Strict Scrutiny - A New Term of Supreme Chaos

Episode Date: September 28, 2026

It’s been a long summer, but Leah, Kate and Melissa are back together to break down the biggest cases and legal battles coming to the Supreme Court this term. Starting in October, the justices will hear challenges involving AR-15s and semi-automatic rifles, religious exemptions for schools receiving government funding, and the latest redistricting fights in Missouri and the 8th Circuit. Plus, Trump’s big arch updates and allegations that a government contractor illegally funneled nearly $200,000 to a Susan Collins super PAC. Then, Melissa sits down with National Association of Black Journalists President and Crooked’s Long Play cohost Errin Haines to discuss news outlets suing the President over press access. After, Leah talks to Columbia graduate and activist Mahmoud Khalil about the administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech and the treatment of people in ICE custody. Favorite Things:  Leah: ProPublica | Gil Duran, Nerd Reich; Naomi Klein & Astra Taylor End Times Fascism | Alyssa Edwards’ response to Ken Paxton  Kate: Daniel Immerwahr’s How to Hide an Empire | Ari Berman and Pema Levy in Mother Jones on Callais and the New New Jim Crow | Nikole Hannah-Jones’s NYT Piece  Melissa: Propublica’s piece on Susan Collins |  Charles Spencer, Swan Song | Raphael Warnock, The Crooked Parts Made Straight | Zak Cheney-Rice, No One Can Fix School Segregation Alone | Stacey Abrams at LCCR Gala  Take the Strict Scrutiny survey.New Strict merch available here.You can now listen to Strict Scrutiny for CLE credits in California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon! More info at crooked.com/strict_cleGet tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa’s book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah’s book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and BlueskyFor a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email [e-mail]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Guess what, folks? It's back to school season. And this year, five million children across Texas are going to be greeted by, wait for it, the Ten Commandments in their classrooms. Texas politicians passed a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public school classroom, forcing their religion on every kid in those schools. Twenty-eight families in Texas, supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are taking the fight to the Supreme Court. and we need you to amplify their voices before the Supreme Court gets its hands on this case. They're going to go up, but we're going to fight to get them taken down.

That was Texas public school parent Ted Lowe. Ted and Rebecca Lowe are an interfaith couple. Ted is Jewish and Rebecca is Christian, and their kids are in Texas public schools. The story that they tell in this video is moving, and we hope that everyone hears it and shares it, because there is a human cost to Christian nationalist policies like these Ten Commandments laws and the decisions that the Supreme Court hands down. You can visit at u.org to learn more about this case and how you can help join the fight to protect church state separation. When I argue, man argues 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 and welcome back to strict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Leah Littman. I'm Kate Shaw. And I'm Melissa Murray. And yes, folks, the band is back together. It is a new Supreme Court term, which means that we need to be operating on all cylinders to brace for, what might be coming down the pike. So with all of the justices back to their regularly scheduled scotus maxing, we have decided that we will respond in kind with a little strict scrutiny post-maxing. When you said firing on all cylinders, for some reason I was just brought to mine, somebody recently told me that our show reminds them of,

do you guys ever listen to the NPR show, Car Talk, the like brothers who would like just banter? And then she was like, no, no, I mean because you have such great chemistry. I was like, okay, I think it was meant as a compliment. So anyway, I passed that a one for what is more. We were posthmogging and podmogging each other right before we started recording. Right before, but critically not in the actual publicly released version of the episode. So, but yes, we are back together. We are very excited to be back together.

And we are not excited about the fact that we are staring down the barrel of a new Supreme Court term. But since we are, we thought we would provide some table setting, just some big picture thoughts about where we are and what we're looking for in the upcoming term. We're not going to really do a detailed rundown of particular cases, although we will reference some notable ones. but obviously as we get closer to the arguments in those cases, we will do deep dives on all of those. After we do that, table setting, we're going to bring you conversations with two people who can speak to the real effects of some of the legal matters

that we will be discussing. So Melissa will talk with Aaron Haynes about attacks on the press and censorship, and Leah will speak to Mahmoud Khalil about immigration detention. Okay. On to SCOTUS, its term starts next week, deep breaths. Who wants to start? I volunteer as tribute. I fucking hate it.

Have at it. I fucking hate it. And by it, I mean, both life of a showgirl encore and the state of the Supreme Court perpetual encore. The combination of the two have me really convinced that our society has gone so far, we just don't have a chance of turning back. But more on the latter, SCOTUS part. I have two big picture thoughts about where we are now. I'll start with a shorter one. We'll come back to a little Taylor later in the hour just for those who are like waiting for Leah's full takes.

This is very fucking dark, Leah. I rode here in a waymo. And I feel like I already took my life into my own hands already today. This is not what I was expecting. I'm sorry. All right. But it's going to get even bleaker because my first point was going to be just how much our expectations have been warped by the court's bad behavior and how when you step back and actually reflect on it, it kind of reveals that is the expectations reveal how messed up things are. Like I was thinking about the upcoming term. And we already know what's going to happen in a bunch of these big red meat for the right culture war cases, the Second Amendment case, about AR-15. teens and semi-automatic rifles. The court is going to insist those have to be freely available because freedom and amosexual kinks. We know what's going to happen in the religious exemption case where religious schools are seeking permission to opt out from the state's funding conditions that they not discriminate against LGBT people. I have a pretty good idea what's going to happen in the Arizona

voting case where they're going to allow a state to require satisfactory proof of citizenship before voters are allowed to register. And I also feel like I have a good idea what's going to happen in the trans rights case where they're going to throw a big state. to allow transphobic parents to assert their parental rights claim to stymie state efforts to make homeless services accessible to trans kids. So they're just going to be further exacerbating the disparity, not bothering to consider whether parents have a right to help their kids get health care, only whether parents have a right to keep their kids from getting health care. And we know what they're going to do because they've showed us who they are and what they're about. They mainline Republican Party talking points and

Republican Party grievances spit them out as law. And that's just our expectations. And by the themselves. That's pretty damning. All right. I think I'm just going to hop back in that waymo right now. Drive right into the Pacific Ocean. You rather face that than this SCOTUS term. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Wow, Leah. I don't even know how to top that. I won't even try to gild your lily, Leah. Let me add on, though, to some of the points that you made. So one theme that I think you were touching on that is emerging, has been emerging, is this idea of the core normalizing that behavior. And a number of different commentators have noticed that this term doesn't really seem like much of a barn burner. And I think that's probably true, at least not yet. It is true that the December sitting is going to be a banger, right? So that's the one with a lot of the big culture issues that

you mentioned. Those will be on the docket. So Leah mentioned Viramontes. That's the challenge to Illinois's AR-15 ban. There's also Ferguson. That is the case about parents' rights and minors' to trans care, trans rights generally. That sitting also includes the Arizona voting rights case that Leah mentioned. It also includes Jopi. That is the Han Solo Millennium Falcon Beer case that our friend Elie Mistal mentioned over the summer. But that December sitting is packed it is. It's really kind of anomalous. And for that, maybe we should be thankful. It is otherwise a pretty light docket. And I think, though, that that's not because the court is showing restraint. It's just that they've normalized doing so much substantive stuff on the shadow docket, the interim docket, the emergency

docket, whatever we're calling it. The shit show docket? The shit show docket. Just the tip docket. They've done so much on that. We've come to accept it as normal that it doesn't even seem weird when the merits docket is relatively light. The other alternative explanation is that they are anticipating a shit ton of shenanigans coming

out of or running up to the midterm elections and they're keeping space available for that. That's also their fault because they've facilitated midwibed some of this shenanigans that are likely to happen. So that part, they've just normalized a lot of crap that's going to happen and we see it reflected in the docket itself. My next point really relates to a lot of what we saw in October term 2025. So in Louisiana versus Kelly, that was the case that was decided in April in which the court basically hobbled what remained of the voting rights act. The court also went balls out. on hobbling the reconstruction amendments, insisting that the 14th and 15th amendments which sought to remedy the lingering residue of slavery and to incorporate newly freed African Americans into the body

politic as equal citizens, the court insisted that these amendments were studiously race neutral, I guess. And I'm stealing myself for Verimontes, that AR-15 case, where the court is literally going to lean in again to this idea of race. So they're really. jettisoning race neutrality in order to talk about all of the ways that African Americans have been disarmed throughout history and how the only way to remedy that racial injustice is to allow everyone in the whole country to tote an automatic weapon. You know, for racial justice. One definitely follows from the other, right?

Like logic. Clearly. Clearly. You know, so no 14th Amendment, no 15th Amendment, no race conscious remedies in those realms. But for guns, we care. We care about the blacks. The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race, Melissa, is for everyone to have a semi-automatic rifle. I think a wise man once said.

I mean, yes, I did. That's poetry. I swear, that's going to appear in a Brett Kavanaugh opinion within like six years. We should not call it into being. It is bleak, it is dark. Melissa and Leah covered many of the low lights already. Maybe I'll just flag one more case that is going to be argued in the first week of the term, which is a case about the military detonating toxic explosives on Guam.

indeed one of Guam's most pristine beaches, and just insisting it doesn't have to comply with environmental laws when it does that. And several others that we will mention are, I think, big cases to watch. But I actually wanted to maybe just say that I don't even want to talk about the big cases to watch right now. Like maybe this is getting a little existential or something. But my first big picture thought that I was mulling over as I thought about what I wanted to talk about on this term preview episode was that I actually have so enjoyed getting the chance. I mean, enjoyed is maybe the wrong word, but I have appreciated. the chance to talk about Supreme Court reform and not individual prospective Supreme Court cases

in these bonus episodes we've done over the course of the last month. And part of me just thinks we should spend some time on this episode. And so I guess that's what I'm doing right now, just going, if not deeper, we're not going to do a deep dive right now, but just continuing to return to the point that Supreme Court reform has to be front and center in every conversation about the Supreme Court and maybe every conversation about politics writ large in the next six weeks. I think it's so, so important. The genre of this guy, I think, is echoing something that you said, Leah, about this all sort of feeling like a foregone conclusion, like, the genre of the curtain raiser where in normal times we will, like, have a set of conversations about the big cases

that the court is taking up. Those are fun to have in normal times. Like, the court does take up some really tough and interesting cases, and it can be satisfying and engaging to talk through the puzzles that they present and to, like, untangle lines of doctrine and to try to game out where various justices might be, but with so much of what the court is likely to do, a foregone conclusion, and the court just feeling so increasingly out of control and illegitimate, I am finding myself searching for the joy in that ordinary curtain razor. Not you, Kate. What have we done?

I know. What have we done to Kate? So, back to kind of being together in Car Talk, I think I'm going to have to find my joy in us being, I think, back in a more regular schedule where the three of us will have more aligning episodes where we are all on after a summer of mostly not being on episodes together. And then there is, I guess, if not joy or pleasure, exactly like some satisfaction in using the platform and like the weekly episodes to try to keep attention trained on SCOTUS, not just the individual cases, but the larger structural questions and the court's leading role

in our current democratic crisis. And so I guess we are going to do that. Who are you and what have you done with Kate? Where is Kate? I took some time off this summer. I looked deep inside, and I had a hard time finding any silver linings, Melissa. I really did. Kate, we turned you. We broke you.

Or John Roberts and the rest of them did. Yeah. So that is, I think, my top line opening observation. And maybe I'll just say one more thing to add to something, Melissa, you said, about November and December being the places to really watch for election-related developments. And by that, I mostly mean November after the election and December. because we should say, as we sat down to record on Friday, the court had just granted another emergency application from the Trump administration. So this one stayed a D.C. District Court order and allowed the administration to begin implementing this new program for checking citizenship eligibility using a new federal database, although I guess it's actually just linking an existing Social Security database to this other existing database known as the Save database. So I will say, I'm at an academic conference. This just broke. It sounds really alarming. But there's, I think, think a very big kind of butt. The court says in its precarium opinion that another statute, the National Voter Registration Act, prevents states from doing any large-scale purges right now,

pursuant to this new database checking system because of the proximity to the election, although they can still do individualized citizenship checks. I mean, I am actually curious, if you guys have a take on this, I can't yet tell how big a deal it is. It does seem like in the hands of bad faith actors of which there are many in our political landscape right now. This could result in meaningful disenfranchisement, but the fact that the majority seems to say clearly you can't do anything large scale, and that Jackson, who dissents with Sotomayor and Kagan, while furious about the disregard of what the legal test for emergency relief like this is supposed to be, does say the order will have minimal impact in at least the short term. So I guess this is not like

five alarm fire. Is that basically where you guys came down in this order? I'm just thinking this is for 2028. Exactly. And they're facilitating the ceiling of 2020. And you know that database produces false positives, right, misidentifying people, right, as not citizens. Like, we just know that. And so I think the question at this point is just how big the scale potentially is going to be for 2028, like what systems to put in place to ensure that people verify whether they are, in fact, on voter roles in the lead up to the election. And the one small blessing is hopefully this actually isn't going to have a huge impact for

2026, but people can begin preparing for what to do if and when they try to use it in 28. Yeah. Okay. All right. So that did just come down. But that court did not, I mean, how could it have allowed this to really go into effect for 2026? Although, you know, hard to put anything past them at this point.

I'm sure. Samo Lita wrote a draft opinion explaining why. There she is. Maybe. Okay, so two of them maybe. Although, interestingly, they did not hear, try to say like, yes, he can and he can do it now as opposed to in 2020. So I guess that's a small blessing. But in any event, I do think that both in this order and more generally, we do appear to have dodged some of the most egregious election interference bullets in the pre-election period. Back to what Melissa said about November and December, I definitely think we cannot rule out post-election litigation, right?

So people who lose the election trying to maybe take a page from the book of, do you guys remember Jefferson Griffin in North Carolina? Do I remember him? That is a name that only a mustache-tortling Confederate would give a child. It is in fact his real name. And we talked about him a lot on the show because he was a candidate for state Supreme Court in North Carolina. He lost the election then spent months litigating to try to get the courts to magically turn him from a loser to a winner and came unnervingly close to succeeding. But anyway, you can imagine something similar happening with a candidate trying to get mail ballots thrown out or manufacturing some non-citizen voting issue. And there could also be Michigan-Gus in Congress around refusing to seat Democrats, which could end up in the courts, though unclear if they would actually intercede.

So all of that, I think, is a possibility. And so November and December, I think, could be much. crazier on the SCOTUS front than right now we are anticipating. I have one more thought. Wait, should Taylor now or maybe come back to Taylor? You can interject your thoughts now. I'm still You're still processing. Building up mind. Oh, I see. Okay. All right. Well, I will just say, I like Patient Zero. Sorry, not sorry? I will just immediately add that the immediate first line, if you want a party, make zero fucking sense. The bridge is appalling. And three, the people in my DMs saying they like this. And now you, Kate, are I think why we are on the verge of being a failed state.

But I'll return to this later. Well, because the bar is now in hell. It sounds like it would be a mid-level fave unlike torture poets department. That is how I feel about it. No. No, incorrect. Incorrect. That's what I feel right.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Bringing it back to normalizing bad behavior, which Kate is doing in real time. Fair. That's fair. You know, the A circuit redistricting, where do you think the A circuit learn that you can just make shit up, ignore judicial opinions and basic features of our judicial system, like the idea. that trial courts make factual findings or that appellate courts have the final say. I learned it from watching you, dad, as Melissa would say. So the Missouri redistricting.

For you genics, that's for you. Truly wild. You know, the Missouri Supreme Court told the Missouri Secretary of State that the state had to use is 2022 gerrymandered map, not the 2025, Trump-inspired mid-cycle redistricting map. But then a federal district court said, nah, I know state law better than you do state Supreme Court. and the state has to use the 2025 map, not the 22 map that the Missouri Supreme Court required to be used. Now, that federal court order, a temporary restraining order, was stayed on the Shatter Docket by even Dumme, Brett Kavanaugh. But still, the lower federal courts and a circuit weren't done. They decided to affirm the temporary restraining order, but as a permanent injunction.

And because they said this is a permanent injunction rather than a temporary restraining order, they were like, oh, yeah, we're doing something totally different than what the Supreme Court told us we couldn't do. it's awfully thin line there. All right. Slicing the bologna. Yeah. And it is, do you think it's likely that we're going to get a Gorsuch slash Kavanaugh writing, lecturing the lower courts for not complying with SCOTUS? I actually think there's a non-zero chance that the delay is like they are writing something.

Not necessarily the two of them, but like a per curiam kind of opinion. Okay. It's probably taking a long time because they're fighting over who gets the purple marker. Well, exactly. And like Brett Kavanaugh, right, is like smudging his fingers in finger paint. And so that drafting process just takes. takes a lot longer. It takes time. We should warn people that to give no credit if they actually write something, lecturing, because this would be the first time that they've issued such a lecture

to anyone but lower court cases. And the defiance so egregious. It's just laughable. And of course, after we finish recording, the Supreme Court did in fact stay, the Eighth Circuit's ruling. With some, I don't know, negging and swipes at the Eighth Circuit, which failed to understand that only the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone and sometimes the Fifth Circuit get to make shit up and play fast and loose with the law, or at least that you can't play fast and loose with this Supreme Court's own dick-dots. Everything else is fair game, though. Here's what the Supreme Court had to say. Quote, given this court's two prior orders in this litigation, our conclusion that this was air should come as no surprise. That's what I mean by sweat. And then, just to make it extra clear,

these are the final two sentences, quote, the district court and court of appeals should not enjoin or otherwise prohibit the use of the 2022 map. And the district court and court of appeals should not order or otherwise require Missouri to use the 2025 map in the 26 congressional election in Missouri. Skod us out and now back to our regular program. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Quince. You know those pieces in your closet you find yourself wearing on repeat? That sweater that goes with everything, the perfect pair of pants, or the furry blanket that your dog likes to lie on all the time?

Those are the pieces that make your life easy and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and merino wool. Their styles are timeless, versatile, and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. Their 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters are my personal faves, and they start at just $60, giving you the softness and quality that you would expect from a luxury brand, but without the luxury price tag. And everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and they cut out the middleman so you're paying for high quality, not a brand markup. I love it. And it's not just

clothing or furry blankets. Quince brings that same approach to every single thing they make. From hotel quality bedding, their linen sheets are A plus and bath and kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. All of it is fantastic because Quince makes well-designed pieces for every. everyday living. So head over to quince.com and find your next fall favorites. You can download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash strict. You get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. And here's the best part for you folks across the pond and to the north. Quince is now available in Canada and the UK. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash strict. Strict's journey is brought to you by Z-Biotics pre-alcohol. Some

nights are planned. Some are spontaneous. Either way, I'm someone who thinks ahead. I'm a Virgo. I drink Zebiotics pre-alcohol before my first drink so I can enjoy the next day. Zebiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was engineered by Ph.D. microbiologists to break down acetylade, an unwanted byproduct of alcohol metabolism. So make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and enjoy the next day and all of your activities. Sea biotics has sold more. than 14 million bottles and earned the trust of thousands, including us. So think ahead and use pre-alcohol. Try it for yourself. And if you are unsatisfied, Zbiotics will refund your entire

order. No questions asked. Head over to Zbiotics.com forward slash strict. Use code strict for 15% off your first order. Zbiotics is a partner of mine and strict scrutiny. Okay. So my other theme slash big picture thought is going to require a somewhat extended, perhaps conspiratorial sounding rant that might involve me talking for a bit and probably quickly. So just bear with me. Like, this is what happens when you are a conspiracy theorist. But my thought was, even taking the events. We're going to let you cook, Leah. Just go. Great. Even taking the events of just the last few weeks, I've been struck by how much the court is to blame for, at least partially, and how they're also probably going to make it all somehow even worse. So,

The president announced he was moving ahead with the plans for a triumphal arch that veterans say will sully Arlington Memorial Cemetery. And the president has deemed this a national security matter. And it's like, where did he pick up the notion that simply saying national security three times lets him conjure up fascism and do whatever he wants? The Supreme Court, which had a shadow docket order over the summer in the ballroom case. That's a clue reference because, as I said, this is going to get conspiratorial. But in the ballroom case, the court stayed a lower court injunction blocking the construction. And the Supreme Court gestured to the laughable executive branch declarations, waving their hands and saying, oh, yeah, ballroom, key for national security. Sick parties, key for national security. And so the president just truths out, quote, at the strong request of the United States military and for national security that's capitalized purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch into a top grade military complex slash triumphal arch to house store and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones plus snipers and additionally have and hold large quantities.

of sniper ammunition. This is obviously BS, but he said the magic war national security. So maybe it's fine. He has reason to think it will be fine. And also maybe they will just say he has a second amendment right to stockpile drones. You know, again, not to manifest, but I'm sure they're thinking it. To be fair to them, the Korematsu court did start all of this. And being fair to them is that they are reinvigorating Korematsu. Well, even though they killed it. First they killed it, then they re-invigorated it. But to be fair. Okay. time. Also on the national security front, the president attempted to justify his ban on the press, namely MS now, CNN, and Politico, on national security grounds, which was really interesting,

because first it was that they were doing fake news, but apparently fake news and national security are the same thing when you translate it in your Google Trump translator. Anyway, why not, right? Why not just convert viewpoint discrimination into a legitimate concern about national security. We're going to talk about the press ban later with Aaron Haynes. I mean, they already kind of did that in the TikTok case. 100%. We will get into all of this with Aaron Haynes. So please stay tuned for that. Also on the national security front, the D.C. Circuit picked up the bat signal. They rejected Anthropics' challenge to the Defense Department's exclusion of Anthropics' AI from DoD's

supply chain when the DOD said it was a national security threat. But really, after Anthropic tried to raise concerns about the DOD, you. using their product to create autonomous weapons. That was really the national security concern that Anthropic was making noise about what the DOD was doing. And if the president says that's a national security problem, it's not for course to second guess. You got to say it three times and hope the candy man doesn't come up. I hear you, Melissa, now becoming part of my tin foil hat brigade because there's still more. You know, also last week, this isn't on national security, but something else the court has made worse.

Last week, federal immigration officers shot and wounded another person, Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez. According to witness accounts, the shooting was likely, seemingly unprovoked. They may have shot him after ramming into his car, perhaps, and as part of a traffic stop. And then they also allegedly refused to render aid or allow others to do so. And again, it's like emboldened immigration enforcement using excessive force that seems to target people based on their apparent race or ethnicity. Yes, I am speaking your name, Brett Kavanaugh. This is a Kavanaugh stop. Yeah, so I think you can draw a clear line from the court's blessing of those tactics on the ground in Los Angeles and these continued uses of this excessive force, as we just saw last week. So it's also possible that this term the court might double down and make all of the potential for these government abuses even worse because on their docket is a very scary case asking the court to formally overrule Bivens.

That's the 1970s case that allows you to sue some federal officers for damages when they violate your constitutional rights, although in now very, very limited circumstances, the court in recent years has all but cabined Bivens and the two other cases that authorized damages suits against federal officers for violating constitutional rights to their very particular facts. And now this term, the case Nielsen v. Wadunabi provides a court with an opportunity to just overrule Bivens outright, give federal officers even more immunity, make them even less accountable. This case arises in the context of a claim where officers allegedly denied an incarcerated person medical care. So if you thought it couldn't get worse on unaccountable federal officials, it very much could. And the specific facts of that case before the Supreme Court actually called to mind the shooting I was talking about because what happened to Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez. He was allegedly left to sleep on the floor of a jail with a bullet still lodged in his body, similar to Watanabe. And the older case, the Supreme Court is being asked to overrule that had said you can sue federal officers who deny you medical care while you are detained. But the court is, I think, likely to say, actually, no accountability for federal officers sounds great to us.

Yeah. For what it's worth, when it's had this opportunity in recent terms, it is basically stopped short of outright overruling Bivens in those other cases and just read them exceedingly narrowly. But I think you're right. I think there is reason to fear that this court is almost accelerating in certain respects, the things that it has true. tried to slow walk like this line of cases, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if they just did the damn thing in this case. So speaking of unaccountable and emboldened officials, the Times reported that federal officials are drafting an executive order that would give President Trump explicitly the ability to control billions of dollars in scientific grants funded by the National Institutes

of Health. So just to make that clear, this would be rather than having experts with scientific training, award grants on the basis of expertise, science, likelihood, the benefit to humanity, The Trump administration is probably going to put some dogebro and or white nationalist in charge of approving and vetoing grants because they do or do not align with the administration's priorities. And I ask you, ladies, where could the executive branch have gotten the idea that they could withhold money Congress had allocated, intrude on Congress's power of the purse, generally violate federal law? Melissa. I know the answer. They learned it from watching you, John Roberts. They learned it from watching you.

Dad, we have to remember to call him dad. Daddy, John Roberts. And murdered for watching you, Dad. So I am glad we are now all in club conspiracy because it makes me feel less alone because there's even more unitary executive theory fallout slash nonsense. So a ways back, Trump killed an anti-corruption investigation by killing an entire seemingly anti-corruption unit. Kind of unsurprising that after the Supreme Court in its apostasy of an immunity opinion insisted that the president has plenary powers over law enforcement, that the president might choose to do something. something like this. Perhaps more surprising is that this episode might have ensnared get this Susan Collins concern levels through the fucking roof. True, true. This new reporting comes from ProPublica, which really takes Can't Stop,

won't stop to a whole another level. This is wild. They're just doing incredible work. So the specific investigation that ProPublica was reporting on here, the one that the president killed, was looking at whether campaign finance laws had been violated. There were allegations that in 2020 a corporation illegally funneled money to Susan Collins' campaign, specifically that a government contractor, someone who is prohibited for making campaign contributions, allegedly routed almost $200,000 to a Colin Superpack via a shell company. And folks, if we just hot back into our hot tub time machine, you'll remember that 2020 was when Senator Susan Collins was facing her last tough re-election. And anyway, according to this reporting from ProPublica, the transfer of funds to the Collins SuperPack took place after the head of said SuperPack met with that government contractor. Indeed, ProPublica reviewed an email from the head of the Collins SuperPack. to the government contractor in which the head of the Colin Superpack characterized the decision to funnel the funds through a shell company as, quote, very smart. Stringer Bell would say, exactly.

Don't want to write that down. But also, I truly hope these people never watch the wire because I would like them to continue violating Stringerbell's rules. It seems pretty clear that they don't. So they're just going to keep writing this down. So ProPublica also detailed an email from a Colin SuperPack suburb. to a lobbyist in which the subordinate requested from the lobbyist the telephone number of the government contractor who allegedly orchestrated the transfer from the shell company. Why did the subordinate need the government contractor's phone number? Because allegedly, Susan Collins wanted to thank the contractor.

And guys, let me just remind everyone, that's not illegal. It is not illegal to thank someone for doing something nice. Right. It is not illegal to thank someone for doing something nice, which is why we saw the president of the United States at the State of the Union go up to one John Roberts and saying. Thank you. I won't forget. Indeed. Anyway, well, I mean, it's slightly different because Donald Trump was apparently thinking John Roberts for reasons. I don't know. ProPublicas reporting alleges that Senator Collins may have been thanking the contractor for entirely different reason.

So according to the reporting, Collins subsequently steered more than 30 million in government contracts. to the contractor's company. Senator Collins, of course, vigorously denies this. She may also be concerned about where ProPublica is getting its facts. Apparently, you should not talk to someone who has been convicted and rely on their word. I know someone who's been convicted 34 times. Would like a word. Would like a word about that.

Yeah. Speaking of which, let's get back to the it's all connected. Right. I do think the court partially unleashed. this in their immunity opinion, signaling to the president, he has plenary control over law enforcement. They also partially greenlit this by just demolishing anti-corruption statutes. But this is, I think, the part where I really feel like the guy in the meme at the Whiteboard, you know, is crazy pointing to all of these connections because who, according to ProPublica, got involved in the attempt to cover up the campaign finance issues that sprang up

around this alleged transfer? Allegedly, one, Clita Mitchell. Listeners, You'll probably remember Ms. Mitchell from the elite strike force legal team aiding Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election. Release the crackin. That was her. Yep. But back to the campaign finance and blaming the Supreme Court. I'm trying to stay focused. But again, guy at the whiteboard pointing at all of the connections, the insane campaign spending and campaign spending asymmetries that we are seeing, including some that is going to try to bury the Susan Collins story.

It includes the fact that the Dems are being outspent because the Republican. National Committee has so much more cash on hand. Some $200 million was spent by Republican Super PACs in the first half of September. Here in Michigan, I cannot turn on my TV without seeing an ad attacking Abdul Al-Said or an ad praising Mike Rogers. Well, some of that is because of R&C versus FEC. That was the court's decision last June that allowed candidates to coordinate with party committees about how party committees spend their insane war chess. And because the court, in a recent shadow docket order, that Rashad Robinson and I just discussed a couple of weeks ago on the pod allowed the Federal Communications Commission to demand that broadcasters

give the party committee's huge discounts on ads, which just exacerbates the spending asymmetries between the parties. So again, the Supreme Court, like a doula, I'm ready to catch this baby. Let's go. But let's just say those are obviously the most recent installments, but obviously the 2010 Citizens United case, right, really is. And subsequent. And, yeah, D.C. circuits.

I mean, that's evergreen, Kay. I know. But I'm just saying like it's, yes, these are obviously important tweaks. Say the name. So Citizens United speak now, right? These cases that are... McCutcheon. That actually created the infrastructure of this super PAC world that we are all living in.

Like, that's where these hundreds of millions of dollars are coming from. And we are likely to see hundreds more pour in to sort of airwaves across the country in the next six weeks. And it's because of SCOTUS. And if you're wondering whether this could get worse, that sound you hear, is one Samuel Alito revving up a diesel gas guzzal engine to pour some greenhouse gases into the ozone, pounding some roided up energy drinks while saying to the other justices, lady and gentlemen, start your engines. It's time to determine who America's most powerful corporation and next most fascist justice will be. Do you take any solace in their diesel engines being extremely expensive to fill right now? No, because I'm sure they're

just funded by their billionaire benefactors. Probably right. Harlan Crow just like pulls up a whole tanker of diesel. Exactly. He just like, here you go. Fills it up right there. Yeah, that's probably right. Okay, so let's provide a little bit of detail in terms of what the cases that we're talking about look like. There are a number about corporate power and possibly corporate immunity. These cases offer the court, yet more opportunities to give corporations a pass from legal liability, which could mean more money in corporations' pockets. So let's tick through them. First, in Department of Labor versus Sun Valley, the court will decide whether to throw out the Department of Labor's adjudicatory scheme for collecting money from

employers who allegedly withhold wages from workers. Sounds cool. Right, exactly. And then there's Suncor Energy versus County Commissioners of Boulder County, where the court will determine whether oil companies are immune from state tort lawsuits alleging harms from climate change. You know, it's whether federal law preempts these state tort lawsuits. Please also note that Sam Alito has stock in Exxon and refuses to recuse from this case.

This guy is totally dignitized by the oil and gas industry. So much so that I'm sure that in true Taylor Swift fashion, Sam Alito is going to record a new song called Oiled. Ew. But again, the fact that there are these clear parallels to what Sam Alito might do and this album speaks volumes. You deserved a nice thing right now, Leah. You deserved some good songs, and I'm sorry that that didn't happen. But she has a good song, Coming Down the Pike, Oiled by Sam Alito. I really look forward to that.

I don't. Could be about skincare. We don't know what it's about. I don't know. Anyway. Or lewd. While on the topic of SCOTUS. That was the subtext, Leah.

Subtext. No, but this is the problem. It's like this album, right, makes everything so explicit and press. Like, it's not even fun or witty. It's true. But we don't have to do that. I think we just did. All right.

While on the topic of SCOTUS ethics or lack of, of corruption. Let's just talk about it. Can I just note that the president last week hosted a state dinner with President Xi of China and who were some of the individuals invited to attend this monumental state event at the White House? Well, not the folks you think of, not the folks you might think would be invited. Instead, the folks on the list that we would be interested in knowing about, included, noted institutionalist John G. Roberts and his wife Jane. Not just the Chief Justice, though. Also included among the party was Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband, Jesse, as well as Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Can I have beer instead of this champagne,

as well as his wife, Ashley? Do you think the president attempted to go up to them and ask them, Why are you such shells of the people you used to be like he posted in that true social? Why these guys? It was interesting. Especially because it's the ballroom and, you know, it's not in the ballroom because there is no full ballroom yet. But like I think it was just in one of those tents. I think that's where this state dinner was. But Roberts Barrett, it's an interesting choice.

Like, why not Thomas Nolito? You think he invited them and they declined? I wouldn't be surprised. You think they declined? I don't know. Why would they decline? I bet Ginny Thomas would love to be at something like that. I do see why Brett Kavanaugh was invited.

I mean, like, the learning resources, like, yes, major questions doctrine doesn't apply in foreign affairs. Like, that's the guy. But the other two. Barrett and Roberts have sold him out in several cases. I don't know. I mean, I still think immunity opinion number one in his book. So, yeah, I don't know. Won't forget it.

Exactly. Won't forget it. So I am glad we are all bringing big, big conspiracy energy to the podcast now. And in this list of all the things, the Supreme Court has allowed, facilitated, enabled. I didn't even touch on the administration's alleged violations, apparent violations of court orders. You know, on the media press ban where even after a lower court invalidated the president's revocation of MS Now and other outlets' press credentials, MS Now reporters were still barred entry at least for some time. Or on TBD, the third country removal case where the administration seemed to again be putting people on planes off to third countries, even after courts issued additional decisions limiting them. Additionally, on Friday, a federal judge held the Trump administration in contempt for deporting.

a man to El Salvador in violation of not one, not two, but three, court orders. And I think the court is partially to blame for these noncompliance, given that they have repeatedly given the administration equitable extraordinary relief from lower court orders that the administration has plausibly violated without saying so much as a word about any alleged noncompliance. Let's just maybe say a couple more words about the DVD case. We talked about it quite a bit during the first year of the second Trump administration. So in 2025, at issue here are the administration's efforts to deporting individuals to third countries. So that's places where they have no relationship with, where they may be, and reporting suggests that some have been subject to brutal and inhumane conditions, including

torture. This truly was one of the most egregious abuses of the shadow docket during that first year of Trump 2.0. The court with zero reasoning allowed the administration to continue these removals, even though a lower court, in a carefully reasoned opinion, had found them likely unlawful. And to repeat this, and Leah has already said it, Skodas could not be bothered to say literally one word about that lower court conclusion and why it was wrong. And then the next day, Scotis reiterated that, yes, the administration could keep sending people to third countries. The district court should get out of the way. Okay, so that was all preliminary, the very early stages of litigation. Now the same district court has issued a final judgment in validating the policy and the administration

is back before Scotus a third time begging to be allowed to resume these horrifying deportations and if passed is prologue, the court will let them. I don't think it's overstating things. to say that DBD was one of the worst decisions ever issued on the shadow docket. And the fact that it's now back at the court might have been on Justice Jackson's mind when she delivered some remarks, including about the shadow docket last week. So she said, quote, we cannot expect the public to have faith in our judicial system if without clear explanation, we are consistently greenlighting harmful acts that do real damage to litigating plaintiffs. A whole word. But while we are on the topic of crimes against humanity, I think now will be the time when I briefly share additional thoughts about Life of a Showgirl encore, because I do have additional thoughts in addition to the ones I have already shared. My bottom line, in addition to those I've already revealed, is that the album makes me want to walk into the ocean or impale my own ears and brain with rusty metal, so I am never again subjected to this dribble. I personally think Max Martin should both be embarrassed. and eventually forced to answer for his crimes, which include the bad rap randomly inserted on pink clouding, the Patient Zero Bridge, which I've already noted, and the entire fucking song of Cleveland.

I am personally offended on a very deep level that sonically, Cleveland calls to mind folklore in the opening. So it's not just a bad song. It's a bad song that tarnishes what was good. Like, lyrically, it's— Folklore is still good. It's not affected by this. No, it is. in my brain, right? I will think of Cleveland. Now, when I hear the opening passage of Last Great American Dynasty. Also, these are love songs to the extent, and they are more about what the world sees in their relationship than what she sees in him. Except the woman. Yeah, okay, it is largely

about perception, but I will say two things. One, he already took me to Cleveland is a fucking funny line. That is a funny line. Unintentionally, unintentionally, but deeply. Unclear she's in on the joke. Maybe not. But also, you know, there is. some kind of internal logic to it. So the line, you only need to find one person in this entire world who doesn't find you completely insufferable and I have an important announcement to make. That is about her and her relationship and the song is awful, but I sort of found that charming. But here's the thing. It could have been interesting to explore this disparity between having this deep, satisfying, warm personal connection, right, that's like on the inside and the

rest of the world hating you. But she already did that and did it well in reputation. And the fact that Like the woman who wrote Evermore is now saying, this is the love of my life. Hey, hey, hey. Like, makes me want to eat myself into a son. And like, the like, you all don't like me, but ha, I got married. He does. I know. It's, yeah.

It's not some big own. And also, I take it pink clouding is like an apology to Tom Hittleston. Oh. But she's going to have to apologize to him all over again because of the song, or at least because of the random rap. And I just feel like if no one around you is willing to tell you these hard truths, I volunteered to do so. The album could have been amusing had it just been released as like a spite album. Oh, you all hated this.

I'm going to give you even more of it. And I just, in conclusion, you know who I bet likes this album? Brett Kavanaugh. Yeah, because that's how dumb it is. Oh. That's all. Oh, you think Charlie likes it? Because it's so bad.

Charlie X.E has to like this bitch. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. My haters destroy them. themselves. Totally. Yeah.

Like, the point about, like, marriage as an own, may I just refer you to some really fantastic work done by a young and promising scholar called Marriage is Punishment? But, like, this marriage is punishment for me. That early Melissa. That title was a banger. Really was a banger. As is the entire article.

Yeah, it is, I was just thinking to bring this. A award-winning article. Absolutely. And rightly so. Just to bring this back to not Scotus, but Trump, the state. visit from President Xi, I think, caused, I think, a lot of people to observe that it is just so rare in history that you see a great power self-immolate. Like, Great Power's fall, but usually because of some external force. Anyway, I dropped that observation in the context of our Taylor Convo for what it is worth. Self-emolation going on everywhere. Apparently. Except for the Supreme Court, at least in the short term. Maybe ultimately that's what's happening there.

I don't know. I got a new article in me. Supermajorities is punishment. When we come back, Melissa is going to talk. talk to Aaron Haynes. She's the president of the National Association of Black Journalists and co-host of Crooked's Longplay podcast. She and Melissa are going to talk about news outlets suing the president for continued press access. This episode of strict scrutiny is brought to you by Alloie Health. Let's be honest. Aging can come with some unwelcome changes. Sleep disruptions, hot flashes, brain fog, weight gain, and decreased libido can hit you hard. Menopause is inevitable, but it's also treatable. Almost half of women go three plus years before seeking relief from

menopausal or paramenopausal symptoms. Most don't even know where to go for a solution. That's where Alloy comes in. Alloy is a digital health platform that connects you with a menopause specialized doctor to feel and look your best in midlife. Your doctor will help you find the best, safe, science-back treatments for your symptoms, for skin, hair, weight, and sexual wellness delivered to your door. Everything is done online from the comfort of your home so there's no waiting for an appointment or in line at the pharmacy. Alloy is fast, accessible, and their treatments work. Here's how it works. First, you complete your intake. Alloy solutions are available by prescription, so you first need to complete an intake form. Once you do that, you will receive a

treatment plan from your doctor because you were going to be matched with a menopause specialized physician who will create a personalized treatment plan tailored to your specific needs. Plus, you will have unlimited access to your doctor so you can message your doctor at any time. Then you'll get your three-month supply. Once you're approved, alloy will then ship your prescription directly to your door with automatic refills. Join the 95% of women who tried HRT through alloy and saw relief in the first two weeks. Head over to myalloy.com and use the code strict and tell them all about your symptoms and you'll get a fully customized treatment plan and unlimited messaging with your doctor. Plus, you'll get 20% off your first order today.

Head over to m-y-a-l-l-o-com and use code strict to get 20% off your first order. This code is valid on products only. Strict students brought to you by Jones Road Beauty. Here's the thing about aging folks. It's not just about finding a skincare routine that works for you. It's also about finding a makeup routine that works as well because as you get older, you develop fine lines and wrinkles. Makeup can actually be a challenge, maybe even a problem as it seeps into those fine lines making you look less fresh. That is why I love Jones Road Beauty. It's so refreshing when you have a product that actually enhances your skin instead of just caking on layers of makeup. The Jones Road Miracle Bomb is just that. It's an absolute miracle that allows you to get a

glowy look in under a minute and it has earned a permanent spot in my everyday makeup routine. I can just dab a little bit on my cheeks, look a little bit more alive than I did before, and keep it moving. So if you've already simplified your routine with Miracle Bomb, Jones Road just launched another product that's going to fit right in. to your streamlined makeup routine. Their new, minimalist defining mascara is all about enhancing your natural lashes, not covering them up.

The flexible silicone wand separates every lash for a soft, feathery look that makes it easy to coat every single lash, even those tiny lashes in the inside corners. Jones Road, modern day makeup that's clean, strategic, and multifunctional for effortless routines. And for a limited time,

our listeners are getting a free, full-sized mascara on their first purchase when they use the code strict at checkout. Just head to Jones Road Beauty.com, use code strict at checkout. And after your purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please tell them that you heard about Jones Road from the effortlessly glowing ladies of strict scrutiny with their miracle bombs. Thank you. Listeners, Leah and Kate and I briefly discuss the president's media ban on CNN, MS Now, and Politico.

Those news outlets promptly filed suit against the administration in response. from being denied access to the White House grounds. And in multiple acts of solidarity law firms, you could take a note from this, 49 additional media organizations, including CBS News, Fox News, and the New York Times, filed a supporting legal brief in that litigation. And as importantly, the major TV networks withdrew from the rotating White House press pool in a rare joint protest. So a lot of solidarity among the news, because everyone understands that this is an

on the press and it's not just an attack on liberal press, it can be turned around to attack all press. Anyway, District of Columbia District Judge Timothy Kelly issued an order late Wednesday night blocking the president's ban for 14 days. Given everything that is going on, we thought that we should bring in someone who could talk with us about the press and someone who is not only a member of the press, but perhaps has a really vested interest in freedom of the press. And I couldn't think of anyone better than our good friend, Erin Haynes. Erin is no stranger to the Crooked Media Network. She is an award-winning political journalist, the editor at large and co-founder of the 19th,

a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on the intersection of race, gender, and politics. She is a co-host of The Long Play, and she currently serves as the 24th president of the National Association of Black Journalists. Erin, welcome to strict scrutiny. Let's get to it. Oh, my gosh. Thank you so much for having me. And thanks for wanting to talk about this, right?

I mean, you don't have to be a black journalist to care about black journalists. So thanks. Well, let's start there. So Lonnie Guineer and Gerald Torres, both fantastic law professors, once wrote that people of color are often the canary in the coal mine for injustices, which is to say that people of color may experience it first, but it ultimately then trickles down to everyone. Given your experience representing black journalists as the president of the NABJ, were you surprised to see the president? the president lock selected outlets from the White House? What has his past behavior been with journalists? No, the short answer is absolutely not, right? And even before I'm president of the National Association of Black Journalists, right? I'm old enough to remember 2016 when President Trump was in

office the first time around and he was targeting who, Black women journalists. Jamel Hill, April Ryan, Yamish Al-Sindor, he's calling them out in press conferences from the press briefing room and talking about black women journalists who were doing their jobs, by the way, with professionalism with integrity, with excellence every single day. And yet, you know, because they are asking questions, by the way, on behalf of the American people, he is trying to disparage them. He's trying to discredit them. And in that time, there were no consequences. There weren't people that were really pushing back against that behavior. And so, you know, fast forward, a decade later, when he is continuing to single out women journalists, also black women

journalist, Rachel Scott, Akala Gardner, Jasmine Wright, and others. He's singling these people out their colleagues are not pushing back against this in real time. The White House Correspondents Association not standing up for them. And so, you know, it has taken some time. The Associated Press, when they refused to refer to the Gulf of America and they were kicked out of the press fool and their colleagues did not stand with them at that time. They stood alone when they, you know, push back and said, no, we're not going to do that, right? You know, and they litigated, and that litigation is still ongoing. Correct. I mean, but like they pursued legal action. They didn't have anybody standing with them in that moment. And so,

All of that, because there have not been consequences for years, right? Because this was allowed to become somewhat normalized, you know, at the highest levels of our government, absolutely, why wouldn't he think that he can curate, right? Like, who gets to be asking questions from the White House, from the People's House? So the president's ban is obviously animated by his objections to how he is covered by various outlets, the kind of questions that these black women journalists were asking. And to be very clear, that's viewpoint discrimination. Like you can't ban people from the press pool because you don't like what they're saying or the questions that they're asking, even if you dress it up as a national security concern. Sure. So I think we should just say it is unlikely that the president's arguments will be availing in court. But I think there's a bigger question about what happens outside of courtrooms, which is to say this president's actions on the press may have repercussions in the court of public opinion.

And so how do you think this is registering with ordinary Americans and their understanding of the media and how it works and what its role is as an accountability institution for this president? Yeah, absolutely. Look, I mean, I think that is one, a potentially good thing that has come out of this unfortunate situation. And that is people paying more attention to the First Amendment and the importance of the First Amendment. Yes, absolutely that. And also that this is about, I mean, attacks on press freedom, attacks on journalists being able to. to hold power to account, actually erode the public's right to know, right? If these journalists are not in the room asking questions of the president on behalf of the American people, they're still going to try to do their jobs. Obviously, you saw those same journalists outside of the White House gates still trying to report on what the administration is doing. But like the idea, I think Americans are seeing,

oh, what is it that the administration that this president doesn't want the American people to know about what he is doing, I think that is the message that's translating for a lot of the American people right now. Look, we know journalism is not this country's favorite profession, and yet they can understand what the impact may be to them if journalists are not able to do their jobs. And you think people are really cottoning on to that right now because, like, people don't trust the media. Like, they think that the media is silo, that Fox is for him and MS now is for the other team. And they really don't believe that there's truth that, like, I mean, they're getting their news from a wide array of sources, not all of them reputable.

Does this further erode the way people think about the media? And does it endanger the idea that the media is one of the few mechanisms that we have right now to call this administration to account? Well, I think that's definitely the risk. And I think that that's part of, you know, why the president continues to call journalism fake news and talk about the press as the enemy of the people. It is because the relationship between a healthy democracy, and a healthy press, I mean, you don't have one without the other, right? So if you can discredit

a free and representative press in a democracy, then you are eroding the entire institution. My hope is that people are beginning to become more aware of the relationship between journalism and democracy, that an attack on journalism is an attack on democracy in this country. So to that point, I thought one of the things that was so striking about the Chinese state visit was the president actually lauding the Chinese press and president she's control, autocratic control over the Chinese press. I don't think we've ever had an American president say something like that. Like actually look to an autocratic nation and say, like, I'll have what he's having. Yes, it's usually people around the world look at our press and our free press as an example of how this can work.

I mean, this is another reason why journalists in the White House asking questions of power every single day, the world sees that. It is not just that the American people are seeing that. The world is seeing that in this country, in a democracy, you have journalists who are able to ask questions of the most powerful person in the country, arguably in the world, right? That is not the case in every country in the world, but that is what countries understand or what they have historically understood as what it means. to be part of a democracy. One of the things that this administration has done that probably doesn't get as much notice as it should is that it is completely recast

the voice of America. So Voice of America was launched many, many years ago as a means of basically trumpeting a pro-democracy message throughout the world, particularly in countries that might be on the precipice of dipping into autocracy. and this president. One of the first things he did was install Cari Lake as the head of the Voice of America. And then he subsequently cut the funding for it. So it doesn't work anymore.

Like, what's the impact of something like that on a free press and the role of the fee press not only being accountable here at home, but also perhaps spreading those Democratic ideals elsewhere? Yeah, I mean, that's just it, right? Like the relationship between a free press and democracy, that message being spread across the world because of a vehicle like Voice of America, if you don't have that, you lose a very valuable vehicle for people to understand the role of the press and getting them information in some of those countries. But for Voice of America, they weren't getting information about what was going on, where they were. And so for them to have had that understanding of how journalism, of how the spread of honest and accurate

information is supposed to happen for that to go away, they do lose something. I think democracy more broadly loses something when you have democracy being dimmed via a dimming of the press, domestically and abroad. So one of the news stories this year that has fascinated me, again, this has not gotten a ton of coverage elsewhere, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, has effectively allowed a suit to proceed against the New York Times. So a white New York Times staffer has argued that the Times' policies, which were inaugurated between seven and five years ago, which require the newsroom to be more diverse. He argues that because of those policies, he was denied an important promotion. I will note that the Times implemented those policies in large part because lots of people have said, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support it, that when you have communities of color being covered by. people who live in those communities, who are part of those communities, they're just going to register in a different way. And having a more diverse newsroom means you will cover a wider array of

stories than you otherwise might. And so the fact of a diverse newsroom means they're going to be a better newspaper. This person apparently took the fact of a more diverse newsroom or the interest in a more diverse newsroom personally, and now the EEOC has allowed the suit to proceed. This is going to be something that the New York Times defends vigorously, uses all of its resources to defend, I hope. But I don't think a lawsuit like this is necessarily aimed at the New York Times and those large media news outlets that can defend themselves. This is about smaller papers and getting smaller papers and news outlets to be afraid of doing diversity or having diversity initiatives because they can't afford to take the risk of being sued. And as a consequence, maybe they'll

twice when it's time to hire a woman or they want to hire a person of color. And that's exactly what this kind of lawsuit is about. And what do you think about that as the president of an organization that's meant to encourage diversity in journalism? I'm meant to champion the work of black journalists when we're literally seeing the toehold that black journalists and other journalists of color have gotten in these newsroom, which is so tenuous being eroded in real time. Yeah, I mean, tenuous to say the least. Look, I mean, the news. New York Times didn't just say it. The Kerner Commission report said it in 1968, right? Like, if we are going to get to a place where American journalism is truly representative, then we need to be

hiring black journalists to cover black communities and the totality of diverse communities, right? Like, not just showing up when something bad happens, but covering them in their everyday life, showing them a full picture of themselves. Like, that is the work that to this day is not fully happening in American journalism, right? And so NABJ comes along in 1975, founded by 44 black journalists who understood that representation inside newsrooms was essential to shaping the fair and accurate coverage of black communities across this country, right? And so here we are, 51 years later, I think when the Kerner Commission report came out, something like 5% of all the journalists in American newsrooms are black journalists. That number today is something around

6%. Right. So we're not talking about the black press is just taking over American journalism. Far from it, right? Like, we are still fighting for black journalists to have their rightful place in American newsrooms because journalism and black journalism included is part of democratic infrastructure. You do not have an honest and accurate record of this country without black journalists. You do not have the American story without the stories that black journalists are telling in communities across this country each and every single day, right? So I think that The media consolidations and media cuts, whenever that happens, it always affects black journalists disproportionately. We're often the last hired, and so that means we're the first that are showing the door.

And diversity is always a casualty, even though we know, like I said, it is journalistic malpractice not to have people covering the communities that share their lived experience. We know that, right? And so in this anti-DEI climate, which is affecting all institutions, journalism is not immune to that. Now you're seeing this New York Times lawsuit. You're seeing an EEOC that is sympathetic to white Americans, right? They are the ones that are the victims of discrimination at this point. And so, yeah, that absolutely sends a message to newsrooms, frankly, that have not been particularly committed to diversity without being pressured and pushed to hire diverse journalists in their

newsrooms that are being empowered, frankly, to make a different decision that goes, frankly, in a direction that I don't think is productive for the profession or for. our democracy. It's such a good point. And the fact that so many people are talking about the president's assault on the press, but not linking it to this EEOC lawsuit is just insane to me. Like, they are part and parcel of the same thing. One final question for you. And thank you for taking the time. I know you're at a conference and you've got tons of stuff going on. So just one final thing. In recent years, there's been criticism of formal coalition press groups. For example, the White House Correspondents Association has drawn some real critiques by those who argue that the WHCA has prioritized maintaining strong relationships with those in power over aggressively defending a free press.

And one of the things they cite is that the WHCA continues to have its annual dinner where the president and members of the administration come. And it's something of a tongue bath for the administration. What do you think the role should be between these press organizations and journalists at this time? How do you balance the interest and the need for access with the desire and indeed the imperative to stand up for the First Amendment? So from where I sit, the First Amendment is not optional. And I think that we are in a moment where journalists are going to have to fight for this profession. We're not going to have access to anything if we don't have a profession intact and standing strong and standing together. because the truth has to matter.

The truth has to matter on behalf of the people that we are telling the truth for. And so that, to me, feels like our best and highest use in this moment. Because if we don't get that right, then we're not going to be able to do any of the rest of it. I'm encouraged by, you know, the White House Correspondents Association's recent stance, you know, after this latest attack on the press with the president banning, you know, MS now, CNN and Politico, the White House Correspondents Association coming out and speaking, pushing back against that. I mean, that certainly was something that I felt was overdue, but it is welcome that it is happening now. It is welcome that there have even been organizations of the Associated Press put out a statement,

even though they were not one of the organizations that was impacted by this press ban, because there's an understanding. CNN was not allowed on Monday to have its cameras. And so all of the outlets said, we will not have cameras. That kind of solidarity, that kind of strength in numbers, it matters right now because we have to say collectively in solidarity, there is strength in numbers to stand up and say that this is not acceptable and that this is not something that we can allow to be normalized in a healthy democracy. We cannot allow this to be normalized, right? This is wrong and it is anti-democratic. And it is not the prerogative of the president to decide who does or does not get to cover him. That's not the prerogative of any president, right, to be able to do that because they like or dislike the coverage that they are getting. We have a role to play. And it is important for us to assert that role and assert our First Amendment rights at each and every turn. so that it is not okay to suggest that we're doing anything less than our jobs with professionalism, integrity, and excellence every single day. All right, Erin Haynes, thanks so much for stopping by.

I know you had a busy day, but we always, always value your expertise here on Strict's scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you. Listeners, you can read Erin's writing at the 19th, and you can listen to her along with Jennifer Palmieri and Mitch Landrieu at The Longplay, another fantastic, crooked, podcast, sister podcast to Strict Scrutiny. And after this break, you'll have Leah with her incredible interview with Mahmood Khalil. That's coming up. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by

Cook Unity. Guess what, folks? I hate cooking. This is not a secret, but you know what I do love eating? That means I have a disjunction. And Cook Unity is what enables me to fill the gap. Cook Unity is the first chef-led meal delivery service that makes your meals in small batches inside local microkitchens all across the United States, not in factories. So every dish arrives at the kind of freshness you would get at a restaurant itself. And the meals are from Michelin-starred chefs, James Beard winners, and Food Network stars. So head over to cookunity.com, foreshaw strict, or use code strict before check out for 50% off your first week.

I just finalized my meals for my next orders, and I cannot wait to try the smoked chicken chili with Greek yogurt. Yum. And here's my new favorite, the chicken and dumplings. Old school comfort, but without old school slaving over the stove. Every Cook Unity meal is handcrafted by chefs and local microkitchens, not mass produced in large facilities, so they're fresh, never frozen, and they can be refrigerated for up to seven days. Cook Unity uses real culinary talent, cooking in real kitchens. It's not a brand just slapping a chef's name on some factory product. And there are hundreds of dishes to choose from. And the menu is updated, constantly. So taste what happens when real award-winning chefs make fresh, small-batch meals

just for you. Go to cookunity.com for it-sostrict or enter code strict before checkout to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order by using code strict or going to cookunity.com slash strict. Get on it. Get eating. If you miss some of your favorite crooked pods this week, don't worry. You can now catch up on the week's best moments on MS now on Saturday nights. MS Now is streaming an episode of highlights from your favorite crooked pods, packing as much analysis, funny moments, and 100% correct opinions into 40 minutes as humanly possible. Crooked on MS Now airs every Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific. It's time for the next and final segment, for which we got a huge news story underscoring just one reason why it is so important.

So before we bring you my conversation with Mahmoud Khalil, Columbia graduate and victim of the administration's anti-Palestine's speech campaign, wanted to talk about this associated press story, which confirmed that ICE has begun essentially electronically disappearing people who are in the agency's custody and who are subject to final orders of removal. So as of last week, anyone who is jailed by ICE and is subject to a final order of removal will not appear in the ICE online detainee locator system, making them effectively vanish. And what this means is people who have been detained for months suddenly will not appear in the locator system, even if they have not been moved. And people who are newly arrested may not show up in the system at all. So people, family lawyers will not know where they are. You know, they could be deported and you might not know. And among other things, this will make it quite difficult to file habeas petitions challenging detention because attorneys won't even know what federal district their client has been moved to, you know, as a stage for their removal. And this might apply to, like, we don't really know, could be maybe a third of the people in ICE custody. And, And this tactic of disappearing people, making them hard to find, to impede their ability to vindicate their rights is, of course, a tactic that the administration has tried, albeit in different form, shuddling people around so they're hard to find and before they can contact an attorney, including in Mahmood Khalil's case.

So, Mahmoud Khalil's with me now. He's a recent Columbia graduate and his new book, No Land to Stand On, Notes from Detention, is out tomorrow, September 29th. Mahmoud became one of the faces of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech because of his advocacy and organization. There were so many immigration matters on the court's docket last term, and this year it's possible there will be more, including ones about immigration detention. So I am honored to talk to someone who can speak about this all firsthand. Mahmoud Khalil, welcome to strict scrutiny. Thank you, Leah, for having me. Of course. So let's get started.

The title of your book, No Land to Stand on, can refer to Palestine, refugee status. immigration status, detention, and even legal standing to raise a claim. What meanings did you intend the title to carry? To me, I think no land to stand on was more of a realization telling myself that statement. You know, I myself was born and raised in Syria, but I don't have its citizenship. I lived there for 18 years. I called Syria my home, but I always knew that it's not my permanent home because, you know, everything I had had something temporary on it. You know, my ID used to say like temporary ID for Palestinian refugees. The same when I went to Lebanon when I fled Syria at the age of 18. I had to renew my residency, my temporary residency every single year.

And when I came here and I finally felt that this could be a place I could stay here, like I'm seeking permanent home at that time, you know, like the fall of the regime in Syria, the Assad regime that I was basically fleeing filled so distant. So I was seeking literally a permanent home. And that's basically like when I got the green card, it's the first permanent thing. You know, it's a permanent residency. Yes. LPR. It's supposed to be. The P is for permanent, for those of you listening. So that to me, like, no doubt to stand on is more around. impermanence and also I think the specific sentence a lot of it comes from my mom so my mother also fled Syria a few years after I left like in 2014 or 15 to Germany and they couldn't see my family

for over five years or yeah five years at least I finally was able to go to Germany to see them and when I met my mom like in Syria she was very vibrant very energetic. In Berlin, I felt like she lost her spark. And that pained me. And when I asked her, like, you know, what's wrong? Like, you look at her, like, she feels defeated in a way. And I remember she told me, like, I spent my whole life and my work, the money that we got to

build a home for us in Syria. And in a year, we lost everything. So now I feel as if, like, I don't have. have a place. So why would I bother now to be that energetic? So it's really like that feeling of deprivation, of impermanence, of just like uncertainty, especially now what I'm feeling with the uncertainty, I could be deported any day. My wife and I like can't plan anything because it just could happen any day. So the book really builds on this theme of displacement, right? And the uncertainty and instability that creates. And writing about that, but also so much more,

Or you write that Palestine is not merely an exception to supposedly universal rights, like the right to have a home, right, or a country. But a warning about how easily those rights can be withdrawn from others. What do you want readers to understand from that warning? I think for years we, as Palestinians, have been warning. Like, everything starts with us. So take my personal story when I was detained back in March 2025, like, a couple of months into Trump's administration, we're warning that it's going to start with us.

We are the canary in the coal mine. And then after my detention, the Trump administration, touted about it as a plan or as a blueprint. That's what the White House said about my arrest, because they want to use my arrest as a test case against other people. And also a warning to others. And warning to others. Like they want to make an example out of me.

so no one would speak up against the administration. It's not necessarily not to speak about Palestine. Of course, that was a primary goal for them to just like chill the speech of people and mostly students from speaking out for Palestine. Because the intention was not international students. Right. Most of the protesters were American students, American citizens who were dismayed by the genocide happening in Gaza,

by the U.S. support to that. But after me, they... So sorry, if I might interrupt you, since, you know, you are saying that this is partially about, of course, the government's desire to chill speech and suppress speech, right? Like the First Amendment is partially the vehicle, right, for challenging what is happening. But Palestine is the reason, as you are also describing. So what is lost when liberal defenders protect a Palestinian speaker's abstract right to speak while potentially distancing themselves from the substance of what the speaker is actually saying? I think I talk a little bit about in my story how, in the book, like how some of my lawyers wanted to focus a lot on your case is the First Amendment speech.

Like, let's focus only on that and, you know, not talk a lot about Palestine because Palestine is more of a throny issue. A lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable about, like, supporting you if it was about Palestine. But if we say, like, it's a First Amendment, then it's easier. And I think that was, to me, sort of. of, I wouldn't say insulting. Like, I understand their point of view.

I understand that they are trying to protect me and to really have my case resonate with as many people as possible. But with that, I'm sort of like I would be participating in the erasure of my people. The right to narrate that Palestinians for so long were denied. Everyone speaks about Palestinians, what Palestinians want, what Palestinians are, but they never want to hear from Palestinians. They don't want to hear about all these things about Palestine. And by being complicit in that, I'm shooting myself in the leg, like, why would they do that? And as if speaking for Palestine is a taboo, is something wrong.

And it's not what I was advocating for is simply for equal rights, the end of killing, the end of using our tuition fees at Colombia or our tax dollars in the U.S. from being sent to a foreign government. So there's nothing wrong about that. That's why we are trying to tiptoe around like that topic. And liberals still get wrong now, like, you know, with the Ed Sherrin-McClemore now, like all that happening. It's not merely about First Amendment. Or even just about corporate power, right?

Exactly. It goes beyond way beyond that. So most people might be familiar with some aspects of your story or at least how the administration targeted you literally. grabbing you off the street, right, shipping you off, sending you to different detention facilities. And as you recount that experience, you say that constitutional protections supposedly are not supposed to depend on whether a person is sent to New Jersey, Louisiana, or Vermont. But in practice, it does. And of course, this is a theme that is very familiar to our listeners as we talk about the Fifth Circuit or courts in Texas often. But what does your case suggest about the

conventional legal idea that federal law is uniform and applies across the country. I mean, absolutely like the law should be one and equal and applied equally to everyone, especially in one country. But the legal system in this country, I feel like it's a product of the political system where presidents appoint or nominate their preferred judges. And it's just like it's insane to me because it's very, very ideological. It becomes that a court would become very ideological. And what happened to me, We call it forum shopping, where the government would want to take the case to a place where they think they would get a very preferable judge.

That's happening so much in the South, and that's why it was shipped. And to me, when I realized that that was even possible, I was very shocked. Like, that, like, a court wouldn't see that, like, that's why the government shipped me over 1,300 miles in 24 hours, like less than 24 hours. I think I was out of New York, 14, 15 hours after my arrest. And that makes like this tiered system of justice. So, for example, in my habeas petition case that was argued in Jersey, we won because like that's like the case is so clear that the government is trying to unlawfully detain me based on these bogus claims. But it was a Democrat judge that ruled in our face.

After that, we lost an appeal two to one because the panel was two Republicans, one Democrat. After that, on Bonk, when the whole court wanted to hear, it was like six to five. We lost six to five. So it was right across the ideological lines. The opposite happened in the Fourth Circuit or in Virginia with Badr Kansuri, someone who's going exactly the same as I'm going through, where he was lucky that he got a Democrat majority court that ruled in his face. So I'm here. I'm in this stage where I'm now, like, at the verge of deportation.

Like, it's just like by Mir, like that I ended up in New Jersey because I, you know, the government took me there to sleep there. I mean, they were hoping I would go to the Fifth Circuit, but also now I'm fighting my, my immigration case in the Fifth Circuit that's known to be extremely ideological. Ideological. Favoring the Trump administration, you name it. Yeah. So he's like, I don't think there's justice. that's when I say, I feel like I'm getting justice a lot through, and not necessarily in courts,

but more when people are voting out those who contributed to my abduction or are waking up to all these injustices happening, whether to me or to my people. That's justice to me. That's accountability to me. And on those ideological outcomes and divisions, you know, you mentioned that the Court of Appeals en banc, the Third Circuit, you know, divided by narrow margins on whether to rehear your case. And I would be remiss if I did not remind listeners that some apparently, you know, Democratic senators refuse to confirm some nominees to that Court of Appeals. And who did that clear the way to be confirmed? Judge Emil Beauvais, right? So, like, this is part of why we will not stop talking about. those judicial vacancies and nominations because they can truly make the difference between

enforcing law vindicating rights and not. No, in my case, I mean that really what made a big difference because it's very, as you said, it's very narrowly divided. I think it's like seven to six. if the Democrats managed to fill that vacancy instead of Beauvais, like it above it, it could be like the opposite, seven, six Democrats, and that meant protections for millions and millions of immigrants. Because again, like this case, it's not about me as a person. It's about whether immigrants in general, they would have access to habeas corpus to challenge constitutional claims. And that's like another part of, I mean, you're very familiar why.

that judge was not confirmed. Yes. Basically because he was a Muslim. Yes. Yep. Exactly. It all comes full circle. But speaking about you as a person, as a scholar, you read ex parte endo, the Supreme

Court decision while you were detained. And we're struck not principally by the fact that the detainee, the petitioner, won, so the doctrinal victory. But by the way, the individual, Ms. Endo, disappeared into a case name. One in the Supreme Court, but as you. emphasize the machinery logic of mass incarceration did not disappear. And what does that history suggest about the difference between winning a case, challenging a system, and how we need to keep the people affected front and center? I mean, that's what I'm really struggling with because now

even like sometimes I tune in some legal webinars and they talk about my case, you know, like the Khalil case. Right here, right here. That's the thing. It's just like about the Khalil case. And I'm now like sort of brought down to that case. And that's how I felt about Indo. You know, like it's, you know, I was like, oh, what's in what's Indo?

And then I went because I had so much time in detention. I was like, okay, let me go look up what Indo is. And I was so shocked about her story about how the United States even when further, you know, they were citizens of Japanese and the state, yet the government found a way to go after them. And that's when I say like these rights are not only ours to lose because it's really once the administration, any administration, not necessarily this

one, they target a specific subset of people or whatever we want to call it, they can. They would be able to. And that's why we need to keep. fighting because these rights that we got, people take it for granted. I'm really like fighting this case mostly in a bigger part because what's happening to me is wrong and shouldn't happen to anyone else and less about whether I want to stay in this country or not. Because fundamentally what's happening is wrong. Of course, I want to stay in this country. I'm fighting because they believe in the principles of the constitution of this country and the potential of it. It's not perfect,

but there is potential. So speaking of those principles and rights, after the experiences you have had, what do phrases like the rule of law or constitutional rights mean to you now? I mean, down in me, like, I still believe, like, I've always believed in the rule of law. I always believed in the constitutional rights. What's happening now is these are afforded to some, to those who align with power, to those who I once described it as a democracy of convenience, that when it's convenient, we will give you law, rule of law. We would. give you constitutional rights. In reality, people in power, they don't really care about that. They would use it the way they wanted. And all of these, it's becoming to be abstract, very abstract,

when the rule of law is not applied equally. When constitutional rights now, there is like different interpretations about, you know, who are the people? You know, like now they're saying the people are only U.S. citizens. They would go back to say, like, oh, the people actually are not the enslaved people, but also it would go, the people are not. not women, all of that. Like, it's shocking. The other point is, I feel like, also the rule of law is applied very, and equally, like, to people, because... Which definitely is not the rule of law, right? Like, the rule of law is supposed to mean just the law and apply to everyone equally, right? Not depending on who the person is. But I think this administration figured that they could do

anything they wanted, whether legal or not legal. And the worst that could happen, the court would tell them, can you stop doing that without any real consequences? And if there were real consequences, it would be money that would be paid out of taxpayers rather than actually from the individual inflecting such damage. Because when I think about the officials who defamed me, who literally like turned my life into hell, they're not going to pay, mostly like pay for any of what they did because of the immunity or federal immunity or whatever, which is to me, it's just like bizarre because then how this people would stop doing what they're doing, like if they are, if they feel that they are immune. Yeah. So speaking of, you were talking earlier, why you want to

win your case. Throughout the book, I believe that we will win appears as both kind of an encouragement, you know, a movement chant and also a means of survival and in particular surviving detention. So what does winning mean to you now? You mentioned obviously wanting to prevail in your own case, but there's also challenging the detention system, furthering Palestinian liberation. Is it something that encompasses all of the above or more? I absolutely think it encompasses all of these and more. And in principle is, I don't think the administration targeted me because they know me. It's just like they wanted to send a message and I was the messenger.

So what they want was much, much bigger than that is like to actually terrorize people into not speaking and to use this as a blueprint to go after so many other people. So winning to me, and I believe we are winning. It's not like I believe we will win. I believe we are actually winning right now. The fact that the president of the United States is coming after, you know, a random student. That means that we are actually making different.

And winning to me is really what we are seeing now in polls and hopefully we'll see in the midterms that people are finally waking up to the years of the humanizations against Palestinians and immigrants alike, against the other as they want or the administration want to describe. So that's winning a big win for me. And of course, like to me is that all what I'm doing and what I advocate for is for the liberation of Palestine. and that's the ultimate winning for me. But it's also like the liberation of humans as a whole, you know, because the liberation of Palestine, I don't want it to come at the expense of anyone. So to me, it's just like a liberation of all of us, because to me, this conversation that's now us and them,

it's very dehumanizing. I don't think it's sustainable and Orwood get, like, peace. I don't want to be naive at the same time about, like, all of these. But in reality, this is what I'm fighting for. is just like to liberate us all. Well, maybe we should end on the note that we are in fact winning. Again, the book is No Land to Stand On and is out tomorrow by Mahmoud Khalil. Thank you so much for joining Mahmood.

We will be thinking of you as your legal fight continues. And thank you for joining us and reminding us of the human stakes to so many of these cases and issues. Thank you so much, Leah. Thank you for having me. Thanks again to Mahmoud Khalil for joining us. And as always, we are going to wrap with our favorite things. I've got a few. One, LeVane's

Fall Spice Chocolate Chip cookies. Delicious. Can I just ask, it's not the same as pumpkin spice. Is Fall Spice a broader spice palette? Yeah, I would describe it as a broader spice. I think it's all spice.

Yeah. Okay. Exactly. Clove, you know, cinnamon and whatnot. Sounds great. Closy. Was also going to add ProPublica. They don't need access journalism

to do great journalism. What is everyone else doing? Two books on similar themes, Gil Durant's, Nerd Reich. And Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor's end times fascism. And then two shoutouts to people who I don't know exactly how to describe what they have managed to do, but like overcome incredible adversity and just wanted to note that Amanda Zoroski announced that she and her husband welcomed a child. Amanda, of course, is one of the women who whose life was threatened by Texas's near total abortion ban. She testified in front of Congress and elsewhere about that experience. She was a guest at our live show in Austin. She's wonderful. We're such huge fans of hers.

Sorry, but big news is, yeah. And another, another Texas is Alyssa Edwards slash Justin Johnson, who absolute slime of the earth, Ken Paxton, has decided to come after and target as part of his campaign. And Alyssa responded with the poise and grace that defines someone who was crowned, America's next. drag superstar global all-stars edition. She has more grace and wit than Ken Paxton will ever. And I mean, it's just astonishing if you like read the response and then, yeah. So just wanted to note that. It's not astonishing because if you've seen Ken Paxton.

That's true. But astonishing and an astonishing response to a POS. Totally. Okay. I'm going to mention a couple of things. One, I am finally reading this book I've been meeting to. read for a while. Daniel Imrewar's How to Hide an Empire. He is a historian at Northwestern. I had sort of had the book on my radar and that he wrote a really good review in the New Yorker

of Niko Bui and Daphna Rannan's new book, supremacy, which we've talked about. And so I was like, oh, I should really read his book. It's incredible. It is great. Okay, a couple of pieces of magazine reporting from this week. Ari Berman and Pema Levy and Mother Jones have a long piece about Calais and the new new Jim Crow that is gutting read, but really, really important, really excellent, excellent journalism. And sort of in that similar category, also gutting, also urgent and important, but highly personal is Nicole Hannah Jones's piece in The Times about her daughter and the New York City public schools failing her and just this kind of wrenching set of decisions and reckoning with those decisions that she and her family made about how to educate her

daughter in a system that continues to fail largely black and brown kids in New York City. And it's, like, really brave and beautiful piece and highly recommend parents and everybody read it. So I don't mean to contradite it. Like, I actually found the Nicole Hannah-Jones piece so hard to read this year. You know, I remember the earlier piece from 10 years ago, and I remember reading that too. And we made totally different choices for our kids. I think one thing that the piece doesn't talk about, but I think maybe should is that for black parents, there's just no really good options. Like, you send your kid to a failing school and you have a piece like, you know, Nicole Hannah-Jones. You send your kid to a fantastic school with great resources, but they're one of like a handful of kids who look like them, and you know, you worry about their self-esteem being

crushed indefinitely and not being sufficiently tethered to their identity. There's just no good options. And I really wish she had just said that explicitly. So one thing I did love as a response that doesn't excoriate her as so many people are doing on the internet was a piece by Zach Cheney Rice in New York Magazine that responds to her New York Times piece. But I think it's just sort of reckoning with this, there were just shitty choices out there. And this is part of the residue of segregation. And it is really hard to do what Nicole Hannah-Jones tried to do when you're doing it basically alone. The difference between now and parents in the 1960s sending their kids into predominantly white schools to integrate them is that they were working as part of a huge

coalition and community. And that was just not what Nicole Hannah Jones was doing. It may have been what she aspired to, but in the end, it seems that's not what happened. I also want to just say plus one to the pro-publica story. You should definitely read the pro-publica story about Maine Senator Susan Collins and these allegations about her and her team perhaps accepting a large cash transfer from a shell company, allegedly, that may also have resulted in government contracts going to a government contractor in exchange. So I think it's just amazing reporting. And again, the whole question of access, not when you're ProPublica.

You just keep on your hustle. Good for you. I'm in Austin at the Tribune Fest, and I just saw Senator Raphael Warnock talk about his new book, The Cricket Parts, Make Straight. I read it when it came out a few months ago. It's really just inspiring. He's like literally one of the best speakers I've ever heard, so definitely try and take a look at that. And I've gotten to meet so many fantastic stricties in the wild here in Austin. So let me shout out Cassie, Morgan.

Marie, Parisi, Joyce, and the fabulous ladies of Bookwoman, not book people, although they are great, Book Woman, which is an Austin indie bookstore that's absolutely fantastic, run by Lori and Susan, and they were absolutely fantastic. So please check them out if you're there. And finally, some housekeeping before we go. Stricties. Are we going to see you at CrookedCon? The lineup was just released, and we think you're going to like what you see. Along with your favorite crooked hosts, you'll see potential presidential candidates, members of Congress, campaign strategists, organizers, journalists, and many more at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center on November 7th. And at the November 6th, Strict scrutiny Live, we are going to be joined by attorney, civil rights activist,

and former president and director of the NACP Legal Defense Fund, multi-hyphenate and total badass, Sherilyn Eiffel. So we are going to have so much jurisprudence madness. It's going to be absolutely fantastic. I can't think of a better person to help us break down all of this than Cheryl Nifle. So get your tickets. What are you even doing with your life? If you're listening to this album that Leah is like literally losing her mind over, like just pause. I can't help handle this on the eve of a new Supreme Court term. Yeah, it's a lot. Press pause. Press pause. Buy your tickets. Sherilyn, we have had, we've been so lucky to have incredible guests over the years we've been doing this podcast. Sherilyn is one of the very best. And we've never had.

had her at a live show. So I am so, so excited to do that. Okay, so that is November 6th. And then we'll be at the CrookedCon all-day event with another panel on November 7th the next day, so you have two opportunities to hang out with us. The shows will be very different, but I think it's fair to say, equally fun. You can view the full CrookedCon lineup and get tickets at crookedcon.com. Ticket prices will go up on October 6, so you're still in the lower price window. Get yours now to lock in the early bird price. But if you are too busy, hate listening to the new tracks between now. Now in October 6, you can still probably get tickets after that, if there are any left, but try to get yours early. See you there.

You can definitely get your emotional support billionaire to buy them for you. Strict scrutiny is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Melody Rowell and Michael Goldsmith. Music by Eddie Cooper. Our team includes Matt DeGroote, Ben Hethko, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffat, Adam Lippert, and Eric Schute. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. If you miss some of your favorite crooked pods this week, don't worry. you can now catch up on the week's best moments on MS Now on Saturday nights.

MS Now is streaming an episode of highlights from your favorite Crooked Pods, packing as much analysis, funny moments, and 100% correct opinions into 40 minutes as humanly possible. Crooked on MS Now airs every Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific.