Strict Scrutiny - A Court of Drugs and Guns

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

Kate, Leah, and Melissa break down the oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a Second Amendment case which challenges a law prohibiting “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing a firearm. Then, they cover two truly heinous shadow docket rulings–a case out of New York where SCOTUS’s conservatives seem to have found an impermissible racial gerrymander they believe in, and another on the outing of transgender children–before speaking with California Attorney General Rob Bonta about standing up to the Trump administration on issues like tariffs, federal law enforcement overreach, and antitrust. They also pour one out for Krispy Gnome’s (née Kristi Noem) generationally awful tenure at the Department of Homeland Security. This episode was recorded live at the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco.Favorite things: Kate: This judicial order in Urquilla-Ramos v. Trump Leah: Upcoming Sarah J. Maas books; Melissa’s upcoming book (link below) Melissa: [REDACTED] Preorder Melissa’s book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for separation of church and state. Since the nation's founding, the values of religious liberty and pluralism have been central to the American identity. These values are now under accelerated attack. The government has no authority to pick and choose which religious beliefs to promote and which to marginalize. Religious freedom for only some is religious freedom for none. The Trump-Fance administration's Religious Liberty Commission is pursuing a culture of Christian nationalism that seeks to divide and isolate people across our nation. The fatally flawed way this commission was assembled makes clear that the predetermined outcome

isn't just un-American, it's against the law. The Trump-Fance administration has failed to uphold our country's proud religious freedom tradition, and we will hold them accountable, be part of the movement that's pushing back and standing up for freedom. Register to attend today at thesrf.org. Mr. Chief Justice, may it please support. It's an old joke, but when I argue, man, argue. against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.

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 off our legs. Hello, Bay Area.

We asked about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Melissa Murray. I'm Kate Shaw. And I'm Leah Littman. West Coast, best coast. We are finally here. And I can't tell you how excited we are. We are so excited. I want you to know that I wanted to call this tour the LA Face with an Oakland booty tour. I know, it's catchy. It's catchy. I was outvoted. some people thought it would not be decorous.

And I have just three words for those people. Just the tip. I own that. Anyway, this is the bad decisions tour, and you can't go wrong talking about the Supreme Court and calling something the bad decisions tour, because you know bad decision season will soon be upon us because this court truly cannot help themselves.

And because they cannot help themselves, it means we have an absolutely fantastic live show in store for you tonight. Sometimes what's bad for the country is good for our podcast, and this is one of those times. So we are going to cover some recent oral arguments, including an epic Scotis debate in a case about drugs and guns on the original meaning, I shit you not, of the term drunkard. Because that is what passes for constitutional law on this Supreme Court. And remarkably, this was not a case about Pete Hegeseth. Alcohol and or controlled substances may end up being a theme for this show because we also have to cover some recent shadow docket orders. But that's not all.

In addition to covering oral arguments and the shadow docket, we are also going to have a little Kiki with an AG. And no, I am not talking about one Pamela Joe Bondi. I mean a real AG, not a real housewife. That's right. California, your attorney general, Rob Bonta, is in the house. And to close out, as always, we will do a little legal news and end with our favorite things. One of them is you.

All right, so we're going to start with the big oral argument recap. So after a very long hiatus, the court heard oral arguments in three cases last week, but we're just going to focus on one of them. United States versus Hamani, a second amendment challenge to a law that prohibits, quote, unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms. Here, the government is suggesting that this unlawful user language covers someone who is a habitual user of marijuana, which is still under federal law, even if not in many states, a controlled substance. Remember that in NYSERPA versus Bruin, the Supreme Court turned the Second Amendment

into a vehicle for originalist hotboxing. Brune declared that firearm restrictions are constitutional only if the government can show that the restriction is consistent with the nation's tradition of firearm regulation, which the court elaborated requires the government to identify a historical analog to modern-day gun regulation. The court requires those seeking to promote gun safety to show that restrictions on modern firearms are the same as the kind of restrictions that our founding fathers

would have used to restrict muskets. Right. The jokes write themselves. It's unhinged. It's absolutely unhinged. But the thing is, it's so inhinged that sometimes even the court agrees that it's unhinged, at least sometimes. So you'll recall

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

and there weren't any at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, which meant that under Bruin, the challenge law about disarming domestic abusers should have been invalidated. But... But the court got cold feet. So because Brett Kavanaugh is the father of daughters, and also the first justice to have a chambers composed entirely of women clerks, that is actually true, though irrelevant, like the father of daughters bit,

he and some of his fellow Republican appointees got squeamish about putting firearms in the hands of individuals credibly accused of domestic violence, even if that's where their own logic should have led them. So the court leaned further into the hotboxing aspect of the originalist hotboxing and said, we're just going to do a vibe check on this gun control measure. And as it turned out, the vibes were immaculate. Rahimi suggested that the restriction on domestic abusers was basically like the founding era surety laws that required certain people to post bonds before riding armed. Sure. Fast forward to the Hamani argument. So the justices and the advocates were trying to figure out if they were supposed to be applying the Bruin version of the Bruin test, which requires a pretty similar historical analog, a historical twist.

if you will, or if they were supposed to be applying the Rahimi version of the Bruin test, which just requires some hand-waving and vibe checking, right? So which one? Well, so the court ended up being more open to this Second Amendment challenge than I thought they might be, perhaps because they think another statute that prohibits possession by addicts will suffice to disarm people they think should be disarmed. And so this case gave the amosexuals on the Supreme Court, the opportunity to really indulge in their amosexual fantasies and ensure themselves that they are so committed to the Second Amendment, they will invalidate firearm restrictions that are applicable even to people they don't like. Now, the two biggest narks on the Supreme Court,

the Chief Justice and Sam Alito, were friendly to the government, but I didn't hear a clear majority to uphold this law? I thought, since we're just sort of starting with high-level impressions, this felt a lot to me like the 2005 case Gonzalez versus Raich, which maybe the law students in the crowd will remember, that's a case where the conservatives were very cross-pressured between various items on the kind of conservative jurisprudence wish list. So the case states back to much earlier in the country's marijuana legalization journey. It was a California case in which the feds were trying to go after cancer patients who were allowed to grow marijuana for personal use under the state's compassionate use law. So the case kind of pitted the desire to limit federal

power, specifically under the Commerce Clause, against the desire to take a maximally punitive position as to kind of all drugs, even medical marijuana. So the anti-drug sentiment carried the day with enough conservative justices back in 2005 that they upheld the federal law. Here, I think I agree with Leah that the Second Amendment enthusiasm may win out. I just want to say someone who has never done any kind of, kind of drug. And I see, I'm dead serious. I've never done anything. The only ingestion I have done has been passively walking through Sprow Plaza in Berkeley. I've never done anything. I'm as straight lace as they come. But I, as someone who's never done any of these things,

was a little taken aback by the justices apparently very deep knowledge of certain controlled substances. Just going to say that some of the hypotheticals were incredibly specific. I also want to shout out Justice Jackson, who stays on her hustle. Every Second Amendment case, she continually points out how backwards and manipulable the Bruin test is. And in this particular oral argument, she repeatedly pointed out the inconsistency in the federal government's approach to this case, Hamani, and another Second Amendment case that was heard this term, Wolford. So, Wolford involved a Hawaii law that prohibited concealed carry on private property unless the property owner specifically authorized it.

And in Wolford, the federal government said that all of the historical laws prohibiting poaching and hunting on private property were just too different from the challenge Hawaii law to count as historical analogs under Bruin. Weird. But here in Hamani, the federal government is now arguing that laws prohibiting vagrancy, which, to my knowledge, has absolutely nothing to do with the possession of a gun. These are historical analogs to the law prohibiting firearm possession by those who unlawfully use controlled substances. So historical twin here, no historical twin there?

Right. I've got it. That sounds exactly right. This is why we call it originalist hotboxing. The justices light up the Federalist papers, the statute of Northampton, and some Blackstone, and ask whether a gun control measure has good vibes or bad ones. An approach that is totally unmoored from anything approximating law, and yet they insist on. So my take on this case is that I actually, I don't agree that they're necessarily going to, this is going to be, a win for the Second Amendment. I think there's a good chance that they will invalidate the statute,

but I think they may do so on due process grounds, the view that the statute is unduly vague and doesn't give enough notice about what is actually prohibited and who is targeted. So maybe, I don't know. Anyway, we should highlight some of the notable quotables from this argument. And I'm just going to say, from jump, the new DEI, by which I mean Dix, ex-husbands, and imbeciles, It's a great line. You can clap. Someone tell her meet Dylan. All right. The new DEI had a moment straight out of the gate.

So there was an exchange between the deputy solicitor general who is arguing in favor of the law and Justice Gorsuch. So let's roll that tape. Bichel Drunkard, the American Temperance Society back in the day, said eight shots of whiskey a day. Only made you an occasional drunkard. We have to remember the founding era, if you want to invoke the founding era. To be a habitual drunkard, you had to do double that. Okay? John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day.

James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of a user of alcohol. He only had three or four glasses of wine a night. Okay? Now we know why the Georgetown Prep Squad really wants. wants to be originalists. But basically, Neil Gorsuch wants to know, what's the original meaning of hammered?

Would James Madison have concluded that you were totally shit-faced when you threw back a few and included a journalist in your signal group chat? And Neil, if you're listening, I want to know, am I doing the originalism, right? Maybe we shouldn't call it original as hotboxing, but original's beer pong or Scotus Thunderstruck. We're still workshopping those, but they really were luxuriating in the idea that the founders were fratros. It was sort of like, since we do think they may be listening.

Maybe some of them heard Leah on a recent episode described the current administration, which is a great line, which I will repeat, as government by the manosphere, of the manosphere, and for the manosphere. And the justices thought, yes, yes, this is the way. Basically, animal house, but make it constitutional. Toga, to go, no.

No, no gun. I can't you? I do not want to see any of the Minatoga. Fair. To strike a serious note for one minute, though, like part of the reason everyone drank so much in ye oldy days was that we didn't have real water filtration or purification yet. And so alcohol was a lot safer to drink than water a lot of the time.

And because this seems to be the reality that secretary, Bill DeBair slash raw milk, is to bring in another cabinet secretary, is earnestly trying to try. to cultivate, maybe it is time or soon will be time for all of us to hit the casks. Although, for the record, we haven't tonight, just sugar, which is our drug of choice. There was a real frat bro undercurrent to the argument, and the Georgetown prep alums brought their usual sea game to the occasion.

Take a listen to Neil's fellow Georgetown prep alum, Brett Kavanaugh. In response to Justice Alito, I think you said that drugs are distinct from alcohol for Second Amendment purposes, although there's some similarities. Is that accurate? Yes, and I would say that, yes, I can elaborate. Please elaborate. Yes, that is Brett. I like beer, Kavanaugh, begging the federal government to make a case for why there's a difference between people using drugs and people using alcohol. It's almost like he's personally invested. Almost. Almost. This episode is sponsored by Better Health. Ladies, existing in a government of the Manosphere, by the Manosphere, and for the Manosphere is a lot. It seriously feels

like every single day brings a new reminder or new way the culture, law, government society, or making it harder on women, or just don't value us, which makes it all the more important to support and celebrate women and all that they carry in their many roles. International Women's Day is in March, and it's a moment to celebrate women's strength and progress while also recognizing how much they carry every day. BetterHelp wants to remind women how much they matter, and that therapy offers a space for them to take care of themselves in the way they deserve. So they're encouraging us all to take a moment to celebrate a woman in your life, say something kind or affirming to them. BetterHelp invites you, listeners, to pause and reflect on the roles they play, the expectations

placed on them and the pressures they feel. And BetterHelp is there to support them and you to help create balance, set healthy boundaries, and support overall well-being for everyone. Better Help Help offers quality therapists. Better Help therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the United States. And they offer therapists who will work for you. BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences. And their more than 12 years experience in industry leading match fulfillment rate means they can, they typically get it right the first time.

But if you aren't happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist anytime from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally, and it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews.

Your emotional well-being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash strict. That's better H-E-L-P.com slash strict. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Sundays. Dog food often forces you to make a choice between fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve, but our dogs and us deserve to have it all. You can get the good without the hassle with Sundays.

Sundays was founded by a veterinarian and mom, Dr. Tori Waxman, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics. So she designed Sundays, air-dried, real food, made in a human-grade kitchen using the same and and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. I mean, dogs are our families. Every bite of Sundays is clean and made from real meat, fruits, and veggies with no kibble. That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers. Compared to kibble or other brands out there, Sundays invests 50 times more in its ingredients to ensure premium quality because your dog deserves food made with care, not in the interest of cost cutting. And the best part? You just scoop and

serve. No freezer, no thawing or prep, no mess. Just nutrient-rich, clean, food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days, so you get more of them to share it together. As you all know, I'm obsessed with my dog, Stevie, and intent uninsuring she is the healthiest, goodest girl because she has to live forever. And as she gets older, that unfortunately means I've got to watch her weight in how much she's eating, so she can stay active and stay healthy. One of the great things I've noticed about Sundays for dogs is I can feed Stevie good portions without her getting overweight, and I can put the food because it's hard food in kibble toys so she can enjoy it for longer. And she's still getting the goods, the good stuff, the quality ingredients.

If it's good enough for Stevie, I mean, it's gold. She is my golden girl. Make the switch to Sundays. Sundays for Dogs.com slash strict 50 and get 50% off your first order or you can use code strict 50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundaysforogs.com slash strict 50. Sunday strict 50 or use code strict 50 at checkout. Things only devolved from there. In fact, it got so weird. We're going to play a little game where we invite you, our listeners and audience, to try to guess which justice brought up which drug during the argument.

We'll pose the question, you think of the answer, and then we'll tell you which justices actually had which drugs on their minds. Okay, first. Which justice invoked anabolic steroids? If you guessed,

Coach Kavanaugh, and I heard a few, sorry, you're wrong. That was a good guess. It was a good guess. Okay, justice for Brett Kavanaugh, okay. It was Clarence Thomas. who brought up the Roids.

So, real talk. I thought this was so helpful for contextualizing his concurrence slash rant in SFFA versus Harvard. I just thought he was an older black man mad that he couldn't get the younger black woman on the court to sign on to his program of completely dismantling affirmative action. But in fact, he may just have been raging. They do have that effect. Or both. All right. Next question.

Which Justice brought up Ambien? Okay, I heard some in the audience say Barrett. Now, Justice Sotomayor was actually the first to bring up Ambien, but it was was Justice Barrett who really dug into it. In fact, in fact, she offered the following hypothetical. Justice Sotomayor asked you about someone who takes Ambien to sleep. So let's assume that someone takes their spouse's Ambien prescription. The spouse takes it too lawfully with the prescription,

but then, you know, you take it unlawfully because you break into your spouse's ambient jar. First question. Why is there a jar of Ambien in your house? It doesn't come in a jar, right? Are you like cookies come in a jar? Ambien does not come in a jar. So girl, what is happening in your home? She brought up Ambien four separate times

after Justice Sotomayor did. She also referenced both Adderall Anne Ritalin repeatedly. So that was actually, again, very revealing to me. So she offered a hypothetical that involved a college student who takes his roommate's Ritalin twice a week because he thinks it will help with exams. That is a quote.

To which I say, ma'am, that is a very specific hypothetical. The details are really what kind of give it away. You could have been very general about that. You could, and yet. Amy was also the first justice to bring up Zanny or Xanax. Okay, one other drug or drugs. Cocktail, as the case may be, which justice decided to invoke the prospect of a combination of

meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Whoa. Why did everyone know that? Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm low-key offended that Sam Alito got more applause than any of us. Okay. They were clapping because they knew the answer.

Okay. They listened to this podcast. And I just want to say that all of his opinions make much more sense now. Okay. Leah said that would be the last one, but I actually want to add one more, which is sort of a compound question. So who brought up ayahuasca?

And then who seemed to protest a little too much in disclaiming any specific knowledge of that drug? Two-part question. Wait, wait, wait. They know. They know. They know. So Justice Kagan did bring up the ayahuasca first.

And I actually think this is one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments of the argument. So just as Kagan described ayahuasca as a, quote, very, very, very intense hallucinogen. Okay, I just want to say, I just want to say if I worked with Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, I would also be interested in very, very, very intense hallucinogens. You can sort of hear the longing in her voice very, very, very intense. Like, am I hallucinating now, please? If I worked with them, I would be living in Sparral Plaza.

So Justice Kagan first brought up the ayahuasca, and she also, I think, went to great pains to explain that, quote, I don't know a lot about this drug. I'm assuming you don't know a lot about this drug. So what I'm going to tell you about this drug, let's just assume it's the truth about this drug. You say so, Elena. That was pretty funny,

but it was even more hilarious that after going all in on Ambien, Xanax, Ritalin, and Adderall, and Robitussin too. Justice Bairt was like, ayahuasca? I have never heard of the drug. Is that real? Girl, be real. If we are allowed to add one more drug to the list,

I have to say, Neil Gorsuch threw out the word gummy with surprising familiarity. Fluency, right? Yeah. It just tripped from his tongue. And then he immediately hastened to add the word bear as if to dispel any suggestion

that he is familiar with dispensary lingo. Now, it might not be doing coke off the toilet, but I did bring us some gummy bears to do on the podcast. stage. Like I said, I've never done this. These are real gummy bears. This is big for Melissa.

Just like actual gummy bears. All right, because we are nothing, if not, fair and balanced, I do want to say, though, as to some of the drugs that we were just mentioning, the lawyer for the Solicitor General brought up the drug in the first instance. So they didn't necessarily just conjure out of thin air, all of the hypoes that we just walked through. still, their fixation on certain drugs was curious. You're being way too generous.

Like, she opened the door, they ran through. The solicitor general did not bring up a jar of ambian. Waska. No one was talking about ayahuasca. No. Anyways. Okay. So the drug-fueled flavor of the Hmani argument

seemed to bleed into some of the court's shadow docket shenanigans. By which we mean, the court released two shadow docket orders that were clearly written under the influence. You all know the shadow docket. This is your shadow docket on drugs. So the first possibly drug-influenced order came in a redistricting case out of New York, where the U.S. Supreme Court paused a state court ruling that had invalidated the sole Republican-held congressional seat in New York City. So in Staten Island, because of course, and also part of Brooklyn. So the state court concluded that the district lines violated the state constitution because they diluted the voting power of black and Hispanic voters.

The court then ordered the state to redraw the district, which would have turned a safe Republican seat into a more competitive one. And of course, the Supreme Court would not let that happen because racial discrimination. All right. This court may actually have identified finally an illegal racial gerrymander. Remember, racial gerrymandering is when district. are drawn in ways that consolidate political power in ways that disadvantage minority groups. And what is the impermissible racial gerrymander that the court may have identified in this particular circumstance? It's the fact that the New York trial court decision ordering the state

to draw a different set of maps that didn't dilute the voting power of minority voters. That's the racial discrimination that the court finds impermissible. Now, to be very clear, This court did not conclude that it was racial discrimination when the Trump Department of Injustice begged the state of Texas to redraw new districts mid-cycle and gerrymander away majority-minority districts where minorities voters could elect the voters of their choice. Instead, they chose to save their powder for this particular instance. Yeah. Now, the court's order in the New York case is unexplained. Hence our caveats about possible racial gerrymander and whatnot. We don't know why these goblins paused the state court ruling.

But when you consider the redistricting cases from California, Texas, and New York together, the punchline seems to be that partisan gerrymanders are fine. But once you start trying to remedy racial gerrymanders, where minority groups are underrepresented, that is a bridge. too far. There was one writing from one justice who voted for the stay, and it was from Friend of the Pod, Sam Alito. He was definitely hopped up on something in this concurrence. So he declared that it is, quote, unadorned racial discrimination to create a new congressional district for the express purpose of ensuring that, quote, minority voters, which was in scare quotes,

are able to elect the candidate of their choice. Ah, yes. we cannot have minority voters getting to cast meaningful votes to elect candidates who will represent their interests. Now, if that logic sounds ominous to you, then you know Sam Alito, and you've probably been listening to this podcast. So effectively, Sam Alito is suggesting that any race-conscious redistricting, including efforts to remedy the opportunity to lock minority voters out of power, that's the real racial discrimination that we have to address. And if you follow, yes, hiss, because it's terrible. If you follow that logic, then that will likely doom whatever shards remain of the Voting Rights Act, which is still up for grabs in a pending case before this court, Louisiana versus Calais. And at this point, I can just imagine Clarence Thomas sitting in his land yacht in a Walmart parking lot,

reading Justice Alito's statement and chortling to himself, yes, Paduan, I have taught you well. Justice Sotomayor's dissent for the three Democratic appointees wrote, quote, the court's 101 word unexplained order can be summarized in just seven. Rules for thee, but not for me. Yeah. As Justice Sotomayor noted, in other cases, the Supreme Court, court has paused federal court orders that had invalidated voting restrictions on the ground that federal courts should not interfere with election rules too close to an election. That's the so-called

Purcell principle. But that's exactly what the court did. They did exactly what they tell federal courts that they shouldn't do, which is to change election rules when the election is looming or very close. So from what I can get from this, the true meaning of the Purcell principle is that it's always too close to an election to do something that would result in a multiracial democracy or wins for the Democratic Party, but it's never too close to an election to do something that would benefit the Republican Party. Am I getting this right? I think, yeah. Am I doing the gerrymandering right? Yeah, great. Okay. Yeah, and that is the kind of emerging, I think, lesson from the court's cases in this area. And as bad as previous cases have been in some ways,

the New York case is actually a new low. And that's because the court did not have authority to intervene in this case at all. So by law, the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction, the power to hear cases from a state court, which this case arose from, once the state's highest court that could have ruled on the issue has done so, and that did not happen here, which means the court didn't have authority to issue this order,

and yet they did it anyway. In the concurrence that Justice Alito wrote that we were just talking about, I think he arguably really misrepresents the background suggesting that New York's highest court had refused to intervene, even though they hadn't been asked to rule after the intermediate appellate court ruled here. But he basically, I think in a somewhat misleading way, described the procedural background, and then said the court's intervention here was just fine because it's just like other cases, including one in which the court

intervened to protect Nazis' right to march in Skokie, Illinois. Like, that's the best case that he could find. But whatever you make of that decision, The state courts in that case had denied relief. That wasn't what happened here. Yeah. So I have a controversial take I would like to offer. And it's this. Is Sam Alito the real Pete Hegeseth of the Supreme Court?

People might think it's Brett Kavanaugh. I'm not sure, because Sam's opinion here honestly had echoes of Pete Hegeseth standing in front of the lectern firing off. are no rules of engagement. We are not going to abide by those woke rules. And basically admitting to war crimes in front of the entire world, like it just coded Sam Alito to me. I don't know. For instance. Yeah. All right. We haven't even scratched the surface of the shadow docket. The shadow

docket is the gift that keeps on giving. It takes a lot more than a little hypocrisy from this court to really kick off that decision season. So the court's Republican justices decided that get things started this year by making substantive due process great again. And they did that in a case called Mirabelli versus Bonta. Yes, that Bonta.

So this is a shadow docket decision arising from a case here in California. And let me give you just a quick refresher. Substantive due process refers to the idea that the Constitution protects rights that aren't specifically and explicitly listed in the Constitution's text. So these include unenumerated rights like the right to an abortion.

Remember that one? It was a good one. It was a good one. Also the right to contraception, don't get attached. Anyway, in Dobbs, the court overruled Roe versus Wade, ending the constitutional right to choose an abortion and making clear that going forward, any unenumerated right that would be understood

to be entitled to constitutional protection, had to be one that was quote unquote deeply rooted in the history and tradition of this country. And this past week, the guys in the Dobbs majority decided that one right that is deeply rooted in our history and tradition is, parents' right to be notified if their child identifies as transgender at school,

effectively to have the school out their children as trans. And they did so in a gratuitous, intuitively nasty opinion. So these ghouls could have avoided using pronouns. Instead, they chose to use she and daughter over the child's objection. And in addition to the court's hypocrisy on substantive due process, which Melissa was just talking about, Justice Kagan, who penned a lengthy descent, called out the court's hypocrisy on the issue of parental rights between this case and the Scrametti case. So recall that in last year's decision in Scrimetti, the court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. There, although it was asked to do so, the court opted not even to weigh in on whether the Constitution protects parents' right

to ensure that their child can obtain gender-affirming care without undue interference from the state. So refuse to even consider the parental rights question in Scrimetti, and here, on the shadow docket, decided to sashay in and declare that the Constitution does afford parents the right to have their child outed to them as transgender. The other thing that makes this really egregious is that this is obviously a major question of substantive importance, and they decided to issue this decision on the shadow docket rather than taking the opportunity to resolve it on the merits docket. And there are plenty of opportunities to do so on the merits docket. There are a number of petitions that are pending before the court that would have raised this issue. They could have waited for the Ninth Circuit to finish its consideration of this question,

but they were so impatient that they couldn't do any of these things. And they disagreed with every single court of appeals that has so far considered this matter. Yeah. So if the punchline of the Purcell principle is that it's always too close to an election to do anything that benefits multiracial democracy, but never too close to an election, to do things that benefit the Republican Party. This is now the punchline of substantive due process. Substantive due process is bad when abortion, but good when anti-trans.

Parental rights are unnecessary when the right is to support your trans kid, but they're an emergency requiring immediate action when the asserted parental right is to out your trans kid. As Justice Sotomayor said in the New York case, rules for thee, but not for me. And that, that is our update on one first street. Still sucks. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Mint Mobile. I don't know about you, but I like keeping my money where I can see it. Emotional support billionaires probably like that too. And Mint Mobile offers you a way to save money from the traditional big wireless carriers who make you overpay.

So maybe you can aspire to be an emotional support billionaire one day. Stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely to fix that. Mint Mobile is here to rescue you with premium wireless plans starting at $15 a month. All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. So you can chatter with everyone about what's going on at one first street. You can bring your own phone and number and activate with ESIM in minutes and start saving immediately. No long-term contracts, no hassle.

Ditch overpriced wireless and get three months a premium wireless service from MintMobile for $15 a month. If I was in the market for a new wireless plan, MintMobile is where I would go. If you like your money, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash strict. That's mintmobile.com slash strict. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month five-gigabyte plan required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full-price plan options available. taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Now I'd like to tell you about a new podcast,

The Briefing, with Michael Waldman. Michael is a former White House speechwriter, lawyer, and constitutional scholar. He leads the Brennan Center for Justice, which works to repair and strengthen American democracy across a range of issues, from gerrymandering to abuse of presidential power, from Supreme Court reform to corruption, and more. We've all worked with Michael and his team of experts, and we can tell you that no one understands these challenges better than they do. What makes that Brennan said are unique is that it's more than a think tank. It's focused on turning ideas into policy. And that's what we like about the briefing podcast. You're going to hear new ideas, but you're also going to learn about the strategies, the political fights and the dealmaking

that will shape the next phase of American democracy. If you care about American democracy, this is a podcast for you. You can listen and subscribe to the briefing with Michael Waldman, wherever you get your podcasts. For a change of pace and breath of fresh air, we'd like to talk to a lawyer who believes in the rule of law generally, not just selectively. Which is why we are delighted to bring onto the stage our very special guest for this show, your Attorney General, California, Rob Bonta. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the...

Honor to be here. We're thrilled to have you, and we do want to cover a lot of friends. We've got to jump right in by asking you to tell us. So we're recording on Friday. and yesterday you filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Yes. It sounds like the people of the city know that. But for the listeners who don't, can you tell us about that lawsuit?

Absolutely. And let me first say this was our 60th lawsuit that we brought in less than 60 weeks. We're bringing more than one lawsuit a week. We're winning repeatedly. We're winning 80% of the time. We're securing restraining orders and final judgments. And sometimes when we sue Trump just backs down and says, I give up. We've protected $200 billion of funding that California is owed.

It's our funding that Congress appropriated, the branch with the power of the purse. We're protecting constitutional rights, like voting rights and birthright citizenship. And this was our second case challenging Trump's unlawful tariffs. We had just won a prior case. Our AG coalition striking down his unlawful tariffs under the international AIPA. and International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and he is dead set on his commitment to unaffordability and to raising prices.

He is working overtime. He is stretching and reaching, even doing unlawful things to create tariffs that raise prices for him. Yes. I mean, it's shocking. He promised he was going to lower costs on day one. It stinks because he chickens out on everything else, and he refuses to chicken out on attacking affordability or tariffs.

He's fully committed. He's all in. He's going to finish the job. The job's not done yet. And so he brought another lawsuits on the day the Supreme Court issued their decision under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. And he has no basis to bring these tariffs.

This statute has never been invoked before. In 52 years of existence, never. And it's based on an archaic system, based on a balance of payments deficit analysis, and at a time when we had fixed, exchange rates instead of the floating exchange rate. So the bottom line is he's acted unlawfully again. He has no basis for this lawsuit. Congress has the power to tax tariffs are taxes. Trump can't issue these tariffs. So we went to court again to strike them down and fight for

affordability for Americans. And we should say, so obviously he lost big and naiba case in the Supreme Court. And, you know, one additional piece of legal news we haven't had a chance to cover is that the Court of international trade, right, after the Supreme Court ruled, issued a pretty sweeping ruling last week on the issue of refunds, basically finding that refunds are owed and the court's decision last year. And the CASA case about universal injunctions actually doesn't apply in the Court of International Trade. So according to that court, everybody, not just the particular plaintiffs who came to that court, is entitled to their refunds. And so I think that is probably, because the Trump administration is already saying it can't possibly comply,

that is likely headed back to SCOTUS. And I wouldn't be surprised if this Trade Act, Section 122 case is on a fast track as well. But, you know, so far he's striking out, and I think there's every reason to believe that he's going to keep striking out. I think he's going to continue to lose here. And look, he needs to give all the American businesses and American people who are hurt by his unlawful tariffs, who he victimized, give them refunds with interest, and do it immediately. And stop waiting, stop dragging your feet, give them the money that they're owed. You took it from them. And I do want to point out that this was in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. This was his centerpiece economic policy. There was a belief among some that

We might win at the lower courts. We might even win at the intermediate appellate court. But if you get to the U.S. Supreme Court, he's got three appointees there. They're going to rubber stamp him. And they didn't on this. But there was also the 401Ks of the justices. I'm not going to get to the reasoning and the rationale. But I like the outcome.

It's a good outcome. It's a right outcome. We also won on National Guard in California, Prop 50. We won on that all in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. And my staff will get nervous. as I say this because they don't never want me to predict what the court will do. But I think we're going to get a positive ruling on Lisa Cook and the Federal Reserve Board.

I think we're going to get a positive ruling on birthright citizenship. So we'll see how that goes, but we can and we do win in front of the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes. So you've already kind of begun to talk about how you, as a state, you know, are stepping up to the plate when the federal government is not only declining to protect people, but actively harming them. And we've talked about on the show the possibility of state prosecutions of federal immigration officers. Recently, it was reported that Mary Moriarty's office in Minnesota is investigating Colonel Lockjaw, I mean, Greg Bevino, after news, that a whistleblower alleged

that FBI forensic experts were ordered to stand down from processing the scene where Renee Good was killed because Cash Patel didn't want Good referenced as a victim. And I know your office has been doing a lot of this work. So could you tell us about some of what your office is doing to address federal law enforcement overreach and what states can do more generally on that front? Absolutely. You know, we've been standing up for accountability of federal officers

to make sure that they don't act with impunity. Make sure that they know, even though J.D. Vant says otherwise wrongly that they don't have absolute immunity. They don't? I mean, that's a fact. That's what the law says. Ouch. Ouch. Yeah, I said that to your face, Maloney. You said it to his face too.

I know, it's counted to my face too. We're both here at least. We don't claim him. We don't claim him. Fair. So we've been making it clear that there is accountability and that we're reserting the rights that we have and affirming the rights that we have as states,

as law enforcement officers, as prosecutors, to tackle crime that occurs in our states, even if a federal officer is the one committing it. We actually also joined, as an amicus, the Minnesota lawsuit, challenging the militarized occupation of their state based on equal sovereignty and state sovereignty grounds. And the governor and I issued a bulletin to all of our law enforcement community members here in California saying that if a federal officer commits a state crime on California soil and there is a victim

here in California, California law enforcement and prosecutors have the right to investigate, to prosecute, to secure a crime scene, to gather evidence. to do what we do, investigate and prosecute crime. And the fact that we have to say that is unfortunate, but we had to say that. And we even opened up a portal inviting members of the public to share with us information if they think a crime has been committed by a federal officer, oag.ca.gov.

Dot report misconduct, if you want to share anything that you may know or someone you know knows. And then we also believe that civil liability pathways are important, just like Section 1983 for local and state officers, what Bivens was supposed to be or used to be before it was weakened. There needs to be a civil pathway in California, stepping up to put a lot into place this year in that regard. I love it.

Chearing for Bivens and State Bivens. This is my kind of crowd. You mentioned affordability briefly. One of the things that's contributing to the inaffordability that's plaguing so many Americans is the federal government's refusal to enforce laws that would protect. consumers, including antitrust laws and laws that prohibit corporate

consolidation. We've talked a lot about this on the podcast. For example, last week, Leah alluded to the consolidation of the Manusphere Media in the hands of Larry Ellison and one of his large adult sons.

Yeah. He's a very tall man. It's purely descriptive. This is the Paramount Warner Brothers merger. But you also have some pending litigation against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. So I know there's a lot going on in the state, and we know you have pending cases.

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

exactly what you said it goes to affordability corporate consolidation has proven you know objectively historically that it raises costs so we have a role as a as a state to independently investigate and bring lawsuits when we believe that antitrust law is broken when there's anti-competitive conduct the federal government has long and traditionally been engaged in that role the FTC the US DOJ what they will do going forward TBD and some already determined that, you know, I think they've really withdrawn from that role. And so into that gap and into that void, we must step to continue to protect consumers.

And when there's corporate consolidation, you see prices going up, you see wages for workers going down. You see lower quality, less choice, less competition. And that is what we look at in these lawsuits. And so we're looking at that. It's public that we are with respect to Paramount Warner Brothers. We have, we're in court right now in the Southern District of New York on the Live Nation Ticket Master case. We're looking at other corporate consolidation possibilities and their impact on consumers. But this is about affordability.

And so it's not just Trump's tariffs that are raising costs. It's also his lack of enforcement of antitrust law allowing for corporate consolidation that raises prices for Americans. And that's wrong. Someone needs to do it. And California and the states are stepping into that void. Can I ask you to talk kind of generally about sort of coordination and collaboration? So you've now referenced a few times working with other states and other state AGs, whether it's National Guard, birthright citizenship, some of this anti-corporate consolidation work.

So can you just talk a little bit about those collaborations and sort of how, you know, as I tell my kids, teamwork makes the dream work? But like how does that work? And then can you also tell us like how my understanding is that this, some coordination has been happening even back. you know, as far back as 2024. So like when did you start deciding you were going to work together and what does that look

like? Absolutely. And there are now 24 Democratic Attorneys General across the country. There were 23 when we started. We had a pickup in Virginia last year. And we are all sort of independent sovereign officers in our state representing sovereign states and we've banned it together because

we think that we can be more impactful and deliver more to those who need it as a whole than we can as a sum of our parts and we do it voluntarily there's there's no leader we're all equals we've come together and we started preparing and thinking about what might come before the election knowing that we couldn't guarantee it wouldn't be trump and that we owed our constituents preparedness and readiness and a plan a plan of action if he took over so we we planned we charted we looked at all the campaign promises we read project 2025 you know he put in writing what he was going to do if he took office and so that horrible as the contents of project 2025 are it gave us an

ability to prepare and respond and plan and so we have like briefs and actions that are that are prepped and ready we just have to dot the eyes cross the tees press print and file it if it happens and we believe if he says he will do it we take him out his word we can't take the chance that he might not we have to be ready so I'm grateful that the 24 AGs have been working and preparing to get there. And one example, we were the first state in the nation where the National Guard was deployed and federalized. And we went to court, we got restraining orders

that were successful in preventing the deployment, and also preventing violations of the Posse Comitatis Act. And then Trump announced a plan to do this in D.C., and do it in Portland and do it in Chicago. And so our ability to share information, you know, we basically handed over our briefs and our best thinking and our strategy and gave it to our colleagues. And they used it as it could be helpful when they were fighting the same battle. And then the California National Guard was deployed from California to Oregon. You know, the day after the judge there had struck down the deployment of the Oregon National Guard.

And so I was on the phone with Oregon AG Rayfield and we were talking. I was at my mom's birthday brunch. and when she turned 88 and, you know, I stepped away to talk to A.G. Rayfield. So, but we really value, and I so value my colleagues who are in this fight together, who are helping each other, who are sharing information, who are bringing passion and commitment and talent and knowledge to the table. And we believe that we're really accomplishing some important things for the people of this country. So we also wanted to ask some more kind of personal questions.

We've talked a lot about... really personal questions. Not that personal. We've talked a lot about on the show how Brett Kavanaugh is really into being a father of daughters. So can you talk a little bit about what it's like

being a dad or father in these times? Yeah, you know, I love, and I'm so honored and privileged to be the Attorney General of the state, a state that's given me so much. It's a title I'll always cherish, but far from being, the most important title that I have. Most important titles I'll ever have will be husband to my wife, Mia, and father, to my three kids, Andres and Raina and Ileana. And often as a public elected official,

I have thought deeply about a decision I'm about to make, wondered if I'm doing the right thing, and I've often gone back to, can you explain what you did to your kids? And they'll understand it and believe Dad did the right thing, and they'd be proud. So I think, about a lot of what I do through that lens. And I worry about them. And so I look at a lot of my official work through the lens of a dad. I look at the safety work that we do

when we're trying to make online platforms and social media and AI safe for children. I think about them when we're doing our affordability work and making sure that there's more housing production in the state of California so that more people can pursue and realize the dream of home ownership. Some YMBs in the house. And I think about their rights and freedoms.

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

Her wife's Brazilian. I want to make sure there's a fair immigration policy and process. And they want to have a family someday. So I don't want their choices of who to love, where to live, if when and how to have a family, be taken away from them. And so that gives me motivation. It gives me passion. It gives me more energy when we're in these fights. Can I just say really candidly, like it is so grim in Washington, D.C. right now, and an elected official who sounds like that is just such an incredible breath of fresh air. So thank you for reminding us that public official public servants

should sound like this. Super governor. So, okay, maybe this is you know some of the last couple of answers you gave sort of stepped into this but I'm gonna maybe just ask explicitly things are grim as I just referenced at the federal level I don't think we can downplay just how bad how much damage that is going to be very hard to undo how much damage has already been done at the federal level and just the year and change of this administration

but you know we try all the time to find things to put our energy into and and places to sort of seize onto to find hope. And it sounds like there are lots of things that do that for you. But can you just talk a little bit for people who are finding it difficult right now, like that practice, like how you find sort of hope and places to put the rage and the kind of energy that a lot of us have right now? Yeah, for sure. You know, I am hardwired hopeful.

I'm just hopeful. And I'm a glass-half-full guy. and why? So many things give me hope right now. My team at the California DOJ gives me hope, and they are here in the house, by the way. So those particularly loud cheers, I think, are from them. And they're some of the most committed, passionate, talented attorneys that I know,

they do this for the work. They don't want the recognition. I want to recognize them. I want to thank them. I'm honored to be able to lead this office. I'm grateful that you're here. and shameless plug, we're hiring in our office. So if you want to be like them and join our team,

we have our job postings online. My Democratic Attorney General give me hope, the fight that they show, the commitment, you know, like in Minnesota, A.G. Ellison, in the middle of the toughest fight, standing strong, holding his ground, speaking truth. That gives me hope. Law firms that fight and don't cave, give me hope.

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

Midterms, upcoming midterms give me hope. The Trump pulling in the tank gives me hope. He's earned it. He deserves it. It's appropriate reflection of where he should be. The blue wave that's coming gives me hope. Say more about that. I mean, I got my crystal ball out today

and on the Supreme Court rulings on what's going to happen. But, you know, folks with good values and who care about the people are going to be taken over. And the folks are, they are not happy with where we are. And that shows up empirically in all the polls. And I think that's what's going to happen in the upcoming election. So that's my hardwired hopeful part. But I'll finally, I'll just say this.

You, us, we, the people, give me hope when we show up, when we are engaged, when we know we have power, when we are not hopeless, because we know we're not helpless, because we can do something about this moment and make tomorrow more fair than today. When we stay engaged, when we stay enraged about the abuses of power, and when we know that people power is the most potent power that there is in a democracy, the bosses of Donald Trump are not his billionaire buddies, they are not greedy corporations, they are you and me and us and we. And there are many chapters yet to be written in the story of the state, in the story of this country,

and we are going to write them. We will choose what happens next. We will choose what happens tomorrow. And so that gives me hope. And when people show up in crowds, when they show courage, when they show up for no kings rallies, and hands-off rallies to demand something from their government and to refuse to accept the unacceptable, that all gives me hope. So I know that we're going to get through this.

To me, it's inevitable. The one thing that is required is that we fight, is that we stay engaged. But if we do, I know we're going to be, we'll have it tomorrow that's more fair, more just, where the rule of law is intact, where we have separation of powers and rights and freedoms and checks and balances and all the things

that our country is founded on because we fought for them. And every leader and every person is called to say, step up. Sometimes the moment picks you. You don't pick the moment. And it is what you do in response. So a room full of

dedicated, committed folks, ready to fight, knowing that we can have a better tomorrow. That gives me hope. And I'm grateful to be here with all of you. That just warm my cold jaded heart. I think I'm going to, I'm going to go apply for a job at the California

Georgia. We're ready. No, no, sorry. Generally can't have her. audience please give it up to Rob Bonta your age. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by fast-growing trees. Did you know fast-growing trees is America's largest and most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers?

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

no green thumb required. Just quality plants you can count on. Plus, you can get ongoing support from trained plant experts who can help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants, and learn how to care for them every step of the way. I am not a great, let's say, home decor person. And I'm even worse when it comes to plants and yard work. If you pointed to a tree, I'd say that's a tree. Couldn't tell you more than that.

And I couldn't shop for plants to save my life. Fast-growing trees, however, makes it all easy. So I live in Michigan, which meant I focused on their Michigan collection. Seriously, they make it so easy. They even tailored the recommendations for where I live. And given my attitude toward landscaping, I knew I could easily pick items that would last the entire year and that wouldn't require a ton of care.

And there were so many options. I'm obsessed with lavender. and so ordering up sensational lavender plant made a ton of sense. You don't need a big yard or a lot of space. The experts at fast-growing trees have curated thousands of plants for every climate and growing zone. And every plant is backed by their alive and thrive guarantee, guaranteed to arrive healthy and ready to thrive in your yard.

Fast and easy ordering online, you just click, order, and grow from over 1,600 varieties of trees and plants. And with our plant experts on call, you can help plan your next project, find the right plants and learn how to care for them. Right now, they have great deals on spring planting essentials, up to half off on select plants. And listeners to our show get 20% off their first purchase when using the code strict at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at fastgrowing trees.com using the code strict at checkout. Fastgrowing trees.com code strict. Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use strict to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may

apply. Dare I say I feel hopeful? He is making the police power great again. That part where he said when he did things, he was like, you know, how could I explain this to my children? I was like, does DJT think about that? How would I explain this to John Jr.? This is just like it feels like government service at the federal level has been so debased. I know. To be reminded about what it is. That's what it should look like. Yeah. Yes. I feel like Kate. That's not bad, Melissa. It's okay.

It just feels so weird. It just feels so weird. Let's bring you back. Okay. And let's touch on some legal news. Oh, good. This will be bracing and sobering. Excellent.

Okay. Okay. All right, folks, we have talked a lot on this podcast about the executive orders targeting the law firms. And as the Attorney General noted, rather than settling with the administration, a few intrepid firms decided to challenge the orders,

and the courts invalidated those orders in every single case in which they were challenged. You know, as the Attorney General reminded us, you can't win if you don't fight. So those that fought actually all won. Hmm, anyway. Well, friends, early last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration decided that it wasn't going to appeal those lower court rulings. The government even filed motions to dismiss the appeals. And then wait for it.

J.K., the New York Times reported that DOJ said backsees, and they filed a motion to withdraw the motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeals. The law firm's unsurprisingly objected to DOJ's about-face. So we actually don't know, and maybe we actually don't know, and maybe we'll just talk through now, like, what do we think happen? Like, one possibility is the president just changed his mind after seeing kind of favorable coverage by places like the New York Times, praising the law firms that had challenged the orders targeting them.

Another possibility is that the Solicitor General, who has to approve decisions about whether to appeal, initially made the decision to stand down, and then informed the court of that decision, and then the Attorney General or the White House counsel overruled him. Like, those are possible. Regardless of the reason, this is all completely humiliating for the Department of Justice. Like, they should be humiliated.

Add it to the list. This is just the tip, as they say. But, you know, honestly, kind of just another average workday at the Department of Justice of sort of debasing and humiliating yourself. But actually a little bit worse than your average day. This was bad. Yeah, agreed. Speaking of another humiliating workday at a different federal agency, we are delighted to announce we have a new nickname.

The new nickname is Christy No More! Yes, beloved, Crispy Noam is out at DHS. After Trump, after Trump old yellered her. So easy. What can I say, folks? Karma is a bish poo. Anyway, the president announced on Truth Social, where else, that Nome will become a quote-unquote special envoy

to the shield of the Americas. And I was very surprised to learn that this is definitely a real thing and not part of the Marvel universe. Of course, to be very clear, the shield of the Americas, predictably is very villain forward. This is the regime's plan to occupy the entire Western hemisphere and summarily execute people. So very, very normal.

Yeah, you can be alarmed by it. It is alarming. But again, this is a story of failing up. And the best part of this failing up story was that when the Truth Social Post announcing her ouster hit the interwebs, Christy no more. was speaking at a press conference. And it was semi unclear if she even knew at the time she was speaking

that she had been fired. Awkward. But maybe this is exactly what a puppy murderer deserves. Justice for cricket. Justice for cricket. Cricket is like, tell Christy, I want her to know. I want her to know. It was me.

Always you, cricket. Yeah. Just to talk about that presser for a minute, at the press conference, Christine No More, misquoted, quoted, but actually misquoted Orwell. Because reading. We have to give her credit. I mean, ending a tenure at DHS that was marked by vicious lies and carnage by misrepresenting Orwell is incredible, top-tier, legendary, you have to hand it to her.

Yeah. It gets better. Oh, yeah. Because Trump announced that he intends to nominate Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma to replace no. Yep. No less evil, probably dumber, which is saying something. This is, after all, someone that is Christina Moore who was dignitized by Corey Lewandowski.

Glad you appreciated that one. Anyways, we thought we would take this opportunity to introduce you to the new nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security. Sir, this is a time, this is a place. You want to run your mouth? We can be two consenting adults and we can finish it here.

Okay, that's fine. Perfect. You want to do it now? I'd love to do it right now. Well, stand your butt up then. You stand your butt up. Oh, hold it. Oh, stop it. Is that your solution every poll?

Oh, no, sit down. You know, you're a United States senator. Act it. Let them fight. This is a time, this is a place. Of course, this is a man who has no space between his first and middle names. Like, of course, of course. It's a little on the nose to pick an MMA fighter to be your secretary of Homeland Security.

He actually was, right? Yeah, well, I mean, the record is debated. Some say he's, uh, he has a five to zero undefiored. undefeated record. Some say he's a three to zero undefeated record. I want to know where the other two plays like just two are missing. Like where? What happened? But he definitely fought. Yeah. And he won some he won some matches. Yeah. So that clip for folks who hadn't seen it before is the witness testifying as Teamsters president, Sean O'Brien. And then of course, Senator Bernie Sanders at the end shutting it down. And you want to know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. I mean, that guy was not backing down.

But I also, this was not, I don't think, I mean, the MMA matches and suggest as much as well, that this was not necessarily like a one-off. So last week, Mullen had this to say about a time that Senator Rand Paul was assaulted by a neighbor of his. People might remember this from a few years back. So Secretary-designate Mullen said, quote, I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did. I told him, him being Paul. I told him that to his face. Okay, bad enough, but guess who the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee is?

It's Rand Paul. But, I mean, obviously it's funny, but also this is like incredibly dark and disturbing, because between that and Senator Tim Shehey, evidently breaking a Marine veteran protesters' arm last week, it does feel very field of blood, right, the wonderful Joanne Freeman book about, you know, actual physical. A moment in which, like, the shedding of blood was, commonplace in the United States Congress, it feels like we are inching back toward that very dark place rather, rather quickly. All right, let's go back to Christine No.

Moore. Yeah. That was a great history lesson. Thank you. All right. In more tales of Christy No More, I just want to note that in what I am sure is a total coincidence, Community Pene, Chloe Lewandowski, is also reportedly out at DHS. According to a statement, the two of them are going to, quote, spend more time with their families.

Wink, wink, wing. Monogamy for thee, but not for me. I'm just going to call him Corey Lewandushki, a future assistant to the special envoy for the shield of the Americas. In order to commemorate the departure of these two legends from DHS, we wanted to play this from now, soon to be former Secretary No Moore's recent appearance before Congress. So, Secretary Noam, at any time during your tenure as Director of Department of Homeland Security, have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski? Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that we're going down and peddling tabloid garbage in this committee today.

And, ma'am, one thing that I would tell you is that he is a special government employee who works for the White House. There are thousands of them in the federal government. So, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair, you should be able to answer the question. What we do at the Department of Homeland Security. And without any hesitation, every single day is to protect the search. If someone is asking if you or any federal official is sleeping with their subordinate, that should be able to be. easiest. You should be wanting to answer that question. I love

that someone in the audience shares my discomfort with that. We played it as we were getting ready for the show tonight. And I was like hiding my face. I could not watch it. And I was like thinking there is a reason I don't watch reality television. Like I cannot handle that. Her husband was behind her. That's part of the reason.

I just, in case you missed it, one thing she didn't say in response to that question was no. She did not deny the allegations, and she was repeatedly asked. She's never beating these charges. Never. She repeatedly asked to do so.

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

It's a judicial order, actually, in a habeas case from West Virginia late last month that we haven't had a chance to mention on the show. And I just wanted to read a couple of sentences from it because I think it kind of crystallizes this moment, maybe better than any judicial opinion that I've read so far. So here is what this district court judge wrote. Quote, across the interior of the United States, agents of the federal government,

masked, anonymous, armed with military weapons, operating from unmarked vehicles, acting without warrants of any kind, are seizing persons and imprisoning them without any semblance of due process. The systematic character of this practice and its deliberate elimination of every structural feature that distinguishes constitutional authority from raw force,

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

And I think that this judge did a beautiful job of not sounding unhinged, calmly describing the flagrant violations of specific constitutional violations and the idea of a constitution without sounding unhinged. So I really salute that judge, and I wanted to share it with you. And then briefly, a handful of listeners that I've met recently. I was at Harvard Law School a couple of weeks ago, and I wanted to say hello to Jenna, Fee, Lucia, Taylor. Hannah, Jennifer, and the rest of the wonderful group I talked to at the Harvard Law Review.

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

So A.G. Banta mentioned that there are lawyers here from California DOJ wanted to give a special shout out to California DOJ's reproductive justice unit. And to at least one aspiring lawyer in the audience, Maya, I know this shout out isn't as exciting as getting one from Justice Sotomayor, but this one's for you and you can thank your dad, Jonathan, for the heads up. So I am also very excited that the book is coming out in two months. I'm excited. Me and my co-author, James Madison, are just really, really excited. No one is more surprised than James Madison than I'm as co-author. Never saw it coming. Truly. This week, I was on the road a lot. I was in Iowa at the beginning of the week, and I hung out with some really fantastic stricties at Drake Law School. Melissa, Anu, and Andrea, thank you so much

for the warm welcome to Iowa's fantastic. But I would be remiss if I didn't say that my absolute favorite thing this week is that my travels have taken me right here to one of my absolute favorite places and this amazing bay area weather because it sucks in new york right now absolutely sucks um there are some other real highlights of this trip that i want to highlight um first this morning one of my favorite things was when kate reported that she saw her first penis pump in the tenderloin it was like 11 o'clock in the morning it was like 11 o'clock in the morning I think it was being used. It's always at 11 o'clock in the morning, Kate.

Never changed, San Francisco. It's so great to be home in the Bay. I was in Oakland this morning. Love you, Oakland. I want to shout out my Berkeley Law. Former colleagues, always colleagues, who are in the audience tonight. And my homies from our dance floor in Albany, California,

who are here tonight as well. Strictney is a Cricket Media Production, hosted and Executive Produced by Leah Lippman, Melissa Murray, and me, Kate Shaw, Our senior producer and editor is Melody Raoul, Michael Goldsmith is our producer, Jordan Thomas is our intern, music by Eddie Cooper, production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt De Groat is our head of production. Thanks to our video team, Ben Hethcote, and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to strict scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube at Strict's Frutney Podcast, so you never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.