Strict Scrutiny - A Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Term

Episode Date: July 8, 2024

Kate, Melissa, and Leah steel themselves to look back on a truly terrible term for the ages. From SCOTUS’s determined effort to hollow out the administrative state to its cynical dodges on abortion to granting immunity to certain corrupt former presidents, it was a rough ride. Drink, anyone?In case you want to hear our predictions for yourself, go back and listen to our term preview from September 2023 Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. It's an old joke, but when a 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 slash vibes slash that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Melissa Murray. I'm Leah Littman. And I'm Kate Shaw. And welcome to our term recap. We have had just a little time,

as in about a day, to digest what we all just lived through. So we're going to ask you to bear with us as we try to process and work through some of this in real time with each other and with all of you. And we have done a lot of opinion analysis and critique along the way. So today we're mostly going to focus on the big slash high-level themes about the term. And if we have time at the end of the show, we will also turn to some roses and thorns. So first, mostly thorns. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Spoiler alert. Slim pickings for the roses. But we are going to try to find what we can even if it's a few stray lines in Justice Kagan's bitch slap slash bench slap of the Fifth Circuit. So it's what we're left with. But first, a bit of a prequel. This isn't a theme, but we wanted to remind people of the context for the beginning of

this term and the end of it. So in the lead up to this term, ProPublica published a story about Clarence Thomas attending Koch Network donor events that Leonard Leo had arranged. Sam Alito gave his now infamous Wall Street Journal interview with David Rifkin and James Toronto. Rifkin was one of the lawyers in Moore, the preemptive wealth tax challenge that the court heard this past term. Alito then issued a recusal statement explaining why he wouldn't recuse from Moore. The statement said, quote, when Mr. Rivkin participated in the interviews and co-authored the articles, he did so as a journalist, not an advocate, end quote.

Basically, Sam gave us a preview of the court's immunity decision. Only here what mattered was the difference between official versus unofficial lawyer acts. Only now do we actually really understand what he was saying. Copy-pasted that. Yeah, that's right.

All right. So that was before the term started. And also before the start of the term, this was in September of 2023, Politico broke some additional news about Ginny Thomas, Leonard Leo, and the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United. That reporting detailed how in the months before the court announced its decision in Citizens United, a group of activists created a dark money group that the ruling Citizens United would enable. The activists, Ginny Thomas and Leonard Leo with backing from, you guessed it, Harlan Crowe. And if this sounds like something

that happened a decade ago, I too was like, as we were putting this note together, was like, no, no, no, that's like ancient history right now. That was all in this absolutely interminable Supreme Court term. But it's important to both remind you of what happened at the start of the term and also what the term ended with beyond just the ghastly decisions that the court gave us. So while the beginning of the term was all about having an emotional support billionaire, seemed like the end of the term was also about having an emotional support billionaire. There was Senate reporting on Justice Thomas's additional private jet travel on the dime of one Harlan Crow, trips that Justice Thomas did not disclose, because why would you, until they were made public by ProPublica's reporting.

And the New York Times also had some really interesting reporting on House Alito's Stop the Steal Christian Nationalism flags. This was also coupled with Lauren Windsor's epic, vergonia-filled undercover sleuthing slash recordings of Justice and Mrs. Alito at a Supreme Court Historical Society event. And that's not all. In addition to the reporting on both the undercover recordings and on the flags, Justice Alito decided to enter the chat with his own epic, Virgonia-filled recusal statement that said he had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the flying of those flags. All of this was his wife's fault because she, as he put it, is, quote, very fond of flying flags, end quote.

And he also noted that Martha Ann Alito is a rights holder with the authority to use their jointly held property in any way that she wishes and to make her own decisions. It must be nice. The feeling of knowing what it's like to be a rights holder in the eyes of Justice Alito wouldn't know. Only one woman can say that. Exactly.

One of one, the only one. Exactly. So that reporting bookended this term. We also want to note that this most recent term, October term 2023, was the third full year of the court's six to three conservative supermajority. In each of the two previous terms, this six to three supermajority explicitly overruled, you know, at least one major decision a year and abandoned some others. And that certainly didn't stop this year. The court overruled Chevron, abandoned Atlas Roofing, and generally

got its legal freak on in lots of ways. No, no, it wasn't just getting your freak on. This was like freaknik for Supreme Court justices. And if you don't know what I mean, there's a whole ass documentary for it and you should check it out. No, but just to tick off some of that freaknik, enormous new powers to the president, decimation of the administrative state, cynical dodges on abortion in a way that seemed designed to push any major post-Dobbs abortion decisions until after the next presidential election, an attempt to reduce the salience of abortion in the upcoming election. And we set this up at the beginning of the term recap because this is the Supreme Court as we have it. And one is left to wonder, will the Democrats do anything about this? Will they say anything about this, like attempt to run against the court or on constraining

the court or reforming it? And I mean, we have done a real public service because we've given them some really good taglines, YOLO court, I'm offering up now. No law, just vibes. Law-free zones. SCOTA-splaining to the administrative state. You name it. Freaknik court. I mean, freaknik court is right there. Emotional support billionaires. There definitely are scattered Democratic members of Congress and candidates who have been talking about the court and are. But is the Democratic Party, is the presidential campaign centering the Supreme Court the way it should? Like right now, not even a little bit. And if this isn't going to galvanize that kind of response, like I truly don't know what is.

The president did step out and make a statement after the announcement of the Supreme Court's decision on the Trump immunity case. And there were some, I think, court forward notes in that. But I do think it's something that could be pushed on a little more strongly, like, really lean into it. Right? I mean, I think this works with a lot of people, like maybe they should. I have to say, hearing the kind of response, and again, we're recording this just a day after the term, but hearing the response thus far from the most powerful Democrats left me a little with the vibe of the arrested development schtick purr. Like, really? Like that? Really? You know, I'm just kind of like waiting for a little bit more along these lines. And it's just not happening. I feel like that's been a theme of this podcast, though,

for the last five years. Every year we talk about how much the Democrats need to make the court a part of electoral politics. And I think it's happening, but it's go time, people. It really is an urgent moment. And the court is right at the center of it. I think the public understands that. I think people get that this is really fucked up, but I think the politicians need to get

on it, too. And look, I don't know if running on the court is the best politics. It seems to me that it is. But certainly, in terms of propelling Joe Biden back to the White House and Democrats to control of chambers of Congress, it seems to me like it could be a winning issue, but I don't know for sure. But I do know that the court itself is just desperately in need of focus and attention and reform. And that's never going to happen if those who do spend their time talking to the public and to voters don't focus on the Supreme Court. And there actually is on this matter, like there is good polling. So Marquette

did a poll a couple of months ago. Approval of the Supreme Court is back down in the trenches where, you know, it has been sort of... Belongs. It's been where it absolutely belongs lower, but it's at 39%. And that is, you know, tied, I think, with the lowest... Send those 39% strict scrutiny. That's right. No, it should be below that. But that is shockingly low in kind of comparative terms. And that's before the barrage of decisions in the last two weeks of the term. So I would be very curious to see what the next round of polling looks like. And interestingly, in that polling, there was something very that I hadn't noticed at the time the poll came out, which is that 71% of the polled respondents said there should be no immunity for ex-presidents.

It's very hard to get 71% of respondents to agree on anything. And so in addition to just, well, we've talked about this, we'll talk about it a little bit more on this episode, but vile, egregious, dangerous, all the other things that the immunity ruling is, I think that's a really unpopular ruling. And if that's the case, that's also something you can capitalize on to galvanize voters. Yeah. And just to echo something we had said, I think in the last term recap, although it's all blurring together at this point with all the horrors, like running against the court, again, I don't know politically if it's the right thing to do. But intuitively, it is a way of changing the dynamics of informing people who,

right, the ruling party is, because they have this lock on the Supreme Court and they are using it to institute all of their preferred Republican policies. Many of those policies are deeply unpopular, whether it is bump stocks, immunity for ex-presidents or no emergency care for abortions. I mean, The New York Times had a poll suggesting there was something like 80 percent support in the country to allow people to get emergency abortion care when doctors and hospitals believe they need it. And on top of that, like whether it is the right political thing to do, it seems like it's plausible it is and possible it is, but it is important enough for our democracy, right? Like if this past term coupled with the last two did not underscore to you enough what a threat this court is to democracy and how much they need to be constrained. I don't know at what point you're going to be able to get that before

it is too late, before there truly are so many impediments to a majority exercising political power that it just becomes all the more difficult. Or impossible, Like it just becomes impossible. Yeah. Honestly, I feel like we're living in the Weimar Republic. That's dark, but that's kind of how it feels. Yeah. Anyway, scary times. All right.

Let's go through some of these themes for this craptastic SCOTUS term. So one theme that I'll put out there, what you didn't like that. I'm calling it like I'm, it's the end of the term. I'm fucking done with decorum. I'm just calling it as I see it. It's a craptastic term.

So the number one theme as I see it is, is government as we know it, that is, is a semi-functional democracy unconstitutional? Or are we really a monarchy slash autocracy run by a president king or failing that by judge kings? And I'm thinking- And. I think and is a possibility. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe both and. We identified this question in our term preview. So I'm going to roll that clip for the Cassandras in the back of the house. And the cases that kind of present this theme,

also can tend to sound a little technical, which also raises concerns about this potentially flying under the radar. But nonetheless, like the big issue and theme that they tee up is whether government as we know it is constitutional. So we really called it. We said it. And the court was like, bet. Let's do it. And they're like yeah we will say that with our chest say it with our chest fuck democracy fuck effective government i mean so let's lay out a little bit sort of of detail regarding how they said all of this are you gonna be okay because we're really like it's are you to be okay with this? Melissa and I are already at like 500. I'm here for it. I'm here for it. I'm revved up too. It's manifesting in a more subdued way,

but I think I'm revved way to fuck up too. It's a slow burn, like the Democrats' interest in the courts. It's a very slow burn. Try and get there, Kate. I hope we all end up boiling because- Okay. Match my vibe, Kate. Match my vibe. didn't. Match my vibe, Kate. All right. All right. All right. All right. I don't know if this next bit will, but give me time. I'll get there. First, though, we wanted to sort of walk through a couple of categories of cases where the court's interest in flirtation with dismantling the government was on display. First are the administrative law cases. And so that is Loperbright slash Relentless, the case overruling Chevron. Jarkese, the case invalidating an important mechanism for enforcement of laws, that is agency adjudication.

Ohio versus EPA, a case second-guessing an important emission standard and also setting forth, I think, a regime in which the court announced that there's a new sheriff in town when it comes to second-guessing agency rulemaking processes. And that sheriff is the Supreme Court slash one Neil Gorsuch. And finally, corner post, a case that massively expands the amount of time a disgruntled litigant or a billionaire benefactor who finds a plaintiff have to challenge agency regulations. So these are all cases that in different ways rip power away from expert agencies and transfer that power to the deregulatory ghouls on the federal courts. So that involves things like interpreting or resolving ambiguities in regulatory statutes and determining whether regulations are supported by evidence and also procedurally sound and deciding how to enforce laws and regulations. And again, when

regulations can be challenged. So in each of these cases, the court delivered a decisive win to these deregulatory forces, and it also assumed for itself massive new powers in all of these different spheres. Another category in which you could also glimpse this theme of is democracy constitutional, are the cases that are literally about existential threats to democracy, where the court was like, no, let's open the door all the way to fascism. Let's do that. So this, of course, was a set of cases involving January 6th. One involved the claims of immunity that former President Trump brought in response to his being charged with crimes because of the January 6th insurrection, Trump versus United States. There was also a set of questions that were raised in the Trump disqualification case,

that was Trump versus Anderson, where the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from that state's ballot. And then there were the cases involving the rank and file January 6th defendants, Fisher versus the United States, where the court concluded that the statute under which many of the rank and file January 6th defendants had been charged was not meant to apply to the context of January 6th, but rather to something else. We've talked before about how that case really got these committed textualists, those folks who love a little textual healing, well, they really got their purpose on. And honestly,

I don't even know what to say to that. They're not even being remotely consistent with their application of these various canons of statutory interpretation or approaches. So these cases are all about normalizing authoritarianism by granting different kinds of immunity to corrupt anti-democratic behavior or narrowing the reach of statutes so that they cannot reach behavior that is anti-democratic and indeed deeply, deeply dangerous to the functioning of a working government. But no big deal. Yeah, I do think it's really important to read those three cases together, especially because Trump versus Anderson is a couple of months ago. And I think people have a little bit forgotten about it. But like, taking a step back, this is what is at stake here. So a

former president lost to his opponent in a free and fair election. He sought to abuse his power and defy the Constitution and stay in office despite electoral defeat. That was unsuccessful, right? He left office. And when he did, the American legal system tried to respond. So state and federal prosecutors brought charges against both Trump and other participants in the effort. And then some states moved to disqualify Trump and other offenders from future public office as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment contemplates. But at every turn in each of these cases, the Supreme Court has decided to shield Trump and his allies from meaningful legal consequence. And I don't think you can understand this term without viewing those cases as part of that coordinated effort. Yeah. At this point, Justice Gorsuch's book, A Republic If You

Can Keep It, is basically the equivalent of OJ's If I Did It. Personally, I prefer Democracy or Else. Oh, yeah, as a good one. But it is it is nice to know that boys can write books, too. So, well, I love that Neil, like, he couldn't even stop himself from heap eating Benjamin Franklin. So profound, that guy. So we've now gone through two cases that we think implicate this large question of, is government as we know it constitutional, but there's also a third group of cases that I think fall under this umbrella. And I would describe them as reflecting a kind of nihilistic dystopian vision for government where the court is actively blocking the government from intervening to save people's lives and respond to people's

needs. And there are a few entries in this category. And I'm going to put the Amtala case here, even though the court kind of held its fire and dismissed the case and sent it back to the lower courts. But the court is responsible for putting the lower court ruling on hold and the injunction not being in effect for a period of time. So women had to be regularly airlifted out of Idaho to receive emergency care. And the court's dig leaves in place the Fifth Circuit decision that suspended EMTALA in that circuit, including in Texas. So excuse us if we're not extravagantly praising the court for this dodge. But that is just like a very, very bleak understanding of what government is. Can we say this one more time? Like people in Idaho had to be airlifted for emergency care as a direct result of the Supreme Court's intervention to put on hold the correct

lower court ruling, which after all these months in their infinite wisdom, they decided, oh, that should go back into effect. Every single pregnant person who had to fly on a plane instead of getting needed care in Idaho had to do that because of SCOTUS. And I think we talk sometimes about the Supreme Court's opinions and we parse the legal reasoning and we ask if they're faithfully describing precedents. And like, those are the actual flesh and blood stakes of what the court did in this case. And I'm so glad that they didn't do something horrible with Amtala, but I'm so furious that the way they did it has removed abortion entirely from the debate about the court right now at this critical time. When in reality, the court basically just said, oopsie, sorry, we withdrew emergency medical care for women for like almost a year based on our just like little boo boo.

Of course, they would never say sorry because they would never, ever acknowledge fault ever. Why are you even surprised by this? They did the same fucking thing in Milligan last term. This is the same thing where they're like, you know what? Let's let these shitty maps go into effect. Let's use them in the midterm elections. Let's see the Democrats lose a seat or more. And then months later, we'll be like, you know what?

Our bad. That was a gerrymander. Let's strike it down and look like heroes. They do this all the time. Also, Kate, I loved how incensed you got. You're almost there. Keep going. Yeah. Yeah. All right. I'm revving up. Okay. No, I'm so furious about Imtala. I'm so furious. Well, I mean, here's the other reason to be furious about what the court did. I mean, so yes, now the Ninth Circuit's ruling isn't like ruling, allowing the lower courts ruling to be in place has gone into effect. But as Leah said, the Texas law is in effect

because of the Fifth Circuit's ruling. And Texas actually has much more people of reproductive age than does Idaho. So it's a huge, huge problem. So do not pat these ghouls on the back for digging this. Like they've actually made it really terrible without actually resolving anything. Another place they've made things terrible is in bump stock land. So let's talk about cargo. So the court, again, in this sort of dystopian, nihilistic fashion, has unleashed bump stocks, these devices that can be attached to existing firearms to make them more deadly, to allow them to fire bullets and ammunition at a much more rapid rate. All of

this is now permissible. And I just want to note that the bump stock decision has this kind of neoliberal vibe to it, this idea, like sort of neoliberal and libertarianism, like having a really terrible baby together, where the only kind of government we will accept is very limited government. And people have to just make better decisions for themselves. Like you don't want to get shot by a bump stock. Don't go out in public. Stay in your home, ladies. And the choices that they have to make are within the limited confines of the protections that their state and local governments can sketch out for them. And again, those are very limited. But at bottom, the government cannot intervene to redistribute.

It has to stay out of the way. Unless you're trying to get an abortion, then they can definitely intervene. But it all just feels like- Or to protect, right? They can't intervene to protect. You can't intervene. But it all just feels like- Or to protect, right? They can't intervene to protect. You can't intervene to protect. I would also lump the Chevron cases in with this too, if you think about this question of redistribution

from corporations to the public for the purpose of making publics- To planet Earth. Yes. Like all of it is just incredibly gross. And this idea that government does nothing but stay out of the way of major corporations and then get in the way of little people who are just trying to improve

their lives. Yeah. So let me throw one more case in under the heading of this kind of dystopian vision of government, which is the political corruption case Snyder. We talked about that case a good amount, but what it does, is allow gifts and rewards for official acts. It does so through this very lengthy exposition about the normalcy of giving sometimes very valuable gifts to officials for the ordinary jobs they do. And I just wanted to quickly share an anecdote that just made me think about Snyder. So I'm in Michigan with my family, and I took my kids down the beach to get ice cream at a stand on the beach. And there was no tip jar. And so the teenager who like served, it was like my kids and cousins and like seven kids, they changed their orders. It was a huge pain at the end. I wanted to give her a tip and there was no tip jar. And I was like, oh, can I just like leave a couple of dollars on the

counter? And she's like, oh no, no, this is where the city actually runs the stand. We can't take tips. And I was like, cool. I'm sorry. I felt the teenager I'm sure would have liked it. She seemed totally sanguine about it. Wasn't like resentful, just informed me, and we went on our way. And I was just like, the symbolic and expressive force of a Supreme Court saying all of these laws and norms that we try to implement to keep government honest and serving the people, the court is just so contemptuous about all of that. And Snyder technically says, OK, fine, states and localities can still regulate this stuff. We're just talking about federal law. That's the text of the opinion, but the vibe is such a pro-corruption vibe. It cannot but have ripple effects on efforts at the

state and local level to address this sort of thing. And it wouldn't be corrupting to tip this ice cream server by any stretch. But the vision of government, which is that government serves for reasons other than pure self-interest, is a vision that they want to completely eliminate. And it's enraging. Yeah, you're right. Even though the opinion formally preserves the possibility of state and local prohibitions on that kind of gifting, the vibe is normalizing the gifts and rewards because the first set of reasons or a key set of reasons the court gives for interpreting the federal statute that way is basically people do this all the time and you can't distinguish bad rewards from good rewards and that is just gross. So that's theme number one. Let's go on to the next theme, which is the Fifth Circuit.

And I'll just caption this one. The Fifth Circuit is a whole vibe. And we flagged this idea in our term preview. So Melody, roll that tape here. Another dynamic, maybe it's a theme, I don't know, is going to be watching the dynamics between the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Because a lot of the big cases that the Supreme Court is hearing this term are out of the Fifth Circuit, where the Fifth Circuit did some absolutely bananas stuff, like the medication abortion case is probably going to make its way to the Supreme Court this term. The CFPB case we just discussed, also out of the Fifth Circuit. An important Second Amendment case, Rahimi, that we'll talk about in a second, also out of the

Fifth Circuit. And others like those really involve out there Fifth Circuit takes. And I worry, you know, that press and commentary will have a tendency to depict the Supreme Court as reasonable measured institutionalism combination thereof, even when the Supreme Court distances itself from the Fifth Circuit's particular brand of crazy. We called it. So yeah, we did. We called this. Let's talk about some of the cases. So the reversals or vacatures, just this term include the Mepha-Pristone case, FDA versus Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which was a

9-0 reversal. Very, very hard to get this Supreme Court to agree on anything. Here they did agree on standing, although some of them may have had cynical and opportunistic reasons to do that. United States versus Rahimi, an 8-1 decision in which the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, where the Fifth Circuit had sided with an individual under domestic violence restraining order who wanted to keep his guns. Supreme Court reversed that. CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, that was a case involving the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The court reversed the Fifth Circuit there, 7-2. A case involving federal agency contacts with social media companies, the court reversed the Fifth Circuit 6-3. Devolier, Gonzalez versus Trevino,

net choice, three more Fifth Circuit reversals. So the Fifth Circuit's win rate is appalling at the Supreme Court, but it's not 100% reversal. I mean, it should be. But there were some affirmances that we should note. Garland versus Cargill, bump stocks. That was a big, big affirmance for the Fifth Circuit and one, I think, with really devastating consequences for everyone, not just people in the Fifth Circuit. Campos Chavez versus Garland, that was the case about whether the federal government, when issuing deportation notices, have to provide the appropriate information about the time and place of the deportation hearing. This was over a really strident dissent from Justice Jackson, who noted

that for years, despite the text of the statute, the federal government has basically been ignoring these dictates. And now the court has blessed it by saying that whatever the government provides, it's totally, totally fine. And then, of course, there was SEC versus Jarcacy, where the court blessed the Fifth Circuit's view that anytime an agency uses an adjudicative proceeding, an internal adjudicative proceeding, it's a problem in terms of the Seventh Amendment's right to a civil jury trial. So good times. And of course, TBD, there's the whole EMTALA debacle that now is going to be playing out, I think, at the Fifth Circuit. So what to say about the Fifth Circuit Supreme Court relationship?

There's so many different analogies that one could offer. I mean, it's almost like the Fifth Circuit is like that shitty boyfriend that keeps coming around and you know he's bad for you but he's just so hot but he's actually not even that hot and your friends keep telling you that he's not that hot but you still keep going out with him and like he has a guitar and he keeps playing push and you're like yes hey love that song and like and occasionally your friends weigh in your friends katanji elena and Ketanji, Elena, and Sonia, are like, leave him. He's a loser. And you're like, oh, you're right. I should leave him. And you do. But then he pulls out that guitar and you're like, it's time for some bump stocks.

And you let him back in. There's a better analogy, I'm sure. There is, but that one still worked. And we'll probably get to more. So before we get into the ways in which I think the court benefits from and indulges the Fifth Circuit, did want to flag, there are times where even this Supreme Court seems exasperated with the Fifth Circuit, like the Fifth Circuit is doing its job too well. Only when its job is to make this court look good by going so far to the right that the court then gets to tack back and be only slightly less extreme and look like they're moderates, right? Exactly. Getting a few bonus points from like temporarily stepping back from the abyss. Like, for example, the Chief Justice's rebuke of the Fifth Circuit and Judge Hohenrahimi or Justice Barrett's rebuke of the Fifth Circuit

and Murphy or Justice Kagan in Net Choice. Some choice quotes kind of illustrating this. So Justice Barrett and Murphy said, quote, the Fifth Circuit relied on the district court's factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous, end quote, or Justice Kagan in Net Choice, where, she was like, we need to clarify the law of facial challenges and the First Amendment. Quote, that need is especially stark for the Fifth Circuit. And there has been enough litigation already to know that the Fifth Circuit, if it stayed the course, would get wrong at least one significant input into the facial analysis. That was fun.

I appreciated that. I actually will give it up to Justice Barrett. It wasn't quite the zinger that Justice Kagan landed, but she's tipping over there. She's pretty pissed. But I'll note, the only people who are mad at the bad boyfriend of the Fifth Circuit are women. Yes. Right? The other guys are deeply into it. Also, a great analogy that works, I'm going to give a hat tip to friend of the pod, Sherilyn Ifill, who noted this on the MSNBC show All In, hosted by our former roadie and current Mr. Kate Shaw, Chris Hayes, that the court's rebuke of the Fifth Circuit is really like when a parent who spoils a child outrageously then punishes the child for being outrageously spoiled. And

I kind of like that because the Fifth Circuit really is SCOTUS's spoiled problem child. It's the Prince Joffrey of the judiciary. I think that really captures something. I was trying to think of other spoiled children that are enabled by their parents and been punished. Veruca Salt! I want to be blue, but no! No, but we need darker. We need a bloodthirsty darker and joffrey exactly and

joffrey gets it because like the other ones other than veruca salt that i was thinking of are like the bluth children from arrested development so like lindsey bluth like it's all i've ever wanted from you daddy to spend money on me or you know uh buster and lucille where you know lucille will occasionally get annoyed with him at being dependent. It's like, look at me getting off on being withholding. And anyways, but some specifics here that underscore that I think, in my view, the court's efforts to rebuke the Fifth Circuit are way more superficial and cosmetic than they are meaningful and substantive. Like this court is not actually unified around an idea of attempting to rein in that crazy. You know, there have been in these cases where there are reversals, no summary reversals. You know, the court could have easily summarily reversed at least the medication abortion

case. There was no need to spend all that time there. They also let them get away with a lot of BS, including on administrative stays. You know, recall back to Texas SB4, the draconian anti-immigration law that upended the existing framework for preemption, where the Fifth Circuit is like, oh, we're just, you know, like administratively staying, but we're going to sit on this for like a month. They've done that in other cases as well. And sometimes the Supreme Court gives the Fifth Circuit the A-OK on ignoring precedent and just disavowing the concept of law,

like in jargony. And so the Fifth Circuit has not gone rogue, at least so long as they are taking the lead that the Supreme Court gave them. And we read the quote from Murthy of Justice Barrett chiding the Fifth Circuit for getting the facts wrong, it's not like this court doesn't ever play fast and loose with the facts either. So they are not exactly a role model and showing the Fifth Circuit how to do this thing called law and judging. They sure are not. A couple things about the Fifth Circuit. Like one, so both its reversal rate, but also its, you know its huge presence on the court's docket. It was like 11 cases of the court's very small number of merits cases came out of the Fifth Circuit. But in some ways, both the reversals, but even the affirmances, I think, underscore

a couple of things. One, the kinds of off-the-wall legal theories that are now in the ether or in circulation that courts are being asked to embrace, and legal theories that are now in the ether or in circulation that courts are being asked to embrace. And sometimes they are not just in the Fifth Circuit, but largely in the Fifth Circuit embracing them. But also I think, again, the dynamic between the court and the Fifth Circuit relates to another theme that we flagged in the term preview, which is that you can't understand what this court is doing and the havoc that it is wreaking by looking in this myopic way at how many precedents have been overturned. You can upend a ton of things that are settled in American law and life without overturning a Supreme Court precedent because some things are so outlandish that the Supreme Court has never

affirmatively ruled them out or ruled on them at all. And yet these are the kinds of asks that these shifted Overton windows have now rendered plausible. And yet these are the kinds of asks that these shifted Overton windows have now rendered plausible. And so maybe let's play a clip from the term preview in which we sort of identified this phenomenon as well. The measure of how radical this Supreme Court is does not lie just in precedence overturned. So, of course, Dobbs overturned Roe. That was an enormous deal, and the public could really understand how disruptive that was. But some of the cases on deck this term are such audacious asks that there isn't even any case law to overturn. No one has even ever sought to frame and press arguments like this. They could destabilize large swaths of our collective lives, but they won't involve overruling a Supreme Court case necessarily. And there's a tendency to say, well, the Roberts Court or this iteration of the Roberts Court only overturns one or two cases a term, which is true across recent years. But that's not the only way to measure the radicalism of this court.

Here, I think Corner Post, the case about the Administrative Procedure Act and when you can file a challenge to an agency regulation is a great example, because what the courts there says is that the settled understanding about limitations periods, which was not set forth in a Supreme Court opinion, it was just understood by litigants to challenge regulations. But it's not one that involves the Supreme Court overruling a precedent. And so it won't be captured by certain metrics that people use to sort of demonstrate what they think is either the radicalism or sometimes the relative moderation of the court. But do not be fooled by those numbers. So that's theme number two. And trust me, it's not going to get more uplifting from there. Because the third theme we wanted to introduce is this idea of a lack of accountability. And this is really going to cover many different lacks of accountability. of Melissa Murray quoting Sheree Whitfield, the court saying, I can't even say it, Melissa, can I invite you to give this performance? Who gone check me, boo?

Exactly. Sheree Whitfield by Melissa Murray. It's not just the court saying that, though there is plenty of that energy, in cases, and I just rattle off, Loper Bright slash Relentless overruling Chevron, Jarkesey upending Atlas Roofing, the structure of agency adjudications, Ohio versus EPA, mixing good neighbor rule because why, I don't know,

Snyder continuing to eviscerate public corruption laws, Trump versus United States, you know, both the court's effective delay in deciding the case and the ultimate opinion. I mean, all of these just reveal a court that is like, we can do whatever the fuck we want. And they have overruled a major precedent in each of the three full terms in which there's a conservative supermajority. Big can't stop, won't stop energy since no one is doing anything to stop them. The lack of accountability has also been very evident in the court's repeated deflection of any responsibility for what is going on at the court. And that's both in its substantive work and also behind the scenes. So behind the scenes, Justice Alito's sensational blaming of his wife, Martha Ann, for the presence of an upside down flag and an insurrectionist

adjacent flag at their homes is sort of case in point. I mean, you live there, you are a rights holder, sir. This might also be attributable to you. And maybe you ought to take responsibility. But no, why do that when there's a perfectly good wife to throw under the bus? So why not? In addition to throwing his wife under the bus in the pages of the New York Times, Justice Alito also wrote an absolutely unhinged, spectacular recusal letter where he said that the question of his impartiality in any of the cases involving the events of January 6th was only an issue because raging leftists, it me, had made it one. had thrown him, Samuel Alito, a mere husband who has to succumb to his wife's freaky flag flying on a regular basis and can't say anything about it.

That's the only reason why people were talking about it, because we, the left, had made it an issue. The letter also cited the court's ethics guidance for the proposition that he, Justice Alito, had a duty to participate in the immunity case and therefore could not recuse himself. Again, why stop there? The entire ethics guidance situation where the court announced its completely toothless code of misconduct as if that should entitle them to praise, maybe even a cookie, rather than our continued scrutiny. I mean, like, all of this is just insane.

Like, you do crazy stuff, and then you get mad when people are like, that's crazy stuff. Stop doing crazy stuff. And you demand to be celebrated for it. Yeah. Why isn't the organized bar coming out to defend me, Samuel Alito,

merely a husband? Where's my fucking parade? Yeah. I'm just a guy with a wife who does weird shit as kate said she cray i did say that you did say that i was proud of you i did thank you right so right so as all of those anecdotes make clear right so lack of accountability was on display in the extracurricular activities of the justices, but the lack of accountability slash refusal of accountability was also very evident in the court's opinions. So a couple of examples, the chief justice in Rahimi trying to

insist that the problem isn't that the court's 2022 Second Amendment case, Bruin, is a fucking crazy decision. The problem, according to Roberts, is that the lower courts just don't understand how to apply Bruin, even though it took all the justices their own writings to try to explain Bruin, and the actual author of Bruin dissented from Rahimi. But here I think Roberts reminds me of like the guy in the hot dog suit. We're all trying to figure out who did this meme. It's like, you know, was it the Fifth Circuit like misunderstanding? Other lower courts of appeals misunderstanding? It's like, no, Bruin is the problem. And the court has no ability to take actual responsibility for

that. You also had Alito in Cargill basically saying, so that's the case involving bump stocks in which the court uses six diagrams and a GIF, all of them borrowed from the amicus brief of the Firearms Policy Coalition, to find in a way that is, I think, wildly inconsistent with the text and purpose of the machine gun ban, that bump stocks do not convert semi-automatic rifles into machine guns. And Alito writes separately to basically say, well, our hands are tied. The statute's text is clear. No, it's not. But he says says Congress, of course, can always write a new law and make bump stocks illegal that way. First of all, he knows that's not going to happen. And second of all, like within 24 hours, it was clear it wasn't going to happen because there are

definitely not enough Republican votes, even for this kind of reasonable intervention to limit firearms. And last example of this, Snyder, the public corruption case, the court insists that the problem is that the federal statute is too broad or that federal prosecutors are using it improperly. And it's fine, states and localities can still prosecute these gratuities, right, like gifts and rewards after the fact. But there again is the court's complete deflection of responsibility from itself as having made a set of choices and imposed them on the rest of us. Another facet of this lack of accountability is the court's utter lack of accountability for Republicans, right? So in case after case, the court weirdly seems to side with the partisan interests of the Republican Party. So take, for example, Alexander versus South Carolina NAACP.

That is a case about gerrymandering where the court essentially said that partisan gerrymandering is so important and so much more important than racial gerrymandering that we just basically have to allow a little racial gerrymandering among friends in order to allow Republicans in South Carolina to do the partisan gerrymandering even friends in order to allow Republicans in South Carolina to do the partisan

gerrymandering even better than they already do, and which we do not police because we already did that back in 2019. So yeah, big one. There was also the January 6th case, Fisher versus United States, where the court decided, what's a little minor cooing compared to Enron, right? To which we might say, both are pretty fucking bad. And you can say that about both. Like, it's not mutually exclusive to say that both are pretty bad. But nope, nope. You got to narrow that Enron statute because a little coo between friends is just fine. And then, of course, finally, there's the court's treatment of the Trump cases, both the disqualification case and the immunity case. In the disqualification case, you know, the court was like, eh, we can't

have this patchwork quilt. And they got a unanimous opinion. So I just want to call out the three liberals on the court did go along with this, although they wrote a kind of dissent-y concurrence to explain why they thought the court had gone even further than they needed to. But with the immunity case, that was just straight up insane. And everyone in the court's liberal wing had to dissent because it was absolutely bonkers. And it seemed like the court in the immunity case had not only already immunized Donald Trump from accountability for the events of January 6th by delaying the case so spectacularly, but that in writing this decision, which is a sweeping reappraisal of presidential immunity and presidential power, they were

actually laying the groundwork for Donald Trump to become our king slash dictator if he wins in November 2024. So this is a one-two punch, and I wanna make that really clear. They already immunized him, and that could have been enough. But they were like, no, we're gonna make it possible for him to be the best president slash dictator slash autocrat ever, one who can really dismantle democracy

in the way that we are only able to do in fits and starts. And I think that final case and Melissa's explication of it tees up another kind of subset of this lack of accountability theme. And that to me is the court as handmaiden for the Republican Party, which of course, would like to make handmaidens of all of us ladies. Again, the Democratic justices tried to warn us that the court's Republican appointees were in the bag for Donald Trump in the Colorado disqualification case, which we noted. And again, as Melissa explained, in the immunity case, their delay gave Donald Trump a effectively pre-election immunity and delaying a trial that was supposed to begin in March.

Their decisions in the medication abortion and EMTALA case have blunted the prospect of a Roe-vember for this upcoming presidential election by attempting to reduce the salience of abortion, particularly in the EMTALA case, just by doing these weird non-persuasive justifications to not decide the matter. And it's just, again, it's so apparent. It's like they repeatedly show their true colors, and yet people resist this. Another variation, I think, on the accountability theme is just like, criminal law is not for powerful people. Criminal law is for everyone else. So think about Trump

immunity. Think about Snyder, the public corruption case. Think about Fisher. And of course, at the same time, the court is happy to sanction criminal law being used to lock up the unhoused for sleeping outside. And it's just like an appalling contrast, that first cluster of cases with grants passed, the homelessness case. And another contrast to draw with at least one of those criminal cases, Fisher. You know, Fisher, of course, narrowly interpreted a statute. So it didn't apply to a group that several Supreme Court justices characterize as protesters rather than insurrectionists and rioters. And the court took a different approach in a civil case against other protesters, specifically actual protesters, Black Lives Matter protesters. And as previous guest on the show and friend of the pod,

Janae Nelson, noted, you know, the court declined to hear McKesson versus Doe, leaving in place a ruling that a Black Lives Matter protest organizer might be found liable for the actions of unrelated protesters he didn't even know, didn't even instigate, but show lenience to the actual rioters and insurrectionists in Fisher. All right. Another theme, again, this is really in the weeds a bit, but most of the criminal cases this term were what I think law professors might call substantive criminal law, which is a real change because historically, a lot of the criminal law docket at the court has been about criminal procedures. So sort of plumbing the expanse of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. And there were some of these cases this term, obviously, but not as many as there have been in previous years. So a

lot of the cases were really substantive criminal law cases about statutory interpretation and the reach of particular criminal statutes about statutory interpretation and the reach of particular criminal statutes. Fisher is a great example of this. And that has been an emerging trend in recent terms, like the shift from criminal procedure to substantive criminal law and statutory interpretation, which means, not surprisingly, that there is far less activity on the court's docket with expanding or expounding the nature of defendants' rights. Although it also means that there is less contraction of defendants' rights as well. But there's a new term afoot, so we'll see.

Another theme, the dogma that caught the car. So for decades now, originalists and textualists have inveighed about judicial lawlessness, and they've written academic articles and dissents and concurrences about judicial activism. Now they're trying to make actual law with some of this. And it's an actual absolute shit show. And I think maybe the American public is starting to wake up to the fact that these modes of analysis, modes of interpretation aren't objective at all. They're not neutral. They actually are really outcome determinative. And weirdly, they always seem to accrue in favor of people who are not women and women of color and people of color.

And basically, they just kind of accrue to the favor of conservatives. And I think folks are cottoning on to that, no pun intended. basically the methodology, whether it is originalism or textualism, seems to boil down to, is this result palatable to this group of Republicans on the court? In originalism, the separate writings in that case were just like, here's my take on originalism. Here's my take on originalism. Nobody knows exactly what strain of originalism we should be doing. It's like originalism for you, originalism It's like originalism for you, originalism for you, originalism for everybody, right? And like different variations. There was also the exchanges between Justices Thomas and Barrett on originalism in the Vidal versus Elster First Amendment case. Yeah, and I think you sort of had similar dynamics with textualism this term,

which is that for decades, academic textualists and the scattered judicial textualists held out the promise that textualism would produce more predictable statutory interpretation, that it would get judicial policy preferences out of the task of judges construing statutes. And I just don't know how anyone can maintain with a straight face that that is what textualism has delivered now that you have a textualist majority. It's ridiculous. So first of all, you have fractured opinions in cases involving statutory interpretation where some of the courts avowed textualists end up on opposite sides of the case. So Campos Chavez is one example. Gorsuch is with the liberals in dissent in that case, and that has happened obviously in lots of other cases. So then you have cases like Snyder,

where again, the text of the statute literally says, otherwise obstructs or impedes an official proceeding, nothing to do with this interference with documents or other objects or evidence. And yet these self-proclaimed textualists reach further into the statute and, importantly, at statutory context and history and actual legislative history to decide there is this unspecified but implicit requirement in the statute that conveniently invalidates this charge and a bunch of other January 6th charges. And last is Cargill, which is, I just think that on the messaging point we were talking

about a little while ago with the immunity case, Cargill could be, I think, a very effective political tool, which is that kind of textualism in the hands of these ghouls is a suicide pact in the same way originalism can be a suicide pact. So the same way yoking us to, you know, the founding era and understandings that obtained then is just unbelievably destructive to pluralistic democracy. Textualism as practiced by the court in the Cargill case, the Bumstock case, is just as powerful a deregulatory tool as any of these administrative law cases. It makes it incredibly difficult in ways we've already talked about for government to regulate in meaningful ways, including to protect us from deadly gun violence, which is an issue that people care

a great deal about. And connecting that to the court and interpretation, I think, could be politically really advantageous. But I've seen nothing of that really, apart from like one day out of the cargo bump stock opinion. Okay, a final theme, I think, is this theme that we've mentioned a couple of times, not just in this term, but in previous terms, I think it was even more pronounced in this term. And that's the Chief Justice in name only, Chino. So we've been saying this for a long time, at least since the court's conservative supermajority assembled in 2020, that this is the Roberts court in name only. This guy is not necessary for this conservative bloc to form a majority. And they spend a lot of time dunking on him. And it was really, really clear this term.

The chief justice can't seem to rein in the most unruly members of the conservative bloc. He certainly can't curb the extracurricular excesses of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who continue to pal around with their emotional support billionaires with impunity. He can't seem to get his colleagues to get on board with a meaningful ethics code. So instead, we got that sort of watered down, namby-pamby ethics code that was really a code of misconduct. The chief justice absolutely let Justice Alito dunk on him in response to Senators Durbin and Whitehouse

issuing a request to the chief justice to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee to talk about judicial ethics, as we talked about on this podcast. Justice Alito kind of got there first and made his own statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which we likened to a kind of jurisprudential cuckolding. But I recently saw some old footage of the Golden State Warriors, and I saw Draymond Green dunk on a player from some other team. And it was really more like that. Like Justice Alito got all up in the Chief Justice's face. Like how you like Dave Nutz. So I want to slightly modify the analogy because I actually think the dynamic is even less favorable to the chief justice than Sam Alito dunking on him.

Less favorable than Draymond Green dunking on him? the Democrats, right? Because remember, there were also letters from the Democratic senators inviting the Chief Justice to meet with them about the ethics crisis and the need for recusal. And the Chief Justice was basically like, nah, I'm good. Separation of powers means I don't have to. And if he actually wanted to try to do something to get Sam Alito to change, participating in these meetings, agreeing to appear before Congress, that would be a way of ratcheting up the pressure on Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas. And he doesn't. And so I have to think it's because he just doesn't want to do a damn thing. He's fine with them doing whatever it is they're doing. Would he prefer if they didn't? He likes it.

Probably. But like, no big deal. No skin off his back. Exactly. That's a really interesting point, Leigh. And I wonder how it relates to this other observation. Because, you know, one of the things the Chief Justice has really emphasized in earlier terms was this need for consensus, maybe even unanimity on important cases. And I don't really think that was present this term. Like there were some unanimous decisions. Trump versus Anderson is one of them. But that veneer of unanimity. Yeah, the veneer of unanimity was pretty thin. And you had the Democratic appointees writing concurrency dissent-y kind of writings. And Justice Barrett also issued her own concurrence, which was problematic in its way. But what was really shocking to me,

and what I expected, and what I assumed was happening in Trump versus the United States, was that it was taking so long because the Chief Justice was insisting on unanimity, coming to some kind of brokered compromise that would be narrow and modest and would get the three Democratic appointees on board. And it just became clear that when it counted, he couldn't get the court to reach a unanimous decision. Maybe he didn't want a more moderate resolution. But either way, folks really need to stop talking about John G. Roberts as a committed institutionalist because he is not. When it counted, he couldn't get to unanimity. On this case, he couldn't broker something modest. He went all out for it. And I don't know if he wanted to or if he just couldn't do it. Who knows? But either way, he's kind of failed as a chief justice. He has written three of the worst opinions in the history of this court. Shelby County versus Holder in 2013, Russo versus Common Cause in 2019, and now Trump versus United States in 2024, a suite of decisions that effectively dismantle

the infrastructure of democracy. This is not institutionalist. This guy is the Roger Taney of the modern court. Yeah. You're right about those three. And I'm just I'm processing just how uniquely damaging to American democracy that, you know, 11 years of opinions have been. And John Roberts is the architect. So at the very least, though, yes, I do think that after this term, after the immunity decision, he is once again going to be on the, you know, cocktail party invite list that maybe since his opinion in NFIB upholding the Affordable Care Act, he's been on the outs with the conservatives and the Republican Party for quite some time. Do you think he's back in? A hundred percent. Not in Sam Alito's good graces. That guy holds a grudge. Well, I mean, he's not going to be at a front table. He'll be in

the back, but he'll get to come. Right there. He'll be in the back there with like Tulsi Gabbard or something. He he'll be back. All right. So let's briefly mention a couple of terms statistics, and then we will talk about roses and thorns. And I'm just going to highlight a couple of statistics from the stat review from Empirical SCOTUS by Adam Feldman and Jake Truscott. Look, stats are, you know, I think of some value, but limited value in analyzing the substance of the court's decisions. But there are a couple of numbers that we thought were notable that we wanted to draw your attention to. One, so you had a high number of ideological splits this term that was higher this term than any term aside from the term that saw Dobbs and Bruin. Also, interestingly, there were 22-6-3 decisions, only about half of those

split on the predictable ideological lines. But of course, those predictable breakdowns were in the most important cases, Immunity, Loeber-Bright, Jargazy, Corner Post, Cargill, Grants Pass, Alexander, and Snyder. So the fact that some of the six threes were not predictable, I think, is less important than which of the six threes were. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan each wrote seven majority opinions. That's the most this term. Interestingly, it seems that Justice Alito probably lost not one but two majority opinions

by being extreme and strident. So there was the retaliatory arrest case, Gonzalez versus Trevino, and the First Amendment social media case, NetChoice, which was really two consolidated cases. In NetChoice, it seems clear that he had the initial assignment, but that his opinion likely repelled votes. And Justice Kagan's more moderate approach- Was it his opinion or him that was repulsive? Hard to say. Hard to say.

What does seem clear is Justice Kagan's approach seemed to attract some of those who were repelled by the Alito approach. And so Justice Kagan came to write the majority opinion in the nut choice cases. In Gonzalez, I think it's also quite likely that his opinion repelled those who had initially voted with him. And instead of the opinion going to someone else, it just became a kind of per curiam opinion, probably because they were so jammed at the end of the term with all of the other things that they were getting out. But I have to say, it seems a little humiliating if he's even capable of shame. But presumably, the chief writes that separate per curiam because your opinion is just so terrible.

I mean, like, I think these examples underscore that when the justices care about law, they just cannot rely on Sam Alito, right? He cannot do that. And so just to... Cole is so like, exactly. Yeah. Just to kind of briefly recite the evidence for these propositions. So he ended up with four total opinions. This term, the lowest number. All of the other justices had six or seven, except for Justice Jackson, who had five. But she is the junior most justice. So it's not surprising she would have a lower number.

And he did not author any majority opinions in either February or March sittings when both Gonzalez and Net Choice cases were argued, though other justices authored two opinions from those sittings. So that's kind of where we're getting this from. Oh, it seems pretty clear to me that this is what happened. And, you know, he got a lot of what he wanted this term, but I hope he at least feels bad for himself. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think it's clear he's not your go-to for a law opinion. He is your go-to for a vibes opinion. Yeah. Correct. A couple of other stats. Thomas and Jackson each wrote the most concurrences

with 11 written concurrences each. That's so funny because I would have guessed Brett Kavanaugh just from how painful it was to read all of them. It did feel like it was a hundred. It felt like three.

It's actually true. It felt like three. It was so, no, it felt like so many. They were so terrible. But yeah, it turns out he actually didn't write that many that's how i feel about slam poetry generally it feels long yes um so to my own jackson wrote the most dissents um with seven each they wrote

some incredible dissents this term we have to say like truly incredible i mean there's each of their dissents in the immunity case were like extraordinary writings and should be taught and I hope one day will be law. I can dream. Quick round of roses and thorns. First, I'll offer up something that is both a rose and a thorn for me, which is the country got to know the Alitos better. I think this is generally good, right, to understand the Supreme Court such as it is. They too got to see Samuel Alito's rigorous reasoning up close. On the other hand, I would prefer that this was not necessary for the country. I have a question. There was a really interesting study a few years ago about Supreme Court name recognition, and Sam Alito was by far the least recognized. People didn't know his name. People

didn't know his face. I really want somebody to rerun that now because I do think and do hope that Americans are finally onto the existence of one Samuel Alito. Yes. So that's a rose if they are. Yeah. Because I can't imagine it's good news if more people get to know him better, right? Yeah. That has to be helpful to us. I think part of this reintroduction of Samuel Alito to the American public is that we really get to see his rigorous reasoning up close and personal. So that trenchant legal analysis, like my wife is fond of flying flags, and she has a legal right to do so. And David Rifkin was wearing his journalist hat in this interview, even though he's also a lawyer in the big constitutional tax case. And we talked for hours and hours about the court's jurisprudence. You know, those were real zingers.

And I'm glad America had the chance to see that great legal mind at work. Yeah, indeed. Another rose slash thorn would be, for me, Solicitor General Prelogger's righteous indignation during the EMTALA argument and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan doing the same. I think Justice Jackson brought a similar energy to Rahimi, the Second Amendment case, in raising serious questions about the Bruin methodology. More generally, I enjoyed both Justice Jackson and Justice Kagan kind of going at Sam Alito in different arguments. Again, like these are small roses. They are mostly thorns for the fact that it is unnecessary. I do want to say something about, you know, I have seen people calling for the fact that it is unnecessary. I do want to say something about, you know, I have seen

people calling for the Democratic appointees to do more, like they want them in addition to writing these dissents in the immunity cases to like, I don't know, like go do a television interview saying Sam Alito is a corrupt mofo, and we need to get him off the court. And, you know, I understand the impulse to want political leaders to do more. And I think in some respects, they could. And yet, I just don't know that they are the kind of campaigners against the court who would be best positioned to kind of relay that message. Like, that's not their expertise. So I just don't know. Like, I would personally prefer other people to be doing that. Final entry is a thorn for me, which is every separate writing from Brett Kavanaugh. I'm not going to reprise my Rahimi concurrence as Dadaist poetry in this term recap, but I do think that actually setting

to a little bit of percussion some of Brett Kavanaugh's writings was a rose for me this term that we discovered. And I think that we're going to kind of continue with that next term. Ferk bitch. You're welcome. I'm the jargony argument.

That's right. Oh, that's right. You got that Ferk bitch? That's right. We had Ferk set to music by one of our listeners. That was... Wait, was that jargony?

Yeah. No, this was when he was just like listing off agencies. No, I remember that. Brian Fletcher. And Brian Fletcher is listing all of these. And then Justice Gavineau just interjects. my end of term sorrows. Maybe that would be a good soundtrack. Okay, I have one rose I wanted to mention, which is that Snyder, I think, is an appalling opinion. But I think there's something very valuable in the court making it so clear that its antipathy for anti-corruption statutes is motivated by self-preservation. I think that was always implicit. And I think after that decision coming sort of bookended by the revelations that we started this episode talking

about, I think makes it impossible to miss that that is driving the justices. And I actually think that is clarifying and useful for the public to know. Okay, this is such a fucking downer. Like, we're literally like, you know, what's a rose that we now know that they're really corrupt and everyone else knows it too. That's what we're working with right now, Melissa. Well, so on that tip, I also want to say my additional Snyder rose was KBJ's amazingly subtweety dissent in Snyder, where she kind of pointed fingers in a very subtle way at her colleagues, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Lolito. She said, quote, officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Oh, that wasn't even the most subtweety line. Public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Oh, that wasn't even the most subtweety line.

It was like, the court's atextual and absurd reading is one only this court could love. Yeah, that was great. Also good. But I mean, she started off with a banger, and I appreciate that. Yeah, that was great. Other roses for this terrible time? I'm going to say this, and I know you guys are going to push back, and that is fair. So I'm saying it in a qualified way. Is this about the Little Mermaid?

I just, there have been very, very slight signals of Barrett moving ever so slightly out of lockstep with the male conservatives on the court. And I am noting those. I am not saying Amy Coney Barrett will save us, but she did have a pretty rip-roaring dissent in Ohio versus EPA. She had a pretty strong dissent in Fisher. So I'm intrigued. I'm intrigued by her. I like that she's finding her voice. I'm glad that the sea witch gave it back to her. I think her concurrence and that footnote in Trump versus United States was really important. Like when she said, you know, I would not go so far as to say that immunized actions cannot come in as evidence to establish actions that are not immunized from

prosecution. I thought that was really important. And she's kind of was like, these dudes are crazy. I mean, it may be as important as it's all the time, but it's a sixth vote. And so it's fucking you. Honestly, it's pretty useless to my mind. I was actually how I would also characterize the dissents as pretty fucking useless, underscoring that in a 6-3 supermajority Republican court, right, like it doesn't matter, right? Like Brett Kavanaugh peeled off in Sackett,

just as Gorsuch in federal Indian cases. And it just ultimately doesn't matter. And a part of me wonders whether they would do it in 5-4 cases. But even aside from that, like I want to like contextualize and like minimize any impulse to treat her, contextualize and, like, minimize any impulse to treat her as moderate. Again, like, we can find an example of Brett Kavanaugh. We can

find an example of Neil Gorsuch. And just consider some of the other things Justice Barrett has done. She joined the other portions of Trump. She was with the court in Jarcacy and Loeber-Bright, was there in Dobbs, SFFA, Kennedy versus Bremerton, major questions cases. She wrote corner post. It's just, like, these slight little, like, you know, I donremerton, major questions cases. She wrote corner post. She wrote corner post. It's just like these slight little, like, you know, I don't know around the edges is. I think that's right in terms of what we've seen of her. And I think also like throw, you know, the chief justice in occasionally

demonstrating some reasonableness. So I think all, everybody on that court, apart from Thomas. We just said we were going to stop that. Everyone on this court occasionally has like flashes of reasonableness apart from Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas. And we know now Barrett is in the mix, whether those are going to be more frequent or more meaningful than the kind of what we see as flashes from Gorsuch

and Kavanaugh. Like I think very much to be determined, but I'm not sure we even had seen the flashes until now. And so I think it's at least worth observing that they do exist. Like how she develops as a jurist, like I'm not optimistic, but I don't think it's impossible that she will sometimes join the Democratic appointees. And that at least will create a real optics issue, which could have happened in immunity. I'm going to stop you. I'm going to stop you. Do you remember that time when she joined the three Democratic appointees in the Anderson case, the Colorado disqualification. She joined them for like five seconds. Then she's like, excuse me, ladies, it's really important for us to not be strident

harpies, like our men are talking. And to smile more as the court dismantles democracy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, her vote there, I think, mattered less than her like kind of nasty gram of a separate writing directed at the Democratic appointees. Yeah.

Just feels like there is a sliver of hope on some issues with her. But you know, look, she's not going to save anything. Okay. On that note, I have a thorn. I've already talked about how the immunity decision is a one-two punch. Like we delay and we immunize him from January 6th, and then we lay the foundation for him to be a freaking dictator as president. So that's great. I just want to go back to the point about the evidence part of the ruling. So one of the, I think, most important parts of the ruling, a piece that I don't think was well ventilated in mainstream media, was that the court held that conduct that is immunized. So for example, talking to the Department of Justice, you cannot use evidence of that immunized conduct to establish conduct that is not immunized and therefore subject to prosecution. So you can't even bring it in as evidence. And that obviously hamstrings the

prosecution in enormous ways. Justice Barrett, as I just said, peeled off from that part of the majority's opinion and said that she did not join that. She thought the court had gone too far. And that made it a 5-4 holding for that point. If Justices Thomas and Alito had recused, as they probably should have because they have some insurrectionist adjacent interests, there would have been no majority there. Yeah. If only one of them had not participated, there would have been no majority there. If only one of them had not participated, there would have been no majority there. And that's all I want to say.

Yeah. So, sorry, I need two more Thorns just quickly. Like another aspect of the immunity decision that I don't think has been adequately covered is related to this, which is another limitation on the evidence where they say you can't probe the official act, by which they mean you can't actually inquire into motives or go into the deliberations. And that just effectively means you cannot establish a guilty mind, right, the literal mens rea for a crime. All you can do is say there was a coup, or there was a pardon, but you can't actually establish the bribery or anything else. So I mean, you you, you the pardon is immunized anyway, so you wouldn't be able to talk. Yeah.

Yeah. So, and then the final thorn. Well, I don't know. Not everybody agrees that a pardon for money is immunized. That's an open question, I think. Well, but I think like, even if, even if, right, they don't say that is an exclusive presidential authority and it's just the presumptive immunity, you can't introduce evidence as to motive.

And so. Right. No, you're functional i'm just not willing i'm just not willing to concede that even before that that it's that it's absolutely immunized because it's an article two power certainly i think justice i think justice sotomayor made a point where she's like the court's second category by being so expansive basically nullifies the importance of the first and so it just doesn't matter. And then the final third, right? Yeah. The final thorn is the court's just extremely cynical, obvious ploy to duck the issue of abortion and reduce its salience in the upcoming election, knowing full well that there

is a very strong possibility they are just going to unleash absolute terror in the future EMTALA case or other matters if and when they come back to the court, whether in a future Trump or Biden administration. So, OK, this has been a joyful look back. Let's look forward to be a little bit different. So there are a million different things we could cover, but we just can't do them all. And in an effort to give ourselves a little bit of a summer vacay, we've queued up some evergreen content that we're excited about. Some of this is going to be on the more lighthearted side. Some will be more serious reads and book talks.

We hope you enjoy all of it. We're very excited about it. We don't think any of it is going to make you want to bash your head against a window. So it's going to be a different vibe for this podcast. Well, that's a lovely endorsement.

Strict scrutiny summer won't make you want to bash your head against a wall. Tune in, kids. Because we won't be covering this court. So it's going to be- We won't. No, that was not a damning with faint praise. We have great conversations, some of which we've already had, some of which we have scheduled. Also on important topics, things like state courts, the court's criminal cases, originalism.

What else do we have? That's one of the humor episodes, the original episode. It's a comedy episode. Let's not give away too many more. Okay. We have great content, and it will not make you want to bash your head against the wall. So stay tuned for all of that. Like this term.

All right. That's all I'm saying. This term was a banger in many different ways, some of them literal. Yeah. Giving new meaning to the term banger.

Banger. There you are. All right. We will leave it there. Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman,

Melissa Murray, and me, Kate Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith is our associate producer. Our interns for the summer are Hannah Saroff and Tessa Donahue. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Madeline Herringer and Ari Schwartz. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. And thanks to our digital team, Phoebe Bradford and Joe Batosky. Subscribe to our Strict Scrutiny YouTube channel to catch full episodes. Find us at youtube.com forward slash strict scrutiny podcast. And if you haven't already,

be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast apps. You never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.