Advisory Opinions - Lisa, Sarah, and Sarah (and David)

Episode Date: October 5, 2023

Are you ready for this? Partners at Williams and Connolly Lisa Blatt and Sarah Harris share what it was like to argue before Justice Antonin Scalia, the pros and cons of careerism, the hunger for victory, the dangers of wearing cowboy boots in court, and why life is just a never-ending series of tradeoffs. Also: -Texas Sarah vs Tennessee Sarah -Justice Ginsburg's tip for arguing before the Supreme Court -Different forms of originalism -Miffy's (mifepristone) -Arguing with Justice Alito -Women in law -Poor David -Don't follow your passions Show notes: -Lisa Blatt's page at Williams and Connolly -Sarah Harris' page at Williams and Connolly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This ad for Fizz is only 25 seconds long, but we had to pay for 30. Those leftover 5 seconds shouldn't just disappear, right? It's kind of like what happens to your unused mobile data at the end of each month. Except at Fizz, your unused data from the end of the month rolls over, so you can use it the next month. Hey, you paid for it, so keep it. Try the other side. Get started at fizz.ca. If you need some time to think it over, here's 5 seconds.

Certain conditions apply. Details at phys.ca. Whoa, what are you listening to this for? Wait, who's talking? You know you're driving a 2024 Ford Escape with available Alexa built-in, so you can change the music. Oh yeah. Alexa, change station to 99.2. Oh, yeah. Alexa, change station to 99.2. See? Purchase a 2024 Escape ST line all-wheel drive with Tech Pack at 3.49% APR for 72 months with down payment. That's just $267 bi-weekly. Cash value of $40,294.

Plus, eligible Ford owners get a $1,000 bonus. For details, visit your local Ford store or Ford.ca. Speaker McCarthy, because that's all I've been well i'm sorry did i say speaker mccarthy that i misspoke all right here we go welcome to advisory opinions i'm sarah isger That's David French. And I promised y'all months ago, the highlight of the semester, if you will. And it's finally here, our Supreme Court preview with the Lisa Blatt and Sarah Harris. I do. I feel weird calling you Lisa, like you're Lisa Blatt. team of the Supreme Court world. Thank you guys for joining. Thank you. We're

super, super, super, super psyched to be here. Lisa is a Texan by birth, by culture, by cowboy boots. Sarah Harris and I went to law school together. And David's just here. He's hanging out.

I'm here. Not a lot to contribute, but there he is. I'll listen in. I'll enjoy listening in. I'm looking forward to it. Front row seat. It'll be fantastic. David, you're now in my hometown, Nashville, so we have that at least in common. The Texans against

the Nashvillians. Oh, Sarah, I like you so much. This is not going to end well for you, Sarah. I know don't mess with Texas, but I guess like you so much. So this is not going to end well. This is not going to end well for you, Sarah. I know don't mess with Texas, but like, I guess I'm daring fate. So Sarah, you are fully aware then that Texas is Tennessee's first and only colony

because you have the author of the Texas Declaration of Independence, a Tennessean, the first governor and president of the Republic of Texas, a Tennessean, Davy Crockett, a Tennessean. the first governor and president of the Republic of Texas, a Tennessean, Davy Crockett, a Tennessean. Notice how they all left. No, basically, that's what colonists do, Sarah. They colonize. And so I just, when I go to Texas, I just, you know, walk past the border saying,

you're welcome, You know, so. James K. Polk, ardent expansionist. Yeah. I mean, we conquered Texas, essentially, for America. So, yeah, it's absolutely correct. I'm already enjoying this podcast. What's that Margaret Thatcher quote?

If you have to tell people, you're not. We'll get to some of my feminist theories later on. Lisa and Sarah being two of my favorite feminist icons in the legal world. But first, we're going to start with the boring stuff. We're going to do some law here, some Supreme Court term. Lisa, I'll start with you. And look, we're going to get to some of your better, more amazing cert petition lines, argument lines, all of that. But big picture, we're still getting to know this Supreme Court.

How do you think when you walk in to argue a case of what the lineup is, who you're looking at? Is it 6-3? Is it 3-3-3? Is it just a grab bag? What's your overall thesis on this court? So there's my thesis to the public and then there's my thesis as an advocate.

My thesis as an advocate is I don't do whatever you just said. It's always the same court to me. It's the Supreme Court. It's nine brilliant jurors whose vote I need. And I don't like the thought of I'm talking to individual justices. In terms of the public and the big cases, race, religion, guns, abortion, yeah, it's a 6-3 court. And sometimes it's a 3-3 court, depending on where Justice Kavanaugh is leaning and sometimes Justice Barron, the chief.

You have an interesting background as well. You worked in the Solicitor General's office before going into private practice for a long time. You were in the SG's office. Do you see a difference from that perspective and how you view the court? Yeah, I mean, it gets me a little emotional when I think about it, but there's no one who will ever replace Justice Scalia. And that's the biggest difference. He was probably, he's just, I don't know how to explain it as an advocate. It was pure joy, just unadulterated joy and fun. And there probably will never be another justice like him in terms of just arguing. And I probably got my sort of style because he just loved to joust and have fun and really get into it. But yeah, it's a totally, I mean, it's different. The old chief is different

than the new chief. And, you know, each of the justice, Justice Stevens had his own style, just as Breyer did. So they all had oral argument styles. But the biggest difference to me in terms of an advocate is the loss of justice. And Sarah, you also were in government. We were actually at DOJ at the same time. It's very annoying to have two Sarahs

with H's both doing these things. So we will try. Hopefully you guys know my voice on the podcast and Sarah's the other Sarah who doesn't have my voice, but still. And now Sarah, you've argued all these cases at the Supreme Court since you left DOJ. How do you think of the court and why is Lisa wrong? Lisa is 1000% correct on many things, including that you don't go into the court thinking you know the lineup or that you can jettison any votes. Even hostile questions from justices

who pretty much know are not voting for you are also chances to nail down the people who you think are in your camp. So yeah, I think from an advocate's vantage, you just go in and answer questions, try to get your points out, be responsive, try to persuade people. And with respect to the court writ large, also correct, I think that it

can be a 6-3 court. You know, that's not a novel concept. I think the more interesting thing is just, as Lisa said, where will Justice Kavanaugh and the chief go in some of the cases? How eager or not will they be in cases that present opportunities to overturn cases to actually do so. Obviously, Loeberbright with Chevron on the potential chopping block will be like the next kind of test of that. So just for listeners who aren't uber familiar with the two of you, I mean, Lisa is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat who has committed various apostasies and heresies. But nevertheless, Sarah is a whack job conservative. I mean, a total lunatic. So I direct this question to Sarah for that reason. Why do you think Kavanaugh and Gorsuch come out so differently on so many of these cases?

I think it's a mistake to think of conservatives as uniform. They're just like part of what are the, I mean, even Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas, who are very, even more similar in terms of, I think, where they start off in terms of originalism, like reach like very different results, especially in cases involving Native Americans, Indian law cases. I think it just shows if you're starting from a methodological advantage that you share, you can easily reach different results depending on like how you read original sources. Like it's not a sort of like you must buy into the bottom line kind of situation. And for Justice Kavanaugh, I think he is, you know, you can tell from his

opinions, especially some of his separate writings, more conscious of practical consequences. And Justice Gorsuch is not. I think he avowedly does not like focus on that at all. So I think that adds another factor that can sort of push them further apart. So let me ask this of both of you guys. So start with Lisa. Longtime advisory opinions listeners will know exactly where we stand on sort of what are the most important cases of this term. And I'm not going to go and use the phrase, well, I'm only going to use it this one time for briefly, text history and tradition, because if I talk about it again, people are going to throw their phones through a window because we've talked about it a lot. As you're looking at this term, a lot of people are pegging sort of Rahimi

as the most consequential case, potentially. What are you thinking of, say, the three or four or one or two most consequential cases coming up this term? Well, I think Rahimi, I mean, won't be that consequential because I think there's a narrow way to rule for the government in terms of the facial challenge. This criminal defendant had both the finding of individual dangerousness and

not just based on the statutory prohibitions of guns, just that the order bans you from beating up your wife or spouse. So I think that will go off narrowly. The court will have to dance around sort of the mess they made in Bruins saying you have to find a closely analogous, whatever that court said in Bruin, whatever they said about history. You know, I think there'll still be the ongoing issues with the voting rights cases. I like watching the sort of the social media cases to me are the most interesting because I like cases that appeal to everyday Americans that see, you know, that they understand. As a technical matter, the Purdue pharmacy case is, I mean, the Purdue bankruptcy case is super interesting doctrinally, but I just, the social media case is dealing with, you know, whether public officials who go on Facebook or state actors or whether Florida and Texas can tell social media

companies how to rank or how to disclose how they rank content and whether the Biden administration can talk to the social media companies are more interesting. The Miffy case presumably will be on, and that's a case that I think half of America cares deeply about. Which one's that one? The abortion case. Oh, the Miffy. The Miffy. I think everyone calls him Miffy.

I don't know what the, I can't pronounce the name. I just think, you know, sure, it's got this issue of FDA regulation and stuff like that, but any case with the A word in it is going to be, you know, sure, it's got this issue of FDA regulation and stuff like that. But any case with the A word in it is going to be, you know, it's a big deal. Lisa, I'm shocked you're not giving any love to SEC in-house adjudications. Because she knew you would, Sarah. She knew you'd be all over that administrative state. I just don't care about that subject.

Even though I teach separation of powers with Paul Clement. It bores me to tears. I think it's probably the most consequential one, though, because if you look at the term from the vantage of which cases are most likely to change the status quo, I think that the court is very likely, at least of all the separation of powers options on the table, likely to say that administrative law judges cannot be structured the way they are right now. And just even for going forward consequences for the government, I think that's just a big deal. Like who can fire administrative law judges of which there are like almost 2000 in the government. It actually matters a lot to people. And I think it could matter to the outcomes of these cases.

So that would actually be my pick, even though it's not sexy. A low person is a little bit like Dobbs. The court will have to decide if a 15 week ban on Chevron to the outcomes of these cases. So that would actually be my pick, even though it's not sexy. A low person is a little bit like Dobbs. The court will have to decide if a 15-week ban on Chevron is what they want to go with or they just want to go with a complete overruling. So we'll have to see what happens.

Or they could just make it like the lemon test and say they had already overruled Chevron and you just didn't notice. Yeah, it feels like that's the further zombification of Chevron is in the cards. Because when Lisa talked about the narrowing, there's a way to deal with Rahimi that's quite narrow. There's a way to deal with Loper Bright

that's quite narrow as well. And by the way, I'm thinking for distinguishing between the Sarahs, Tennessee Sarah and Texas Sarah. I love that. Or another synonym for that would be good Sarah and bad Sarah. Do you know we even have the same middle initial?

She's Sarah M. Harris and I'm Sarah M. Isger. Like there's nothing, yeah, it's Sarah all the way down. By the way, speaking of that SEC case, so Lisa, Sarah, and I are all also married to attorneys.

And I do want to talk about all the... Again, my feminist manifesto is coming. But yesterday, husband of the pot and I took a little hike and our conversation revolved very much around the SEC case. And I thought to myself, man, if anyone overhears this, they're like, what losers. So I'm sure, Sarah, you and Jeff are just sitting and talking about that every night over wine after the kids go to bed.

Oh, yeah. That's what we talk about after the kids go to bed. What will happen to in-house adjudications at the SEC? That's the story. That's what keeps a marriage strong. That and also golf. All right. Y'all have some interesting cert petitions pending as well. Sarah and I

were texting about them. I'm dying because somehow, Lisa, you end up getting these cases that almost reflect your personality. Thank you for saying that. You get the fun ones, right? You had Angry Cheerleader. You had the Jack Daniels dog toy.

You had the Andy Warhol case as well. This time, I read a cert petition involving CBD oil, where you said, and I'm quoting, some people even say it's the new avocado toast. Whose line was that? Obviously, when you say whose line is that, the answer is always Sarah. And I will say, if I could just go off a little bit on Sarah, I think if we have any brand or style, certainly for cases too, a lot of it is Sarah. It's her unique storytelling, her unique turns of phrases. Some of my favorite lines ever and ever in all briefs come from Sarah. But that is definitely, I love the way she comes up with these killer lines.

And avocado toast is just one of them. I will take credit, though, for the Warhol case. I discovered that case when it was in the district court. And just, you know, match made in heaven. People think Sarah is a super serious, you know, nerd lawyer because she's so smart. She is. But in fact, she is all those things. But she has this killer dry sense of humor

where you're like, was that a joke? Was she serious? Oh, no. Because it's so funny. It's like, I love it. So yes, I actually already could have guessed who wrote Avocado Toast. I like to think of it as I'm the beauty

and she's the brains of our duo. Lisa has a more overt humor though in arguments and it's a joy to behold truly especially in person next to her it's like that was great. So that's a great I mean I want to go back to some of the cases but that's just a perfect segue good Sarah to what is so compelling about when I'm reading or listening to Lisa's oral arguments, you seem to have a kind of, I don't know, I'm looking for the right term, a familiarity, a confidence, a boldness in approaching the court that a lot of the other advocates don't have. Now, some of them, I can easily imagine. I've never argued in front of the court. don't have. Now, some of them, I can easily imagine. I've never argued in front of the court.

I would walk up there to that podium the first time I did it. Petrified would be like probably the mildest version of how I would feel. And I wouldn't feel that sort of sense of confidence to be myself in any way. But you seem to have a sense of confidence that you can be yourself in front of the court. Walk through that process. How did that occur? Yeah, let me just say a couple things. First of all, I'm extremely nervous when I'm up there. I'm very scared.

I'm very insecure. I'm not confident. Second of all, I don't know how to be any other way of sort of my philosophy, and I've said it a million places. Someone's going to die at the end of the day, and I don't want it to be me. Someone's going to lose this case, and it's my client, and that person's life is on the line. And I remember it was, I think it was Patty Millett,

I think had some, Judge Millett had some great line about that, that she was the only thing standing between her and doom for her client. And I remember Justice Ginsburg said when Judge Millett became Judge Millett, she said, we just lost one of our tigers. So, and I thought that was the nicest thing anyone could ever say is that, you know, be called a tiger. Um, I will say, because a lot of people, and you're a podcast, I do hear a lot of criticism from one particular podcast about my style. And here's what I would say to that. Before you criticize me, I do think you should ask yourself, have you ever argued in front of the Supreme Court? And if you haven't, why? Whether it's

you lack the skills, talent, or interest, or just you have a different passion, take a step back. And second of all, try to come watch me at argument. And actually, before you criticize it, look at the justices and see what they're doing. They're usually smiling at me. Part of it, it's almost like you hear me. Someone said something once that I show better in person than on the phone.

I'm like, I just, I don't think that I'm acting any different to them than I am to you. I'm just trying to explain to them why we should win and being as direct as I can. And I don't, I definitely regret a couple of things. I regret interrupting Justice Sotomayor when she was trying to ask me a very helpful question.

But generally speaking, I'm just trying to do my job and answer questions. I don't think people should try to emulate me because their personality is not like me. They should just be whoever they are and advocate. But it does, I do find it annoying that sometimes people criticize me and they're just, they're either stupid or motivated by some political agenda.

Well, you know, I think it's really interesting you talked about, well, this is kind of who I am. And because I look back on my own legal career and I look at the migration, I think as I became a better lawyer was when I began to shed the persona, which was, this is how I'm supposed to be. Like there's some image of what I'm supposed to do versus this is who I am.

And I'm better at being me than I am at being not me and bringing myself to the argument. David, if I could spend or had unlimited money, I would be Maureen Mahoney. I would love to sound like a Midwestern or Paul Clement or everything they say sounds so reasonable. I could try, you know, and I do think justices and judges find it somewhat refreshing. I would not recommend, you know, part of the other thing, I'll just say two other things about my style. One is I'm a woman and two, I'm old. And I think it helps for both of those. I do. I think it is harder. Normally, men have all the advantages in the world, but I think sometimes it's easier to talk about things like pornography and sex when you're a woman. Probably correct. Probably right. I mean, let's not give short shrift though to your colloquy last term with

Justice Alito about dogs peeing on your leg and dog poop and I mean that was nice I love love my exchange with Justice Alito you're in an interstate commerce but he's generally smiling at me. He knows that I'm just, I don't, I mean, look, I like nothing more than arguing in front of Justin Alito. It's the most fun I've ever had.

It's great. It's so much fun. No, Sarah, well. I do regret, I do regret asking him how old he was. Like, I didn't, I shouldn't have said how old, I was like, no, don't do that again.

We don't regret it. We don't regret it at all. No, I mean, I think what I said on our podcast was if you're Jack Daniels can you imagine like they didn't even consider anyone else to argue that case you know if given the topic like you have to have Lisa Black and I think that people criticized the brief because I had a riff on you know the poop emoji and it's like life's too short. Life is way too short. I mean, my personal theory of the case is

they saw Lisa, they saw that it involved a dog toy and also dog poop and it was like an auto grant. That's right. Who wouldn't want that case? And we'll take a quick break to hear from our sponsor today aura ready to win mother's day and cement your reputation as the best gift giver in the family give the moms in your life an aura digital picture frame pre-loaded with decades of family photos she'll love looking back on your childhood memories and seeing what you're up to today even better with unlimited storage and an

easy to use app you can keep updating mom's frame with new photos. So it's the gift that keeps on giving. And to be clear, every mom in my life has this frame. Every mom I've ever heard of has this frame. This is my go-to gift. My parents love it. I upload photos all the time. I'm just like bored watching TV at the end of the night.

I'll hop on the app and put up the photos from the day. It's really easy. Right now, Aura has a great deal for Mother's Day. Listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $30 off, plus free shipping on their best-selling frame. That's a-u-r-a-frames.com. Use code ADVISORY at checkout to save. Terms and conditions apply.

And now, Lisa, do you wear your cowboy boots to argue? Because I've never gotten to see you argue in person. No, I wear my cowboy boots mainly in the Fifth Circuit and then at work and on the weekends. So all the other time? Yeah. No, I mean, Justice Ginsburg gave me very good advice my first year before my first argument about how to dress in court. And the advice she gave me was, do you want a judge or justice not looking at you but listening to you? Don't wear anything or do anything to distract them. You just want them hearing what you're saying. And so you kind of, and I gave this advice, you know, I coached debate for many, many years.

And that was my advice to people. Before court is not the time to show off anything other than be as bland as possible. And just, you're there to get a job done. You know, that's funny because Ted Cruz has this story about when he became Texas Solicitor General and went and talked to the Chief Justice. And he was wearing his cowboy boots. And I think Ted, he wasn't arguing that day, but Ted said something like, don't worry, I won't wear these to court.

And the Chief said, you're the Solicitor General of Texas. You have to wear cowboy boots to court. That's what we would expect. So just know that there is some pedigree for Texans wearing cowboy boots. I just have to take, I mean, look, anything Justice Ginsburg's ever told me

is the word of God. And she has basically instilled in me, you really want to be almost invisible when you're physically invisible when you're arguing. Sarah, how have you approached argument? Are you scared when you're there? Yes, I'm a rational person. Anyone who's not scared is probably doing it wrong. Of course you're scared. And then you start talking and answering the questions and you're

so excited to be up there answering questions about a case that you've been obsessing over that you stop being nervous. But yeah, if you're not scared like in the lawyer's lounge and the hours beforehand, maybe I don't know what's going on. But you had some good ones last term. You had the Puerto Rico Financial Oversight Management Board one that made big splash. But of course, the case that I liked the most

that you argued was the bad boyfriend case. The bankruptcy... Barton Worker. Yeah, the discharge petition where she... Husband, yeah. Oh, it was her husband. They flipped the house fraudulently, yada yada, is she on the hook for his bad behavior? Answer, yeah. Yes, that was a tough one, but a fun argument just because the justices were super engaged and it was great to be up there. And I also think the fact that Sarah's had five arguments

in what, three years of private practice is incredible. She was never in the SG's office and to have argued five cases like that is truly extraordinary. Well, also thanks to Lisa because she could have- Okay, that's a really- So now we got to get into that. At least that's like, that's the reason you're both here.

Yes, I'm so glad. Well, if you thought I was rude before, wait till you hear. So good Sarah keeps coming up with the great segues, unsurprisingly. So this is a great segue because we just talked at our live podcast when Sarah came back about this. And we barely, barely got into it at all, but sort of this whole process of mentoring, when are you, when are you making a decision that a more junior attorney is going to step up to the plate when you could always take it yourself, like you, you have that authority, you have that ability to do it.

always take it yourself. Like you, you have that authority, you have that ability to do it. But at the same time, you want to cultivate younger talent. And so kind of walk through, walk through that process. How, how does that work? And if, you know, any sort of advice you could throw in for the, cause we have a lot of young, a law student and young lawyer listeners on sort of how they can prepare themselves, position themselves to be ready when the bell rings, so to speak. So unfortunately, I don't think most people want to cultivate other talents. So I just think your premise is wrong. Most people are selfish, egomaniacs, and most of them are men. And I think I too was like that before I got to Williams & Conley. I mean, I always wanted, like, I've been working with Sarah at another law firm. I always

promoted her, made sure people under me got opportunity. But it was much more of a transactional issue. It was like, this is the way you keep good people. This is the way you recruit unless you give them enough reward. But I never felt like it was a calling until I got to Williams and Conley. Literally, it was just a self-interest thing. You kind of have to help other people who are going to leave you if you don't give them arguments. And Sarah was very adamant when she started working with me. She wanted an argument. I kind of said, yeah, whatever. And she's like, no, Lisa, get on the phone and call a bunch of courts and get me an argument. So Sarah was very, very persistent. But when I got to Williams & Conley,

I really decided this would be my legacy and that I would make sure that I was not just about me and that I would try to shame the rest of the bar into doing the same thing. Okay, but Sarah, Lisa actually is the worst person to ask about this. You are the person to ask about this because you are interviewing at a lot of different firms.

Again, everyone knows you're brilliant, even if they don't know how funny you are, which I feel special for. I don't know if I'm known for the right thing then. I don't know. I think Sarah's... The first thing I ever said about her was she was the Terminator.

I did not say she was... The first thing you said about me was was she was the Terminator. I did not say she was a... The first thing you said about me was that you liked my shoes and that we'd get along really well. I think that's probably true. That is definitely true. So you're interviewing at all these places. You meet Lisa.

How do you determine in the interview that it's going to work? What are you looking for? Did you know that this would be a mentoring situation? Was it just that she was smart and had a bunch of arguments? So great. Because to me, I think that's really hard when you don't know someone. And of course, they're going to say all the right things.

Oh, of course, I'm here to help you and to further your career. And this is... We're going to focus on you. But most of them, to Lisa's point, don't mean it. So how do you, how did you get this so right? Well, I like to get things right. So thank you. But I actually am a big believer in thinking that interviews, especially casual ones, are a good read on what people will be like as professionals. I mean, when you're looking at appellate practice, and I started working with Lisa after clerking on the DC Circuit. So when I was looking at firms, I remember meeting with Lisa

in a Starbucks, which turned out to be one of our favorite locations. And a client. And just getting to know her a bit. And like, it was somewhat goofy because we did sort of talk about our shared, like love of buying clothes and very frivolous things that are, it turns out like really good bonding activities, but we're actually colleagues. And then just also hearing the unvarnished Lisa, I mean, to Lisa's credit,

like she doesn't do Washington fake. Like what you see is what you get. Like she is like how she is an argument, like in every other context. And I liked it. So I feel like we hit it off. As I noted, she thought my shoes were great. So I thought I could pass her fashion bar to the extent there was one. And it was sort of a leap of faith that it really worked out well. I mean, I remember our first couple of weeks in the office together, like two of the firm's cases got granted.

And so I was like off to the races on a water rights case, like drafting my first merits brief for Lisa, learning about like this just massive fight over water between like Texas and Oklahoma. And like, you know, despite loving Texas, we were fervently in the Oklahoma camp on that one. How could you, Lisa? How could you?

It's our water. Can I tell another story? Well, it was Tarrant. So that was North Texas, not South Texas. But one quick story about Sarah that we've been working together maybe a year and a half. And she comes to me and says

she's interviewing for a clerkship with Justice Thomas. And I said to her, wait, are you conservative? She goes, yes, Lisa. I was like, wow. I mean, I literally had no idea what her politics were. Little did I know. Oh my God, was she conservative? But I mean, it's just kind of like, I just don't. Had you met her husband? Anything?

Jeff? Lisa was not maybe the closest attention to other markers. But that's okay. That's Delisa's credit. She's not like doing political filter. Jeff likes rap music. He's one of my people. In certain contexts. So Sarah, another thing that we talked about with the law students was

the choices of when to be the big fish in the little pond and when to be the little fish in the big pond and how you thought about that coming out of your clerkship and your career trajectory. Such a great question. Yeah, that is a good question. So I guess with Lisa, I don't really have to feel like, am I a fish or am I some other kind of spirit animal?

I mean, it's just sort of, it feels like a partnership where I learn a lot from Lisa, but there's not sort of like, I don't know, I feel like it's more of a family relationship sometimes. In fact, she sometimes calls me Rachel, her daughter's name. So I just get good answering a lot. But I think there's sort of, it is like a common question for a lot of people. Do you want to be at a place where you are one of 15 people like you with your resume or not?

And how do you differentiate yourself versus do you feel like you'll be at a place where you outgrow yourself? It's almost like a Goldilocks situation, actually. You're trying to find the right size for your personality and your personal comfort. I don't really have great, like global advice to people because so much of it is, do you like your colleagues? And are you the kind of person who finds a little more comfort,

like safety in numbers, working with people who are like you and learning from a bunch of people at your level? Or do you kind of like to be having more riding on you, but the downside being, it's a smaller practice potentially. So I feel like, I mean more riding on you, but the downside being it's a smaller practice potentially. So I feel like, I mean, we've also, I guess both Lisa and I have gone through that in our law firm setting, just having an appellate practice that has grown so much,

especially with the shift in firms. So there was one thing, Sarah, or Lisa, when you're talking about Sarah, you talked about how Sarah said, I was assertive. I want arguments. And that really pinged for me. That was very interesting because there's sort of a school of thought that says, wait a minute, should you be that assertive? Like, should you,

if you're coming into a position, maybe you're interviewing or you're new, should you step forward and say, this is something that I really want versus a more kind of passive approach? And how do you weigh that? Because I could imagine a situation, I guess a lot of it's in how it's done. How you approach somebody with confidence matters a lot. The manner of matters a lot. But I, you know, I do think that's a really interesting question that a lot of younger lawyers ask themselves is, what's the line for saying, I'm ready, put me in coach, I'm ready to play?

It's hard. I mean, with Luke McLeod, who's in the SG's office, I definitely was, I was the aggressor in trying to encourage him to do his first Supreme Court argument. And because he was doing so well doing trials, and he's a brilliant engineer and a fantastic patent and trial lawyer. But I just had seen him argue in the Fifth Circuit and was like, oh my God, this guy's off the chart. So I, in the same way with Amy Sahari, I definitely pressured her to do two, I guess. So in the same way with some associates, I go to them and say, you need to do an argument. But it's hard because if you're not ready, you shouldn't have that cut against you or be ashamed. I mean, I do think we have this philosophy at our firm that the world is a very big place and people have very different strengths and weaknesses and there's room for everything.

world is a very big place and people have very different strengths and weaknesses and there's room for everything. And so there are certain appellate lawyers who should be arguing because that's their strong suit. And then some who either shouldn't or should be doing brief writing or other types of work. So my advice to lawyers is figure out, young lawyers, figure out your strengths and weaknesses and run from the weaknesses or try to shore them up, but kind of lean into your strengths. But it's scary. And like I said, I've been insecure most of my life professionally. It's very hard to be confident and say, I want to do that argument. That just is such an unnatural feeling. And I remember coming to Williams & Conley in, I guess it was, was it 1990? And the advice to women then was, you need to, it was basically the lean in thing. You need to be proactive. You need to, and I was

like, I don't even know what those people are talking about. I'm not being proactive on anything. I can barely find the dry cleaners and I just can't deal with whatever advice I'm getting. I just wasn't ready for it. So sometimes it's like you can tell people to do something, but they're just not ready. And that's okay. I wasn't ready until I was 30, 31 to sort of be a little more assertive.

I don't think I even got my assertive personality in argument until I was in my 40s, maybe argument number 14. She remembers it, argument 14. I think I even got my assertive personality in argument until I was in my 40s, maybe argument number 14. She remembers it, argument 14. I think I do remember it. What was your strategic thinking, Sarah, that, okay, I feel like Lisa's gonna be receptive to this, you know, or was that kind of your default going in

that I'm going to put the ball in the coach's court? I'm gonna say I'm ready and it's up to them to say yes or no. It was like court of appeals default going in that I'm going to put the ball in the coach's court? I'm going to say I'm ready. And it's up to them to say yes or no. It was like court of appeals when I asked Lisa for. Yeah, so before Sarah did a Supreme Court argument, there was no way I was going to, she was going to do it unless, she was off the charts in her court of appeals.

Her first one was great. You know, and she was in front of the Sixth Circuit. It was a prison case and you won it. I don't know, was it in front of Judge Sutton? I think it was a great Sixth Circuit panel. And it was good. It was good. But then the next one I saw, I was like, oh my God, she's incredible. And so when you see that, same way with Luke, you're just doing such a disservice as a person who's older and a mentor to not really, really promote someone when you see talent. I mean, that's a shame. Shame on you.

My advice to people now is, especially for associates who are coming off of clerkships or like a little more senior, to really prioritize like trying to find a place where you can get federal courts of appeals appointments pretty early on. And for me, that was key. Like Lisa really helped me get that first argument. And that's sort of what I raised my hand and said, like, can you please help me get this? And Lisa delivered, like she called around and got one very quickly. Because if you don't sort of have some level of comfort before some courts, starting off in the Supreme Court is not exactly like where you start. They can crush your confidence pretty fast, and they can tell if you're not having fun.

But I think the confidence I had from doing a couple of court of appeals arguments before my first Supreme Court argument and just feeling like this is something I feel like I know how to do, but also have fun doing, would come across. And so, yeah, I'm very glad that Lisa was very receptive to sort of the pitch on that. And the way you get a client or co-counsel to agree to have younger people do it is you have to put your own life on the line and say, truth is I would trust Sarah with my life. And so, and she would do a better job. Not that she really needs an opportunity. I mean, that, no, that is not, that's not the line. That's

not the move. It's, this is what's in the best interest. And you have to, that has to be actually true. Yeah, I mean, that's a huge part of this. A lot of people listening are going to be like, yeah, that's all well and good. But the client's like, I hired Lisa Blatt. Who is Sarah? Back, let's call it, four years ago. That's BS, Sarah.

Those are people talking and justifying why they did the argument. That's not true. Alright, I want to do a little feminist manifesto now, which is I have worked in a few male-dominated areas. That's a shock. Yeah, shocking, I know. And yet, if you look at who my bosses have been, it's probably been about 50-50 women,

meaning I'm working for women an outsized percentage of the time, even in places where probably the people who have those jobs is like 80-20 men. Fascinating. So I worked for Barbara Comstock. I clerked for Edith Jones. I worked for Katie Biber on the Romney campaign. My favorite, talking about interviews and whether you're going to hit it off, after I got fired from The Hill, after six weeks of work, not great, I went to the Washington Post classified ads and found an opening at the FAA, We Fly Planes. And I went into interview and I had just seen Team America. And she asked me what I had done that weekend. And I said, I just seen Team America. And then we both at the same time started

singing, America. Yeah, it's time to say the mother of my day. Yeah, I'm bleeping myself. And the fact that we both started seeing that it was the equivalent of you and Sarah talking about shoes. It was like, this is my person. We're gonna know in the tough parts in the hardest moments we're gonna have something to fall back on like a you know a personal connection um it has not been lost on anyone in the supreme court bar that lisa has argued uh more cases than any other woman in supreme court history though perhaps a low bar bar, far lower than it should be. And that y'all are a little feminine duo out there arguing all these cases and doing really well.

What do you think is the pluses, minuses? What's your feminist manifesto on why you're two women? Or is it just coincidental? Which is also a totally acceptable answer. Sarah, it just coincidental? Which is also a totally acceptable answer. Sarah is, it's coincidental. I just, like, I do think it was, she's just, I've never seen somebody so talented of a writer.

I've never seen anything like it. And she has a killer instinct like no other. And I could not have achieved really any success in the last, you know, a lot. I mean, she abandoned me for some, I don't know, I think it was some, some past administration, it was before Biden, and then a clerkship with, with Justice Thomas. But literally, she's been the source of my success. But I don't, I don't think the fact she was a woman was really neither here nor there to me. Um, the, I think it is, I mean, we have strong, like I know Beth Brinkman disagrees. I remember I did at the last women's panel I did, I was called

a disgrace by every woman on the panel. It was the day president Trump was elected and I did a women's bar event. It was the last female event I'll ever do because everyone disagreed with me about advice for women. And it was like, I don't need this. What was your advice that I'm definitely going to agree with? To not follow your passion. Don't follow your dreams. And just do whatever you're good at. And stop being passionate.

Just nobody gives a shit about your passion. They just want somebody who will win. Like, I really could care less about a doctor's passion or I think I've said this, do you really want an architect who's passionate about his work? No. I mean, seriously.

It's like, just build my house. So, or a surgeon. Shut up and build. Surgeon, the notion that I want that person passionate. It's like, just don't mess up when I'm under the knife. So that, and it was just, I remember it was Dahlia Lithwick. Mixing next question of what Lisa's passions are. Should be something to do with romance, presumably.

But the, I think the, but Dahlia Lithwick said it was appalling. And I was like, okay. So the, but I do think, and I think I wrote about this in that, this lady lawyer article. I just think women, like I said, have so many disadvantages. And your story, Sarah, is unbelievable because I just see men bonding. And I see, I don't see women bonding as much. And I have not, all my bosses that have been amazing were men, especially Paul Clement, who I hold, you know, my entire career is, he's responsible

for my entire career and being a lawyer and not quitting. I just think women just have a much harder time. And in the Supreme Court bar in particular, it's a job that requires a lot of salesmanship and bullying and sharp elbows and bravado. And I don't think women are wired for that. We're much more self-aware and we're not willing to oversell ourselves like men are. I left out two female bosses that I've had because I had specific stories for each of them. So I obviously worked for Carly Fiorina. And she would tell me that men walk into the room with credibility. Women have to earn the credibility.

So it's not that you can't get there. You can. You just are going to work a little bit harder to prove yourself in every situation where men will get that hand a little more easily. Lisa, do you... I'm just...

David, when... So little do people know, We'll get that handed to them a little more easily. Lisa, do you... I'm just... David, when I... So little do people know, although you probably can guess, like David and I talk all the time off this podcast as well. And I call David for life advice all the time. David, you know this. You know that I say this to you all the time.

Oh yes, 100%. I just had to interject. I'm like the only guy in the room right now. When you say walk into a room, I mean, I've walked into a room for the last 15 years with a giant Hello Kitty phone. And that was always people were like, why are you doing that? I'm like, because this is my F you to every man in the room. So it's not like I'm trying to walk in the room and get respect. I want to walk in the room and just... It is a power move. In a true power move, one of our clients actually purchased for Lisa

an enormous Hello Kitty background for the giant iPhones back in the day. She's gone through several iterations and they're great. And I have a Hello Kitty beanbag in my office. I mean, I just get so tired of the... Whatever that lean-in crap. I just...

It's just too much for me. You don't power pose in the bathroom. Okay. Sarah and I it's just too much. You don't power pose in the bathroom. Okay. Sarah and I are power posing right now. So Sarah, my other boss, who you know, was Rachel Brand at the Office of Legal Policy, who is an incredible human. She's amazing.

And talk about... So I hope Rachel won't mind that I'm telling tales out of school here but you know i wanted so badly for her to like me and so and i was the only female intern i totally get that right and so i'm trying too hard like everyone wants to be rachel so it's like no surprise that's right she was prom queen you know she's got that posture yes oh she does so so i go to her as like the only female thinking i'm gonna like bond with her over being female like in the most ham-handed way like i say something really dumb about like sexism right you know like what's the ice for girls like sexism disgust right and she um one of one of rachel's things

that she does that i find so fascinating because i just don't know anyone else who does it her way most people when you say something they disagree with will be like yeah but also you know like there's this way to like sort of move the conversation rachel will be like no i think that's incorrect and it can feel really awkward. And so in that situation, she was like, I absolutely disagree. And she's, she, but she gave me this then nugget of brilliance

that I've kept with me now for 15 years. And she said, Sarah, if you look for sexism around every corner, you'll find it. And it was just so, at the moment, crushing. I was like, and I'm never speaking to her again. I will hide for the rest of the summer. She hates me. And now, of course, we're very good friends as well. And she's my neighbor. But Sarah, I wonder where you find that

line between going to lease and being like, ah, this is because I'm a woman versus like, doesn't matter. You got to win the game. She's a right-wing nut. She's never going to say something like that. I know. I know. I guess for me, it's like Lisa wants to win as badly as I want to win.

And it was great to find someone who really wants to win as badly as I do and just like really wants to beat the crap out of the other side in an ethical manner. But really, that is what drives her. And also that Lisa was... I like that Lisa is not someone who pretends to be

extremely secure in all moments and pretends that she has a thousand percent... Everything is always perfect and together. That is not how Lisa is. And I found it refreshing and very reassuring to be around someone like that because I also like, I'm not, you know, like 1000% secure about everything. I'm like fairly neurotic.

So Lisa was very, just a good personality match on that front. Maybe it's because we're both women, but I think it's just like, we have some sort of personality traits that, that despite our many differences on politics and other things is a real commonality. I'll tell you two very funny stories with major, major corporations. One, when I was starting out and I said,

I think you really need a woman appellate lawyer. It'll really help bring some softness to the brand and it'd be great. And the client said, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. And then another story, he still hired me, but another one was another after Supreme Court case for a major corporation, which a lot of women in private practice don't get to argue for these major corporations. So thank you. This is one of the few cases in the

last five years, it's been argued by a woman and it really means a lot that the company did that. And the guy said, I don't even know what you're talking about. It never occurred to me. And I was like, okay, Lisa, you just need to keep your mouth shut. I don't know. I think that Rachel Brand and Katie Biber are two women who I'm just incredibly close with, who I've also worked for. And there is something about authenticity and a feeling that you can be just wholly authentic and a killer and kind of weird and quirky and have Rachel's posture or...

I mean, Katie Biber is like three feet tall for those who have ever interacted with Katie Biber. She's not. But there is something about having another woman, I think, show that as a success. Yeah, I'll just say, because David,

I don't think you're a cookie cutter man and I just want to make you feel good about yourself. But men have a much easier script in how to dress, act, look, that kind of stuff. I do think, you know, it's gotten a little bit, it's gotten a little bit better for men being more of an individual and doing sort of leaning in into, you know, who they are.

But- At least we've moved past socks being the way that they show their personalities. That was a horrible era. See, look, I have being the way that they show their personalities. That was a horrible era. See, look, I have socks. I have a color on them. It's totally cool to have like a beard now. I mean, it's just amazing. Like men have come so far. It's wonderful. But yeah, no, but I do think still, I do feel badly that I do think there is a script for a woman to succeed. And it's not somebody who dresses like me or acts like me.

It's more you're better off just trying to conform to the middle. And it's just the safest path to success. I hate to say it, but it is true. Sarah, there's something else that I think makes both of you stand out a little bit, which is back in the day. I mean, I sort of have this eras of feminism. You know, there's like feminism 1.0. I think we're like in a 3.0 situation now. But like to be as successful as either of you are,

let's say 40 years ago, I don't think either of you would have probably had children. Maybe you wouldn't have even been married. This idea that you can sort of be a full person and a woman in a career hard charging is a relatively new phenomenon. You and Lisa both have husbands and children. And I know Lisa has a dog

and I think you got one since the last time I've been at your house. Oh yeah, Tyson and Gary. You know, I've never heard a dog and I think you've got one since the last time I've been at your house. Oh yeah, Tyson's very handsome. You know, I've never heard a dog described as handsome. Oh, Tyson's handsome. I mean, he's like the Wikipedia freak. He's super handsome. He could be a dog model. It's just like I don't have spare time and Jeff doesn't either to like get him off the ground. Sarah, let me just stop you on what Justice Kagan once said, and she was correct.

You don't see all the times where she failed, and you don't see all the times where I've been humiliated and failed and turned down and all the horrible, embarrassing things that have happened to me. So it's like saying, oh, that marriage looks perfect. It's like, don't kid yourself that unless you're Paul Clement, most people fail a lot and aren't successful. And so in your definition of success, my feeling is if you don't feel successful, you better change your definition of success because you're going to die a very lonely and unhappy person. My definition of success was being a mom. That's all I cared about. And that's all like, there's no amount of money you could pay me ever to, there's just no amount of money that would have paid me to separate from my kids or not be part-time for most of,

almost still part-time. So the most important thing to me ever has been my kids and then my dog and then my husband. I hope that that's a previously known hierarchy. Otherwise, this could be... It has to have a rebuttal podcast with David on it. But I just think, and so it is a myth to think you can have it all. That's the other thing I don't like. I just think it's crazy. I don't even understand that. think you can have it all. That's the other thing I don't like. I just think it's crazy. I agree with that. I don't even understand that. You can't have it all. There's always trade-offs.

It's true for men, too. It's always true that every time, choices have consequences. But as Jeff Wall told me when I was turned down for one of these jobs that I always wanted, with every door that closes, a window opens. And it was one of the best pieces of advice. Wait, seriously, Jeff Wall said that to you? Yeah. So my lifelong dream was to get a job in the Obama administration. And I was rejected

from like 10 jobs. And I called up Jeff Wall. We were sort of like work spouses. And he gave me sort of a turning point life advice. that he said, Lisa, you know, when you're very old and about to die, will you think, oh my God, if I'd only had that job of civil appellate, if I'd only had one more argument, if I'd only had one more, you know, what are you going to be thinking?

And you're going to be thinking about the relationships you've had along the way. And so I tell that story all the time and it almost gets me emotional. And I remember telling the story to Judge Harris, Pam Harris on the fourth circuit. And it's like telling her clerks. And she said, well, that's not what I'm going to be thinking about at all. I'm going to be thinking about what good I did for the world. And I really just went, oh, dear Lord, I can't. So everyone has, but sometimes it's a good check on yourself. Really, what does life mean to you?

And if it, to me, it's all about the relationships that were made along the way and the people. That makes Jeff Wall, sorry, that makes Jeff Wall sound like really sincere and emotionally available in a way that I do not consider him.

This was a long time ago. You know, I'm loving this. I was pretty upset. I'm loving this turn in the conversation because it's just turned into a kind of indictment on workism, sort of this, you are, your identity is your work, is your job. Well, I think you need to work to make money

if you need money. Or you're like, if you were born rich, you need work. You know, I don't know. You go do charities or something or whatever those rich people do. But I mean, I just, I think work generally sucks. One of my favorite Lisa moments is like early on when we worked together, she told me like the famous, maybe it's not famous to you guys, but the Peter Keisler man on a couch story,

which is like, Lisa, you can tell it, but it's sort of, you know, Peter Keisler obviously has had like some very very cool government job as a very very senior person in the bush administration civil division but had like a very good perspective that he imparted and lisa has popularized on government the best you might have this job for a couple years and everyone knows your name because you are super duper fancy and then you know you're waiting in a pitch 10 years later and you're just a man on a couch. No one knows who you are anymore.

Like you have to keep it in perspective. Like it is important. And whenever I tell this story, some law students go, who's Peter Kisler? I'm like, exactly, exactly. He's just a man on a couch. But all of us, anyone, we're just going to be like, there is a sense of,

this I think helps to grow up in Texas. I'll never forget the moment my middle school age son said, who's Bono? And I was like, yep, it's all fleeting. Like it's all fleeting. Yeah, yeah. It's deadly. That hurts. That hurts.

But I do, I think you want to be good at your job. You want to do well. And that's the whole thing for me. because my main goal was to be a mom and to be able to, you know, shop at Neiman's and so forth, is to make sure I was doing something I was good at, so I could have some flexibility with work and things like that. And I think if you're always sort of striving and super ambitious, it can be very difficult to get what you want in the other aspects of your life. And then all of a sudden, you just put too many eggs in the work basket and you're just not a good place to be.

Okay. But I'm going to push back on this because I think that is excellent advice when you turn 40. Agreed. It's a little hard though, I think for a 25 year old to hear that and be like, okay, but you were a super striver for a long time. And now you get to say that because your kids are graduating law school and you're Lisa Blatt.

But what about those of us who are still out there even trying to get on the ladder to climb the rungs of the ladder? You should work hard in your 20s, I do think. But that's also, at least for women, a time in early 30s where you're running out of time to have children if you want to have children. Yeah, I think it's just you can't have it all, but there are different seasons to what you're doing. And I think once you reach a certain point, if you gauge your life of like,

I'm a fancy person, which fancy job is my next fancy job it's a recipe you I think you start to see in your 40s it's and onwards like it really is a recipe for unhappiness so it is nice to like I'm glad that Lisa like sort of fronts that she does not want to be confirmed for anything ever that she has no such plans like that's not her deal because I think it would be exhausting to work with someone like that. Yeah, for men too. It's the same thing. You only have that short window of time to be a dad and also to not have your wife cheat on you.

So it's just... Sorry, that took a while. What is that window, Lisa? What is the cheating window? Start her up. At some point, she gives up, but really there's a time where she's looking around and still shopping.

I just think you really, it's, so this shouldn't be news to anyone in their 20, I mean, I do have kids. I have a son who's 24 and a daughter who's 21. They're going to have,

they want it all, but there's just that balance of given the amount of pressure and stress to do well, whether it's for you or because your parents, because your peers, or just because you need a job like I did. I just needed a way to get out of poverty. And so all that mattered to me is I had a paycheck. And then I came to Washington and I realized all that mattered to people was what job they had and what, you know, what administration they work for. Very foreign concept to me. In Texas, it was, did you, you know, could you join a country club? It was what summer camp did your kids go to? Country club, et cetera. Yeah. And it's just, I literally just cared about making sure I could pay the rent.

So yeah. And I just think sometimes people in Washington, they've had such different lives that they have time to sit around and bicker over everything, including... But I do feel like there's... And I try to explain this to people in my more honest conversations that I have about... There's a time for grabbing brass rings and for resume grubbing, I call it. You'll see plenty of resume grubbing on the very people

who are telling you not to resume grub. They did. That's how they got to the position where they're lecturing you about anything. I think that's fair. You need to work hard. I would not do what I do, which is watch a lot of TV. Oh, I totally disagree. I'm a professional streamer and it's very enriching to my life. It does. Okay. I know. No, that's all I do now. I'm saying in my 20s, don't watch TV, work hard and make sure you have a healthy mental health, but realize at some point, if all you care about is collecting the next job, you're going to plateau inevitably and you're going to be miserable. This is the Arthur Brooks from Strength to Strength book. I think it's so, so good because it is. It's like, look, you've done this. You did it for your 20s and your 30s.

Good for you. But all of that's going to have diminishing returns. And I pick on John Kerry, who I've never met, and I do not know. But he seemed like someone who based his whole life

around trying to become president of the United States. And he didn't get it. And I just wonder if he like thinks he's a failure in some regard when like... It worked for Joe Biden. It worked for Justice Kagan. I do feel like Elena Kagan spent her whole

life for this job and she got it. But she's one person. And I feel like that with parents. Right. And there's hundreds who didn't and somehow are unhappy. And there's hundreds and thousands of millions of parents who do everything they can. And most of the time, it will fail to try to turn their children into something they want. And every once in a while,

you'll create this perfect robot. You get Tiger Woods. Yeah. Sarah, are there days where you get home and you feel like you failed at both work and parenting and wifing? Oh, yeah. That's good every day. Well, I mean, it's just a question of how you fail and how you deal with failure and how you try to adjust. So there's never a perfect day. I have three kids. They're five, three, and one. I have a husband who also has a very active job.

He also does Supreme Court appellate and also trial stuff at a small firm. And we have a dog. We have lots going on. Well, and let's be clear. Sarah literally hangs up on me all the time. And I just, she just... I mean, sometimes it's like, sorry, but I got heat on.

Like, I gotta go. No, she just, we're talking substance and the phone just hangs up. And I'm like, you know, she's just lucky because it doesn't even phase me. She literally just hangs up on me. And I just, okay.

I'll be like, Lisa, I gotta go. Like, you know, Allie, our three-year-old is like, it's yeah, it's like, she's here, like gotta go. So Lisa is very understanding when like, she knows it's not because I hate her. What are you gonna do? Someone needs my attention desperately. I'm making dinner, it's on fire.

You know, there is no perfect day. The days are, I think like, it's nice that I can be, there is no perfect day. The days are, I think like it's nice that I can make it. Lisa knows that this is like how my life is. And that you, like the joy of being a parent is also figuring out how to rearrange your life around your kids in a way that lets you do things on a different schedule. And it's not always great, but it's also like fun, actually.

And I will say that this just does play into, because I've been teaching now with Paul Clement, I think for five or six years, and we teach year round. We teach both at law school and college. And Paul, I've learned so much from Paul. Paul is very doctrinal. I mean, he's brilliant, thinks cases all have rhyme and reason. And I think it's all about facts and reality and the equities. But we do have these wonderful different approaches to the law. And I think part of it is just our personality is that Paul is a true intellectual. And I'm more someone who likes pop culture and keeping it real. And so I just look at cases a little bit differently. You know, I try to brief the law, but I always think these, whatever judges or justices are real people with real

emotions. And, um, you know, we just have different approaches to the way we advocate. Uh, both, we have a lot of fun, um, but we just have very different approaches and it's wonderful. Like I, I love, I love the, you know, Paul and I talk about cases and how we do oral argument, very different, but fun. Can I ask, I know we're running out of time, but there's a contingent of our audience that has been underserved. And that is the baked contingent who just heard that there's a CBD case at the Supreme.

And so tell us about the CBD case because dude, what's going on? Sarah, you can take it. We have, I think, four, just, I think, four really fun petitions, but the CBD is one that speaks to me as a consumer of CBD. I think the first and most important fact is this is not necessarily for the big audience due to the fact that CBD is 0% THC. Usually it is lawful under federal law.

And it's a case that is dear to my heart as like the doctrina half of this duo because I love RICO cases and cases about like, how can you be injured under this statute that has been harnessed into something that everyone seems to be able to sue under. And it's essentially a product defect claim

that has been fashioned into a RICO case. Like, you know, the claim is the person took a supplement that was CBD. It turned out that it was not allegedly THC-free, failed a drug test, lost the job. And so the question is, can you have that be an injury under RICO, despite the fact that RICO bars personal injuries as cognizable?

So I think it's a fun case on doctrine. But wait, David. David, there's more fun cases. We have to run through a couple more of these cert petitions because they are really fun. The bribery, whether if you bribe someone after the fact, is that a quid pro quo bribe? You give them money after the fact, not bribe them.

Whatever, Lisa, we know you're the advocate. But if you bribed them after the fact... That's the question presented. It's a gratuity, not a bribe at that point. Yes, just that's a great case. So it's a gratuity. And again, think about how it works for campaign finance. It's like if you can construe literally everything

as an after the fact payment, which it works for campaign finance. It's like, if you can construe literally everything as an after-the-fact payment, which is true of campaign finance, true of campaign donations, all sorts of other stuff, including the facts of this case involving the mayor of an Indiana town, what's left? If the government is not held to, quote-unquote, pro-poor bribery, the floodgates kind of open.

And that's what the Fifth Circuit has said. The court loves this. They love Section 18 U.S.C. 666. They love public corruption type cases. I mean, who does not 666? Like, it sounds like there might be something wrong with this. I mean, public corruption is great. You'll have Jack Daniels as a client,

but now you also have Starbucks as a client. You have this really interesting NRLB case, but is it the first time that pumpkin spice lattes have made an appearance in a cert petition, Sarah? Sarah and I... Go ahead, Sarah. Yes. And they're really on my mind because it's fall and we are huge fans of Starbucks in basically all aspects. But the case is also just a fascinating administrative law issue about when can the NLRB get injunctions?

Does it have to play by the rules that everyone else gets for injunctions, or do they get a special rule? And this is why Sarah's into the SEC case. But the question I have is, given that I assume your offices are filled with Jack Daniels now and Starbucks, can we assume that y'all occasionally, after hours, combine all of this? Yeah, Sarah and I met at Starbucks.

And I remember the first summer I went away working for Sarah because I took her to coffee every day. I actually gave her a very large Starbucks gift card to make sure she could pay for her Starbucks habit. The Starbucks gift card was fake. If you can't have... Was that a gratuity or a second pass? It was a bribe. It was a bribe.

Also a gratuity. We're huge, huge, huge, huge Starbucks. My dog loves the puppuccinos there. And yeah. It's a good thing there's a Starbucks right across the street from us. We do have a bunch of, you know, I do love fun cases. I do love energy cases with energy. Sarah likes the

doctrine. I like the fun facts. And this will be the duo that we're watching this term, all the terms coming, many terms yet to be. Thank you guys so much for joining us and all of the billable increments that you have spent with us this morning. Much, much morning. Thank you for not

trashing my arguments. Thank you for not trashing my arguments. No, seriously. If you had heard our conversations about your arguments, I think you would be quite pleased. You know what's funny, though? Because David and I talk about this offline sometimes, because sometimes someone will give a bad

argument. You know, maybe it's their first time arguing maybe it's their not their first time no i've seen i've heard a lot of bad arguments and the like david and i will talk about whether um to to mention that on the podcast and i think we have a few rules here right like generally speaking um you don't trash other people like you don't know them you don't know what their day was what happened that morning or that night. Maybe it just didn't go their way. Maybe they had an off date. Maybe they didn't.

Maybe that's just them. In which case, why do you need to trash them? They know it was bad. No, and we make mistakes too. People make mistakes. Yeah. And same thing with law students. Try very hard not to...

Some law student publishes something that's not good or crazy. It's like you don't need to go after a law student by name. You know, you can take on their arguments. It's, well, it's social media though. It's very easy to go on Twitter and, you know, and just say things. But I do think podcasts have an enormous influence

on law students. I don't know any that don't listen to this one. It just, the podcaster... Oliver Zimmer, you're the favorite podcaster. No, they have an enormous influence. Just so you know, I tried, I offered to, when I heard how much money Neal Katyal was making, I offered Paul to do a podcast with Paul

and he resoundingly rejected me. And so Paul and I will not be doing a podcast. I offered to split 80-20 with him and he said no. Wow. Wow. I hope you guys are making split 80-20 with him and he said no. Wow. I hope you guys are making as much. Yeah, yeah. Whatever. No.

Paul won't do it. Well, you know, after now, Canon is bragging about being next to Taylor Swift and Aaron Rodgers because he represents the NFL. And you guys are just getting

some pumpkin spice lattes. I feel like the Lisa-Sarah duo, like maybe y'all need a podcast. Yeah, Paul won't. I think we would break the internet. And by we, I mean Lisa. Yeah.

Well, if Dahlia Lithwick hates it, then... I don't know what to say. You guys are the best. Thank you. We really enjoyed it. David, thank you for putting up with us, our little three against one. I loved every minute of it.

We're two against two. It's Tennessee versus Texas. I'm not sick by that. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. All right.

Well, hopefully we can buy y'all some pumpkin spice lattes in the future.