so indescribably massive and hideous and gaudy and like, there's this, like, just trashy, like, we're almost disco, disco lighting sounds fun. It's not disco lighting. What is it? It's like menacing flashing lights that travel up and down, this, like, enormous dome of a cage. Anyway, so there's a lawsuit. And here is what the

from destroying stuff. That's very quickly and bulldozed the statute of liberty of the people who

ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country. But the government moved too

“fast, nothing can be done. I think that's right, it is. Again, kind of hard to make out, but”

basically, the federal government lawyer was taking the position that plaintiffs can only stop the executive branch from bulldozing things if plaintiffs get in a junction before any bulldozing happens. And to which Judge Malette, Judge on the DC circuit, asks the federal government lawyer. So does that theory apply to the statute of liberty if the government starts to bulldoze a statute of liberty before anyone can file to stop them. There's nothing that can be done

to which the federal government lawyer basically says, "Yeah, I don't care, do you?" No,

it was just basically, yes, but same thing. Struck me as pretty fitting that DOJ would take the

position that actually, yes, they can destroy the statute of liberty if they do it before anyone obtains an injunction to stop them. She is a woman after all. And when you're the president, they just let you do it. That's so true. And I have to say, because Trump ruins everything good. You know, I like the statute of liberty, so he probably wants to ruin that, too. But, you know, he brought his very, very bad and destructive mojo to Madison Square Gardens last week,

clearly causing the next two lose a third game of the NBA finals. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't rule anything out, including him turning his sights on Lady Liberty. He got very booed in NXT. And I don't think he liked it. And I think that he is plotting his revenge on New York. And so I don't know, take the statute down completely, coat her in gold, like I wonder if that's on the table, put some kind of my pillow sponsored like water park on her on Ellis Island. I mean, it's just like

the desecration of these important national like symbols and locations seems to sort of

“no, no bottom. Anyway, that's what he has done to the White House with this monster drink branded”

cage on the south lawn. And I'm not sure what his sights would be said on the next way. I think this like just broke words that Dr. Record. But have you seen the reports that there is algae blooming in the reflecting pool? Yes, yes. Also decided to take on as a pet project. Again, nature is trying to send us a message. And thus far, we have refused to hear it. I really wonder what might, what sort of fungus could grow on the White House lawn slash cage. If this is the

beginning of a last of us, style virus, you know, wouldn't be surprised exactly in other news that really bridges the divide between hilarious and horrifying. We were also treated to the release of the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings in the broad view six case. This, of course, is the indictment of the protesters who were demonstrating outside of the broad view immigration detention center during Operation Midway Blitz. All the charges were dismissed after the court indicated

she would review the grand jury transcripts even after the government reduced the charges to misdemeanors rather than felonies. And the judge at the hearing dismissing the charges indicated that what she saw in those transcripts was shocking. And listeners, she did not exaggerate. There are three transcripts because as we now know, even though DOJ tried to conceal this fact from the judge, DOJ had to present this case to multiple grandjuries before it could obtain an indictment.

Okay, so now we've actually seen the text. And the very first transcript starts off with one prosecutor saying the other prosecutor will vouch for her. As we mentioned, when this story first started to come out, vouching is one of the things that prosecutors categorically cannot do in front

“of the grand jury. There is a literal rule against vouching. So what does this prosecutor start off with?”

By saying quote, "Met, that's the other prosecutor, will vouch for me." I said I want to go in front

of the grand jury because I know you and I trust you and you know me and you trust me and I would never

ask you to charge somebody if I didn't think there was probable cause. Textbook, trust me, I'm a prosecutor, I've got the evidence so just indict. I'm honestly impressed that the vouching was done in such an explicit stringer bell kind of prohibited way. Like note, you don't, I take notes or say I'm vouching in this face while you're vouching before the grand jury. You could literally find this if you're like, "Was there vouching and you control F the word vouch?" You hear her saying

it. So you know, it's like on law school exams where the person is named P play diff or D defended here it is V for voucher. So there were many highs and lows in these transcripts. For me, I think

isn't here. I really want to do a reenactment. It's not going to be the same without her but we

will soldier on. So do you want to be grand jury or a prosecutor? I will be prosecutor how about you be grand jury. But yes, once again, Melissa, we will do our best to do you proud. But we just, there's no way we can do it as well as you would have. But all right, onward, you begin as grand jury. Okay, grand jury. Girl, are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side? Sure, what's the word girl in there to put into real life and was verbatim?

Every other word, but girl, was in fact in the transcript. Prosecutor response. Okay, I'm feeling this skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind?

“Tell me the truth. I know. Okay, then you have to go. I heard this case like last week”

and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is. Okay, thank you for your opinion, everybody. Do you have unlimited tries? Do we have, what did you ask? Unlimited tries. Like, you keep coming back as many times as you want. Oh, I don't think we have to worry about that.

Okay, another, now we have a second prosecutor. We have to, I'll do second prosecutor.

I think the saying is the second time is the charm. Just like reading the grand jury, telling the prosecutor, your case is a crock of shit. Why are you still at it? Why do you keep coming back again? And again, like, we are a legitimate question. You know, in your shooting free throws, like you don't get unlimited tries until you make one. Like, you're, you know, to give you a presentation at work, you're taking a law school exam. Like, typically, like, you put

“up and then you shut up and that's kind of it. And I think it was a fair question, which is like,”

why in this of all spaces does one side just get to keep going again and again? Yeah. Um, okay.

So there is that. Then, of course, we have the prosecutors identifying the grandurers who

wouldn't vote to indict the protesters and dismissing them one by one until the prosecutors arrived at a grand jury with the minimum required number of grandurers who had returned an indictment. And the prosecutor also talking about how we spoke with grandurers outside of the grand jury room. I mean, as I think we said in an earlier episode, like, I think we all have a reasonable basis to think we need to see grand jury transcripts in the many other political prosecutions.

This administration is pursuing and there are a lot. And other prosecutions as well. So just related to this two kind of pieces of news that are definitely tied up with the latest exposure of the Department of Justice's misdeeds. So there are now allegations of grand jury misconduct in other Chicago cases involving the same prosecutors. So in one, a judge has ordered an evidentiary hearing where the defense alleges that the prosecutor again engaged in vouching, disclosing

off the record negotiations with the defendant and more. And in what seemed like a bid to prevent said hearing into prosecutorial misconduct, the US attorney moved to dismiss the charges. Note that this is what happened in the broad view six case where the prosecutor also tried to ward that off. And yet those grand jury transcripts were still released. And it looks like there is still going to be an inquiry into this case. So the judge has ordered the hearing to continue or a hearing

to continue even after the prosecution filed the notice of moving to dismiss the case. And this case involves allegations of fraud related to federal COVID funding. And then there is an entirely separate case where a different judge agreed to review the grand jury transcripts in a case where the defendant pled guilty because the judge said quote, the front office has created as you know a credibility crisis. And that is a real problem and quote, the party of law and order, ladies and

gentlemen, genuinely wondering is this a good time or the best time or not a good time to be engaging in crimes? It seems like they have tied up DOJ with people who are not engaged in crimes and that the crime spree might be at the DOJ. The call is coming from inside the house. So this reminds

“me that period where Trump, this happened, I think in both Virginia and Jersey, but Alina Haba”

and Jersey, Haligan and Virginia, but trying to install these pretty unqualified people as US attorneys, this was particularly true in Jersey. And it sort of seemed like actual federal law enforcement ground to a halt in the state of New Jersey, you know, which is the state where sometimes like people like to do crimes. I mean, Illinois too. And I do wonder, you literally had judges, you know, begging the prosecutor like come before me and please tell me you have sorted out who's

leading this office because if you're wrong, this is going to invalidate all of the cases.

more under the radar set of prop, at least until now, set of problems it seems in the northern district of Illinois. So it's not, you know, this high-profile person at the top, but it does seem as though like in the recesses of the grand jury room and who knows where else, like, justice is not functioning as it normally does in that office. Strix scrutiny is brought to you by smalls. Let's play again. False are fact. False are fact.

The first ingredients in most grocery store cat food is water and corn. That's a fact. Most cat food is filled with water and fillers. Okay, next, false are fact. A bag of cat food, labeled natural has zero legal definition behind it. Fact, natural is largely unregulated in the pet food industry, but things are different with smalls. Smalls had one of their customers say this,

quote, from Christina Pee. The different smalls has made in my 15-year-old cat is amazing,

lots of exclamation marks. She eats it all up, has gained some weight and is playing like a kitten again.

“We had to put her sister to sleep a little over a year ago and I honestly thought she was going”

to be soon to follow. This food has made a world of difference for her. Next, from Garrett S, quote, it seemed like our cat pepper, 16, was on her way out. Her ribs were starting to show, her gate was no longer crisp, her appetite was off, and her coat was dull, and beginning to get mad at it. After two months of the smalls diet, she has put on three plus pounds. You go girl, her coat of shiny, and she runs up and down the stairs in our house. She's not quite a kitten,

but she no longer seems on death's store. Thank you for helping us bring her back. Look, by the numbers, that bills can rack up thousands of dollars, but the good thing is, smalls can help offset some of those bad bills. Smalls fresh cat food is protein packed. The recipes are made with preservative free, 100% human-grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge, and delivered right to your door. Smalls work because smalls fresh gently cook food is made

“without preservatives, and a balanced diet leads to less shedding, fewer hairballs, and more a silky shine.”

The experts agree, kitty girls, it's a smalls world. Four ribs ranked smalls as the best overall cat food, and Buzzfeed says, quote, "my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. Are you spooked by commitment? You can try smalls for free. They'll refund you if your cat won't eat their food." So, stop serving your little carnivore, a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time because you are a strict scrutiny listener, get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping,

and free treats for life. When you head to smalls.com/strict. One last time, that's 60% off your first order, plus free shipping, and free treats for life. When you head to smalls.com/strict. This episode of Strix scrutiny is brought to you by Aloy Health. Let's be honest, aging can come with some unwelcome changes. Sleep disruptions, hot flashes, brain fog, it can all hit us hard. Manopause is inevitable, but it's also treatable.

“Almost half of women go more than three years before seeking relief from menopause or perimenopausal”

symptoms. Why would we do that to ourselves? Well, 43% of women reported that their doctors never

even mentioned menopause hormone therapy, as an option for treatment. Another 40% didn't know where to go for a solution. Aloy can help you feel and look your best through menopause and beyond. Offering unlimited access to expert physicians and safe science back treatments for your symptoms, skin, hair, and so many other things all delivered to your door. Everything is done online from the comfort of your home or anywhere, no waiting for an appointment or in line at the pharmacy.

Aloy is fast, accessible, and their treatments actually work. Here's how it works. First, complete your intake. Aloy solutions are available by prescription, so you'll need to complete an intake form and patient verification. Next, receive a treatment plan. From your doctor, you'll be matched with a menopause specialized physician who will create a personalized treatment

plan tailored to your specific needs. Finally, get your three-month supply. Once approved,

Aloy ships your prescription directly to your door with automatic refills. Sometimes getting into my primary care provider is a challenge, but Aloy Health provides resources without having to schedule an appointment six plus months in advance. And, you know, during the process, you also have to suffer. But Aloy, you can see someone much more quickly. I cannot recommend Aloy enough, join the 95% of women who tried Aloy and saw relief in the first two weeks. Head to my Aloy.com,

and use the code strict and tell them all about your symptoms, and you'll get a fully customized treatment plan and unlimited messaging with your doctor. Plus, you'll get $20 off your first order today. Head to NYALOY.com and use code strict to get $20 off your first order. Get your menopause treatment plan today. Visit my Aloy.com and use code strict for $20 off your first order. Eight gracefully. Okay, so this is not a grand jury matter, but it is another politically

vindictive prosecution that we wanted to mention. And that is one that flamed out when

My brother-in-law is working on his congressional campaign, was found not guilty on charges related

“to him allegedly obstructing an elevator while he was inspecting conditions at an immigration detention”

facility here in New York. This was another orderly bizarre, baseless charge, lander, had been, and has continued to be a regular presence and voice in protesting the administration's egregious conduct during immigration enforcement. In particular, it's practice of apprehending people showing up for regularly scheduled immigration court dates, and he has been trying to hold the federal government accountable. He had been previously even before the events that led to

these charges been taken into custody at a federal courthouse when ICE was conducting enforcement operations there anyway. So he was acquitted in that case. And those weren't the only big oopsies from DOJ or Trump lawyers last week. Last week, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division that would be the one led by Harmeet U.R. Hose Dylan filed papers in the cases where they had

“indicted journalists who were documenting demonstrations at churches in Minnesota. Indicating that”

actually they may have made some false statements in their applications for those weren'ts. The application for a warrant refers to George a fort and independent journalist who wasn't

indicted as chanting while inside the church and using her camera as a weapon. Here's what civil rights

division says about that now. The statement about fort chanting was incorrect, but the air was due to simple inadvertence. The characterization of the camera as a weapon, though not ideal editing, is immaterial. Although the government regrets any error and does it best to avoid them mistakes are inevitable. This is like a bullshit apology. This is really astonishing. You were saying criminally in diting people, you could not manage to dot your eyes cross your teeth to determine whether

the allegations were true. It's also just like it is not, it sort of purports to be a male culpa and it isn't even like it's so defiant, even in noting these pieces. I'm sorry. I'm sorry if you're feeling so hard to apology. Sorry if you didn't like the falsetto. Sorry. We will see how that

“goes over. But I guess honestly there is something to say for the filing in that case which at least”

acknowledged error, even if it didn't fully own it, but it was a filing. That stands in pretty stark contrast to Trump's personal lawyers in his case against the BBC. If you've sort of lost track of which one this is, is one of the many Trump cases against media entities. It's also one

of several that seeks $10 billion in damages, not totally sure what's going on with that number,

but it seems to pop up again and again. This suit alleges, essentially that the BBC was mean to Trump in the way it edited clips of his speech on January 6th, 2021, which is obviously like a multi-billion dollar wrong those editorial choices. And on Monday the district court in that case filed an order to show cause as to why the plaintiff, again one Donald Trump, had failed to file a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The order noted that the plaintiff

filed to 11th hour procedural motions, but that didn't explain the delay or ask for the response deadline to be extended. And the judge was like, "Do you oppose the motion to dismiss and why

should I sanction you for completely blowing that deadline?" To which Donald Trump's lawyers basically said,

they didn't file a response because the court's protective rule order, like rules about what can and can't be unsealed and procedures for unsealing, were too complicated for them to understand. I will quote here, "The delay in filing the opposition memorandum on the docket was caused by plaintiff's good faith efforts to comply with the protective order entered in this case and the court's procedures governing sealed filings."

I try and at this hard. You're on or therefore you can't criticize me. I don't know exactly what that was. Maybe he should have made some DEI hires for attorneys instead of dipping into the Dix as ex-husbands and insoloyers DEI pool. And the wild thing is something like this happened not once, but twice last week in the same case. So a separate docket entry noted that the plaintiff, again, one Donald Trump had failed to submit a position regarding a judicial order setting the

procedures for discovery. That's a stage of the case. It says, quote, "While counsel are free to disagree with the relief and basis on which the opposing party may seek said relief, they are not permitted to disregard the court's orders and procedures." And quote, "It's almost like actually diligently pursuing this lawsuit in a federal court is not the purpose of filing this lawsuit." - Are you being able to get this answer? - Yes, yes, I am. - Does feel like it. Do you think they'll

try to set up a slush fund out of this one? - I mean, like we settled the case with a BBC and therefore

no, that's what they did. - I could try to intervene and actually set up a difference, a media fairness slush fund. Oh my god, let's not get into the many ideas. Just BBC, please don't agree to yourself saying up a slush fund. I mean, we beg you. I don't think they would, but I mean, a lot of

“people have capitulated. These tactics are just so strong arm and anyway, it's really important”

not to, even if it seems like a small thing to reward this kind of behavior. Okay, so let's pivot to the White House and Department of Justice outside of the courts and some of the internal executive

branch activities. It basically seems like the Justice Department and in particular the Office

of Legal Counselor OLC, which is in some ways like a mini Supreme Court for the executive branch inside of the Department of Justice. Basically, they seem to have decided that as the Supreme Court is taking its sweet time and issuing its decisions, they are going to get in on bad decisions slash bad loyering season. So they at least initially have done so by releasing an opinion, concluding that a big chunk of anti-discrimination law and that is disparate impact liability is probably

unconstitutional. So disparate impact liability is, as Kate was saying, species of anti-discrimination

“law among other places in Title VII on employment, the Fair Housing Act, and many other civil”

rights provisions. And what it does is it prohibits some policies that result in discriminatory effects but aren't necessarily intentional discrimination. And the Office of Legal Council and all of its wisdom thinks that is the real discrimination. The top line summary of the memo read, quote, EEOCs, that is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Title VII guidelines are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone without

regard to an employer's likely intent and pressure employers to engage in race-based decision-making.

Okay, so basically, like Collay said about the Voting Rights Act, the thinking on display here

is that these regulations, because they direct employers to avoid business practices that disproportionately exclude or disadvantage racial minorities if those business practices aren't really necessary,

“that that is illegal because it requires employers to consider, to think about whether they really”

should be excluding racial minorities and the horror that is a constitutional problem. So I'll see not surprisingly, invokes the appalling decision in the Alabama case that followed on the heels of Collay. That's a case where the court allowed Alabama to implement a set of maps that lower courts have concluded were racially discriminatory twice in part because Alabama refused to follow the Supreme Court's own decision, telling them that their maps violated the Voting Rights Act.

OLC, right, the Justice Department memo we were just talking about says, quote, "corrections are

necessary to resolve the tension between disparate impact claims under Title VII and our color blind constitution and sites this Allen versus Milligan order." And like Collay did, the opinion effectively nullifies an amendment that Congress made to Title VII when Congress expanded disparate impact liability after the Supreme Court had narrowed it in a decision known as Ward's Cove. Some more news, there are still several cases challenging the slush fund for

insurrectionists. In one case, Judge Leon ruled from the bench, denied citizens for responsibility in ethics in Washington, their request for a temporary restraining order against the slush fund, Judge Leon concluded that the case was moved after carte blanche that is additioning Attorney General Todd Blanche and DOJ lawyers said the fund wouldn't go forward. Judge Leon said at the end of his ruling quote, "I give the Department of Justice fair warning. Don't play possum with this court."

And quote, "I'm sure that'll do it." In another case, Judge Brinkva in the Eastern District of Virginia concluded that the case was not moved and issued an injunction blocking the fund. The Judge gave the Department of Justice a week to get a sworn declaration saying that the fund is actually dead dead dead before the Judge would agree to say the case is moved and there is no longer a live controversy. I feel like Todd Blanche is going to vouch for the deadness of the fund.

I'm vouching for the fund being dead your honor. I'm sure that that will set the judge right at ease. Oh yeah, completely. Okay, so there is a big piece of news that we alluded to, but that we really need to now give its proper treatment. And that is Leon, Leon. The paperback release of Wallace. I'm calling it "lawless liaison." Not only because I, on ironically, stand Taylor Swift, but also because I got to make updates to all the chapters and

add a new section on the Unitarian Executive and how the court has enabled Trump. And I just feel like it's useful pre-budding to all of the celebrations and plot it. The court is going to get for invalidating the birthright citizenship order. It just tries to put that in a kind of

something and his people. But yeah, so I really enjoyed writing it and I hope people will check it out.

“And as Leon was just saying, if you haven't gotten the book, you need to get the paperback,”

but even if you have gotten the book because this is because she's Leon has like basically like

written kind of a new book, like some additions, and then an entirely new chapter. So even if you already have a hardcover, get a copy of the paperback. It includes the dark lord of the third circuit and meal buffet, among other characters. So there we go. Okay, so as we said, during this episode, we spent a lot of time talking about prosecutors doing fuck nose what. And I actually wanted to add one additional pretty terrifying example of this. And that is MSNow broke the story that FBI agents

might be terrorizing pro-democracy and voting rights organization. So the FBI reportedly rated offices of the Ohio organizing collaborative, a pro-democracy organization that helps register voters in the

“state. And agents, again, according to the story, reportedly showed up at the homes of people who”

worked for the organization. Maybe also just some canvassers asking for information and electronic devices. Some of them may have had subpoenas. It's obviously terrifying and we should all be alarmed at what again seems like another obvious attempt at election interference. You know, the executive order isn't going anywhere. So now they are just trying to intimidate people. So again, having spent so much time talking about what prosecutors shouldn't be doing or what law enforcement

shouldn't be doing and how some of that subverts democracy, please stay tuned for our next conversation with a prosecutor who is actually doing the thing, working to protect our democracy with a great new organization, FAFOW. Yes, the acronym is FAFOW. So be sure to stay tuned for that.

When I travel, it's basically one long adventure in search of the best food, breakfast,

pastries, but also, you know, dinner. And so in that quest, I need to be able to say things like which pastries has the highest sugar content or more garlic and spice, please. If you are traveling the summer and also in search of good food when you travel, here's a real travel hack. Don't wait until you land to start learning the language instead, try Babble. Even just 10 minutes a day with Babble can help you start having real conversations in as little as three weeks. Instead of

memorizing or an invokeab, you are learning phrases you'd use ordering dinner, asking for directions, or talking with locals. What I like about Babble is it's built for real life, not vocabless, not verb charts, but real conversation practice. Lessons are quick, practical, and built by more than 200 language experts. They have interactive dialogue, personalised reviews, even podcasts. All designed to get you speaking quickly and confidently, and unlike cramming before a trip,

Babble fits into your actual schedule. Coffee break, commute, or a few minutes before bed.

Babble's award-winning app has sold over 25 million subscriptions, and is backed by

14-day money-back guarantee. If you've got summer travel coming up, now's the time. To start, so you can actually use what you learn on the trip. Right now, Babble's offering listeners up to 60 percent off. Go to Babble.com/strict. That's Babble. B-A-B-B-E-L.com/strict for up to 60 percent off. Rosalind restrictions may apply.

“All tools for the auswerting of vocabes are important, so for example from Lager,”

find it directly in the dashboard. Start now at your cost-in-nose-intest/shoppyfire.com. And now, I am delighted to be speaking with Mary Moriarty. Hennepin County Attorney, also known as the District Attorney in Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs and counties, and one of the founding participants of a great new organization, known as FAAFO. We'll explain more about that later. Mary, welcome to Strict scrutiny.

Thank you so much. Mary, we've talked about your office on the show before, but haven't actually had the opportunity to talk to you, and we've been talking about your office because your office has been one where it actually has two cases involving state charges filed against federal officers. Can you remind us what those cases are about? Certainly, we filed a case on what I would describe as kind of a road-range situation involving an ice agent named Gregory Morgan.

We charged him. We had a nationwide warrant for his arrest. He did turn himself in several weeks ago,

is Christian Castro, who we believe shot Julio Socialists in the thigh. We also had a nationwide warrant there. He was arrested in Texas, and right now we are working our way through extrudition

“proceedings. Got it. I think of the first case as a case of what I'm calling DWI, driving well”

and insane ice officer, given that this is a case where the ice officer on the road was driving in an unmarked vehicle pulled up and pointed a block at, you know, these poor people's heads

in any way. So just a berserk kind of set of facts. So you mentioned that the second case

there is right now the extradition proceedings of the first case, the defendant is trying to remove the case to federal court. So before, you know, you make the decision to charge these cases, there's an investigation. And when you're investigating someone who is part of a law enforcement body, how is federal law enforcement or cooperation supposed to work in an ideal world? The way it's supposed to work and has historically worked here is that everybody works together.

In fact, in our political assassination case where the defendant just played guilty to the federal charges yesterday, we had a joint investigation with the FBI. We were working with the U.S. Attorney.

We all got the investigation results. We charged and they charged. That's the way it has

worked here, and that's the way it should work. And that case just to remind our listeners involved the assassination of the Minnesota Legislature Melissa Hortman, as well as her husband and her dog.

“Yes. Okay. So that's how it's supposed to work. How has federal cooperation been working?”

Either in the cases involving the federal immigration enforcement or the political assassination case you were just referring to? And not well at all. In fact, when Renee Goodwishat, I was on the phone with the FBI. Our state local law enforcement agency is the BCA, the Bureau of Criminal apprehension. So I was on the phone with them. I was on the phone with the U.S. Attorney. And everybody agreed.

This would once again be a joint investigation. And then suddenly the BCA was kicked off the case.

And so we realized then and there it was going to be a different situation. They took away Renee Goods' car. It's shrink wrapped. It's still sitting in a warehouse somewhere. They won't share any evidence that they collected or got from any statements. And then one Julio Socialist, which we also thought we had a joint investigation. The BCA did show up at the scene. And what happened was at some point the FBI said, well, we're no longer allowed to work with you.

But the good news about that particular case was the crowd got really angry. There was a large crowd of community members and kind of got ice to leave. And so the BCA was able to collect evidence in that case. But then when Alex Pretty was shot, he was on a Saturday morning, and we were prepared for non-cooperation. But it was pretty remarkable. When you saw the video, it was federal agents with their backs to the crime scene with batons, actually physically keeping

the BCA from entering that scene to investigate, which is what the BCA is trained to do. In any law enforcement involved shootings involving a Minnesota peace officer, they are the people that are directed to show up. So we were prepared. We got a search warrant on a Saturday from a judge. So a traditionally signed warrant on like many that you see from ice. But we got a warrant and the federal government refused to honor that. So we were also prepared.

Which is funny because they don't think they need warrants. And I guess they don't think when other officers get warrants at matters. Really, really too for there. Yes. And we had been working with two law firms from Washington, DC, the Washington Litigation Group and ICAP and they've been working with us for free and they've been tremendously helpful. But we were prepared. We filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for a temporary

restraining order that they collect the evidence that they preserve it and that they not alter it in any way. That was actually granted by a federal judge on Saturday. So we could see the progression of non-cooperation here despite continued efforts. And I'll actually say the people on the ground or the line people really would like to cooperate and have reached out. We've had many conversations and every time it goes to the administration, it gets stopped cold.

So this sounds like a just silly question to ask, but just for clarity sake. What are some

“of the issues with this lack of cooperation? What does it do in practice?”

That is a great question because normally when prosecutors get cases, at least in Minnesota, we don't have our own investigators by and large. So they have been investigated by law enforcement.

we know if there's video. If there's a law enforcement shooting, we know whether the officer gave a statement or other officers there. And I will say we also know who they are. And I think that would surprise most people to know that we don't even know for sure who the

agents were who shot Alex Pretty. That has never been verified, pro-publica published a report on it.

“But you have to think about this from a prosecutor's perspective. We have to be able to prove”

our case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that usually doesn't have to include identifying the name of the agents who were involved in it. So it is making us approach it from what do we actually have from our own investigation with the BCA and what don't we have? And also what would they say? You know, for instance, in the Pretty case, we were told by the media, I guess, that they were all wearing body camp. We don't know that. We don't have that. We have to sit here and wonder,

well, what would the agents say? And that creates barriers because you don't know what you don't know,

you can just guess at that. So you mentioned that there's a lack of cooperation. But I'd have to

imagine that in addition to a lack of cooperation, there's also fears about less of a defensive posture than an offensive one where there might be a concern that if, let's say, BCA or, you know, state or local law enforcement tries to conduct an investigation that the federal government or at least some in the federal government would retaliate against them. You know, has that also

“kind of impeded the ability to just carry out, you know, normal police powers stuff?”

That was very apparent, as Operation Metro Search was going on. And we have something like 36 different law enforcement entities here in Hennep and County, which is Minneapolis, and it suburbs, as you said. And what we were hearing from community, what you were hearing, what you were seeing in videos, too, is community members saying, hey, we're being occupied by our own federal government. Who is here to help us? Who is here to protect us? And I had conversations with local

law enforcement chiefs. And it was very interesting because they said they didn't have jurisdiction. And I said, why do you think that? Yes, if, if anybody from the federal government comes into your community and you believe that they may have committed a crime, yes, you have jurisdiction to investigate and try to collect as much evidence as you can. In fact, we would like you to go to the scene and collect evidence and video that may have been taped over. But here,

here is something that was really telling. You know, ultimately, they said, our officers are afraid

of being arrested or something worse. And, you know, my position on that was, yes, this is unprecedented, it's unprecedented for all of us. And I totally get that. And yes, they could be arrested and, and yes, maybe worse. However, you signed up to protect and serve your community,

“in your community is out there with whistles. And so you need to kind of have a hard look in the mirror”

and figure out, you know, who you really signed up to protect and serve. So that it was a big issue. And I think it remains a big issue. And something that, you know, as I, it is part of FAFO when I've talked to other DAs, I can say the things I wish I would have known before this hit us. And one of those things would be to have conversations with local law enforcement to try to bring them along and have conversations about, hey, you know, in a perfect world, you would get there,

you might intervene, you are wearing body cam, you are collecting the names of witnesses and contact information. So there can be an investigation after the fact. But those, as I discovered those conversations need to happen before something like this, before they are in that situation. So you've already kind of begun to gesture at this, but I do want to spell it out because I think many people are wondering, you know, what can I do, what should we be doing now, you know, in order

to address on going federal overreach and potential additional federal overreach in the lead up to, you know, potentially the election. And so you mentioned that one thing that has been useful is the fact that people on the ground, for example, you know, suggested to ICE, you actually need to allow local law enforcement in to investigate and that there were actually photographs taken of federal law enforcement actively, not investigating, you know, Alex Pretty's murder.

And that all of that was useful, you know, to allowing state officers to do their jobs. So, you know, are there other pieces of advice? You know, you would offer either to members of the public or as you were just saying to other district attorneys who are thinking about, you know, my area, my state might be a target of some federal law enforcement searches, you know, whether now or in the lead up to the election, you know, what should I be doing now in order to protect my

don't have to deal much with federal law. And the administration started out by saying and they

still continue to say in some respects that federal agents have absolute immunity. And you heard people say no one can touch you, you can do whatever you want or kind of thing. Vice President said this.

“So, oh, yeah, I heard it. Yeah. And you have to think that that had an effect on ICE agents who were”

being told that. And so I think being prepared to say no, that is not the case. And educating the community, educating frankly the ICE agents, and everybody, police, everybody to say there is no such thing as absolute immunity. And you can't come in here and commit crimes that are, that if it was anybody else, the federal government would be a crime and that we are prepared to investigate.

One of the big issues here, and I think Minneapolis, like many other cities, has a lot of

camera surveillance. And it's taped over after two weeks. So we had opened up what we call our transparency and accountability project or tap. We started out investigating 17 cases, including Bofino, throwing green gas canisters of people in a park. And what we discovered was that the video had been lost. And so you've got to be able to preserve that video. But I think it is, there's a deterrence value. And I don't think there's a deterrence value in a lot of things, especially with young

people. But with this, I think being prepared and starting the messaging that if you come to our community and you commit a crime, we will do our best to investigate that and prosecute that. And I would say it's really important now with elections coming up. Yeah. So you mentioned, you know, working with other DAs, guidance with other DAs. And we've now alluded to FFO or FAFO a few times. Do you want to share with our listeners what FFO is since I've only been kind of, you know,

using the acronym for perhaps obvious reasons? Yes. And I'm pretty sure, you know, it was Larry Crasner from Philly, who came up. I'm sure he wanted that acronym and we just had to find words to fill it. It is the coalition for the fight against federal overreach. And it is a very, we're very serious about banding together because right now, given what the federal government is doing, local prosecutors can be at least one lane of fighting back. But, but it really requires us

working together because I think if you're just in this by yourself, it can be really isolating. And you need help. Yes. For instance, we've very fortunate to have the help of the Washington

“litigation group in ICAP because you have to be able to understand even before you're thinking”

about prosecuting, obviously. But, okay, what happens if you do charge? Right. And we came to learn that the defendant can make a motion to remove to federal court. But I think none of that I certainly can speak for myself. I had no idea that if it was removed to federal court, we remain the prosecutor. Yes. And that state law applied on substantive law and procedural federal law applied. But an important thing here is that the president cannot pardon a conviction

because it's under state law. And so those are basic things that I think most local prosecutors just don't have to think about. And then what do you do when you have this motion to remove and the ICE agent says that they should have supremacy clause immunity? What does that mean? And that is something that a judge has to decide, I think I mentioned. Which means it's not absolute by the way, right? If the judge has to decide anything. I'm glad you pointed that out because it's

actually a potential defense that doesn't prevent us from prosecuting. But you want to know what that means because you do not want to bring a charge and then not be able to overcome the argument that they were acting within the scope of their duty and they did nothing above and beyond that.

“So you need to be prepared on topics that you never thought you had to think about since law school.”

And so that's one thing that we are talking about in FAFO. What do we need to know? How do we get prepared if this should happen in our communities? And elections are something we're really talking about because I think it's really important to prepare for the worst and hope that nothing happens. But what do we do if ICE agents show up at polling places? What do election judges do if they're told or asked or demanded by ICE hand over your balance or something like that?

So we're doing a lot of preparation on that front here in Hennepin County. And I know we're working on that in FAFO as well. So that's all very encouraging. I mean, there's so much we can all do to help one another, whether it's resource sharing, pooling up knowledge or just making each other not feel alone. When you see one person fighting, I think it's easier to be brave.

And I'd like to think if your office is basically doing what the next did in their recent

They pulled it off. So maybe you bring those same vibes to not only Minnesota but the rest of the country. Mary, I do want to ask you one last question, which is what's giving you hope, you know, in the work you've been doing, you know, let's say the last 18 or so months. One thing was the community response here to Metro surge. I don't think it's really possible to appreciate everything that community members did by driving neighbors, kids to school, by bringing

food, by paying rent. I mean, it just people coming together was just remarkable. And it was actually

the community members that ultimately drove ice out. There's still here in some respect, but it was the

“really negative publicity if you want to put it that way that I think made them leave. And that was”

all by the community. The other thing, and you talk about this, I'm a big fan of the podcast too. Until you get to the Supreme Court, when you fight back, you win. You really do because a lot of the things that the Trump administration is doing are just illegal, but they're not entirely illegal until a court says they are. And much of what they do is to so fear. This is what they're trying to do in Metro surge too. And if you just comply because you're afraid of what might

happen, that's what they want. And so when you push back either in court or in any other way that is in your lane, like our lane is accountability, you usually win. And so that gives me some hope, even though the Supreme Court is fairly tragic right now, to say the least. But in the lower courts, we're winning. And they just don't want to fight much of the time. I mean, we actually, as you know, where it was announced, we found out via Twitter. I did not know that that was how the Department

of Justice announced its past pattern and practices investigations, but they announced one investigating our office for a policy that we had just put into place. While, at the same time, pulling out of the federal consent decree for the pattern and practice. But anyway, we fought back

“on that. And we won. So I do want to say to people, I know it's scary. And this is, I think,”

part of the reason we need to band together and talk about supporting each other because it is scary. And at the same time, when we push back, we generally win. Yes. Well, I love that as an ending note. Mary Moriarty, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us on strict scrutiny. We're obviously going to be following all of the great things your office has been doing. Thank you so much. Thanks again to Mary Moriarty for that great conversation.

So favorite things? Let's do it. Okay. So two things I had wanted to highlight, actually two and a half. So one is Jamal Bowie had another terrific piece in the New York Times titled the Supreme Court doesn't own the Constitution. Definitely worth checking out. Great, this title and

great piece. Yeah. I mean, everything I'm all doing these days. I mean, always is so good, but this piece is

really exceptional. Totally agree. Second is the Supreme Court did something I would put in my favorite things, although I'm not going to give them credit. So the Supreme Court declined to stay a lower court ruling that had blocked the state of Alabama from using an execution protocol that gasped people to death after the court found the protocol constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This, of course, is a huge victory, getting the Supreme Court not to issue a stay

that green lights and execution. So the district court had issued this decision after a full trial, and I really do think that the court's decision not to stay it reflected the great loyering in the case from among others, the plaintiff's lawyers who are at Arnold and Porter, as well as loyering from our friend Steve Vladik, who was on an amicus brief, who again explained the kind of particular procedural posture of the case and why the court shouldn't intervene because of it.

My half-favorite thing would be, I've been listening to the new Olivia Rodrigo album, so it's not my favorite. There are a few songs on there that are growing on me, so I loved the cure that is definitely a highlight, but that had been released in advance of the album. I like

“expectations out of my way and maggots for brains. Those are also, I think, high points on the”

album for me. I have not listened yet, okay, so that's a good weekend, family undertakings for driving. And I wonder, so underscore what you've said about the court's sort of unexpectedly correct order in denying this stay application that I'm sure the state thought they had a good chance of winning at Scotus and also wonder in terms of like, you know, I think excellent loyering, logic, and also the court did allow a nitrogen gas execution to go forward and so to my

or wrote an incredibly powerful decision. And I wonder whether the fear of drawing another

Okay, so I will just mention a couple of favorite things. I just finished the novel "Hill" by Harriet Clark, which is like kind of a memoir because it is like kind of about her life or

“I think, but it's written as a novel and it took, it was a little bit of like a slow wind up for”

me. I was not super into it at the beginning, but it's pretty amazing. So I would say if you're thinking about it, I would stick with it. It's just really beautiful and very moving and weird and just really, really good. Okay, so that's my recent fiction recommendation. I was, I missed

last week's episode because I was in Zurich where I'd never been for this conference on global

threats to the rule of law. And it was just amazing to like hear from these scholars and jurists from all kinds of places. And I just learned a ton and I'm grateful to the organizers. And I want to shout out Renata Weats and Elizabeth Holt-Slightner who were both awesome scholars who were at the conference and who listened to the pod and it's like always a trip to you know, you're London, you're an Austria like you're listening to our podcast and they were

anyway, I'm just great to meet you both. Finally, I mean, I cannot claim that I am a like long standing real fan of the New York next. As I've said before in this podcast, I'm actually mostly a WMBA fan. Yeah, yeah. There's a great story about my husband took the kids and not me because I was

somewhere else to a nix game, nix where the nix and the bulls were playing were like mostly

a bulls family actually in terms of the NBA. And my youngest daughter, like not a huge sports fan. And so he took our three kids, my older two, were like we're super excited and they got to MSG

“and the players came out onto the court. And my youngest kid was like, wait, this is men?”

I was like, where's Ellie? It's okay, they can play, like they're actually pretty good at it. But I just love that the orientation in my family is like so at least for some of us, my husband actually loves NBA. But anyway, he's very WMBA famous. That said, the just like the city and the energy around this like the whole like postseason, the nix and this, you know, NBA finals has been just glorious and we're kind of reminds me of the best things

about New York City, which are just really important in this moment in which like the worst things about the federal government seem to be like on display constantly. Anyway, it just feels like an antidote sometimes. Anyway, so go nix. I can even feel the immaculate five

foreign mission and just through the screens and whatnot, it's really incredible. I took my dog

for that, that I wouldn't even talk about like game for we're so insane. But I took my dog for a

“walk in the last five minutes. I was like two stress. I just like needed to shake it off. They were”

like coming back, but I didn't think they could come back fast enough. So like a shadow needs to go. So we go for walk. And I just like hearing people screaming through their windows on my Brooklyn block. And slightly like these like one or two second delays because like everyone's wifi and like whatever cable news they're listening to is like a little bit different. So it was just like this chorus of shouts that was just so euphoric. Anyway, so it'll already be post Saturday by the time

you hear this episode. So we'll see what happens, but I am excited for game five. So speaking of immaculate vibes, pride month is here and it's time to dress like it. This season, the Crooked Store is dropping gayer than ever in two brand new designs and bringing back an old favorite the gay for democracy shirt. Plus, classics like Dreamboat Willy return in a new colorway alongside the ever reliable join or die tea. Whether you're celebrating with your community,

showing up to protest or gilting your street friends into buying new Crooked merch in the name of gay rights, there's something here to match your pride month style. And let's be honest, pride doesn't end so you'll be wearing these items long after June head to Crooked.com/store to shop. And we will be back in your earholes next Monday unless the Supreme Court decides to give us some big opinions between now and then and we'll have bonus episodes come your way if that happens.

Street Sweatney is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Malie Raoul and Michael Goldsmith. Jordan Pamis is our intern. Our team includes Matt Degrope, Ben Hethko, Joe Hannah case, Kenny Mothett, Eric Shoot and our music is by Eddie Cooper. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the writers the old of America East. I also have Maldo Nado and I'm the founder of Yawi, a singer who has worked on Kunstwerke and has done his own specialization.

My role is on Shopify, because Shopify is in the same way as the other platforms I tested with the famous friends. I've been waiting for all the time for the future. All the tools that are available for the development of the business are to be available from the store, find the right in the dashboard. Start now at your cost-in-law'stest on Shopify.com.