Strict Scrutiny - SCOTUS Is About to Turbocharge Presidential Power

Episode Date: December 15, 2025

Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could nuke the administrative state as we know it by giving Trump broad leeway to fire heads of independent agencies. They also cover the other arguments in cases involving campaign finance and the death penalty, and various and sundry bits of legal news including the antics of Judge Emil Bove and Trump’s ongoing game of U.S. attorney musical chairs.Favorite things:Leah: At will? Whose will? By Don Moynihan (Can We Still Govern?)Melissa: Trump’s Very Weird Night at the Kennedy Center Honors, Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); A Flower Traveled in My Blood, Haley Cohen GillilandKate: How a Manosphere Star Accused of Rape and Trafficking Was Freed, Megan Twohey and Isabella Kwai (NYT) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by OneSkin. As you know, I'm a person of a certain age, but I don't like looking like a person of a certain age, which is why I love OneSkin. What I love about One Skin is that it's science-based, which means that I can be assured that these are products that are not only safe for me, but they're actually effective. At the core of One Skin is their patented OS1 peptide, the first ingredient proven to target senescent cells, which are the root cause of wrinkles, crepiness, and the loss of elasticity, all of those signs that make people know that you are aging. And now OneSkin's results have been validated in five different clinical studies. One Skin is known for its cult skin care favorites,

OS1 body, OS1 face, OS1I, I love them all. All of OneSkin's products are designed to layer seamlessly and to replace the multiple steps in your current routine. That makes skin health easier for you and smarter at every age, and also not a crap load of time, which is really important to me. And this holiday season, OneSkin, also launched their limited edition holiday sets, which include the nightly rewind gift set, which adds the perfect touch of luxury to your gift list. It's the ultimate upgrade to any nightly ritual. It features their best-selling face moisturizer, their brand new peptide lip mask, which is a must-have in these very chilly New York winters, as well as a sculpting guasha tool. Each element is designed to work together as your body enters its natural nightly repair mode,

helping renew your skin at the cellular level for a stronger, smoother, and more youthful-looking complexion. And for a limited time, you can try one skin for 15% off using code strict at one-skin. dot CO slash strict. That's oneskin.com slash strict. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please show your support for strict scrutiny and let them know that the strict scrutiny ladies sent you. Mr. Chief Justice, please support.

It's an old joke. When I argue, men argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakably. 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 necks. Hello, and welcome back to Strict's Crew. Your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Where your hosts, I'm Melissa Murray.

I'm Leah Littman. And I'm Kate Shaw. And we have great news for you. And that is that we are finally going to have a real separation of powers. Yes, for the first time in about a century, specifically a separation of powers that gives the president a bunch of powers he has been unjustly denied until now. Justice for POTUS. And Christmas coming a little bit early this year.

The court is really in the giving season, it seems, like giving the president more power, giving us a lot to talk about. So we are going to start with recaps because they really got down to business in the final sitting week of the year. And by business, we mean overruling 90-year-old precedents and making the country safe for a nearly 90-year-old president king. We'll begin by recapping last week's oral arguments. Then we'll cover some news and close it out with some assortive culture. First up, the recaps. Let's start off with I don't know. Trump versus slaughter. This, of course, is the case about whether SCOTUS is going to do the damn thing and overrule Humphrey's executor. And I'm here to tell you, spoiler alert, they are.

Because stare decisis is for what? Anyone? Anyone? Suckers? That's right. Exactly. I needed you to respond a little faster. You've like, it's been six years. You guys should know this by now. Yes. We were overthinking it. It's pretty simple. You were overthinking it. But don't worry. the court wasn't. So we're all good. All right. So it seems pretty clear that the justices are going to overrule Humphrey's executor because stare decisis is for suckers. But there is an off chance that they might exhibit a little restraint and not overrule Humphreys explicitly, but instead issue some vague statement about why Humphreys is no longer relevant. And therefore, we're just going to ghost it somehow. They've done this before. Abandoned, discarded. Yeah.

They could choose one of those. Put it in a lockbox, like a baby. Overruled in the court of history. All of the things. So many options. Different tactics, same outcome. So say it with me again, folks. Starry Decis is for suckers.

That's right. That's right. For those who care about precedent, Brett Sam, you can skip this part. Humphreys is the near century old decision that upheld a law limiting the president's power to remove the heads of bipartisan expert independent commissions. In Humphreys, it was the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. In this case, Trump wants to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in violation of the very same law the court upheld in Humphreys. And SCOTUS said, you do you, my guy.

Yeah. So this is not the first time that this president has tried to remove a member of a multi-member agency and defiance of very clear statutory law. He has tried to remove commissioners on the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal Election Commission, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and more. And the court, even before this case, allowed him to do that by granting the administration's applications for stays of lower court opinions that had prevented those removals because they were clearly illegal. Slaughter itself was actually one of the cases in which this happened. The court on the shadow docket allowed the president to remove slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission or FTC while her case was being litigated.

But now, of course, they have heard oral argument in Slaughter's case. And we should note that the oral argument is actually happening before the case made its way through the entirety of the federal court system, which is usually the case. These little justice gremlins, as they are want to do when they really want to go apeshit and blow stuff up, agreed to actually bypass the intermediate appellate court and just grant certiorari after the district court issued its ruling in Slaughter's favor. So listeners, if you're not following along, I'm just going to mark this for you. This is how you know the court is really serious about overruling Humphrey's executor and letting King Donald the third, I mean the third, have his way. They need to leapfrog the intermediate appellate's court because they are so ready, absolutely itching to overrule this major precedent. And again, just to make this clear, they have overruled a major precedent in four of the last five years. So this is their thing, and they're ready to do it. Sorry. Donald deterred.

This is their thing. No. This is their kink, overruling precedent. Sorry. Do you want me to say it that way? This is their thing. The court's eagerness to hear this matter leapfrogging the Court of Appeals and letting the president preemptively overrule Humphreys was a giveaway. This argument confirmed that it was about as bad as you might expect along basically every dimension.

So bottom line, it is perfectly clear that all six Republican appointees are going to sign off on the president's violation of federal law, and they will end the current system in which Congress can insulate the heads of commissions from presidential removal at will. This is going to be an enormous blow to the last remaining pockets of independence inside the administrative state. And the ruling is also going to be profoundly destabilizing in other ways as well. it's going to open up a can of worms about who else the president must be able to fire, not just the heads of commissions, perhaps, but maybe inferior officers, people below the heads of commissions, maybe employees, people below inferior officers, perhaps civil service members, judges on Article 1 courts like the tax court or court of federal claims, so on and so forth, to which the Republican justices basically, for the most part, said, I really don't care.

Do you accept, and we'll talk more in detail about this, but just at the outset to say, They don't care, except for the things that the six of them might decide they do care about. Like the Fed, you know, that they'll probably leave alone, and there could be others. And they'll probably leave those entities alone because they want to and they can. But the rest of it, unless there is a major course correction that Leah just listed, I think, is very much at least going to be called into question by the opinion that the court issues in this case. Right. So I agree with everything Leah just said.

I think this will be enormously consequential for the administrative state, for federal regulation. for personnel at every other major multi-member agency as well as the civil service. Maybe the possible exception of the Fed, as you say, Kate. But I want to make a more granular point about this case. So, listeners, the FTC was created by Congress as part of its early 20th century trust-busting efforts. So this is an agency that's basically designed to protect consumers by preventing industry and market consolidation. So when corporate behemoths want to merge, there's usually some kind of FTC and DOJ antitrust review to ensure that the proposed merger doesn't screw over the little guy. And here's another example.

When Amazon decided to automatically enroll people in Amazon Prime and then they created this 11-step process to unsubscribe from Amazon Prime, the FTC decided to investigate it. And in June 2023, it filed a lawsuit against Amazon and, weirdly, in September 2020. just nine months after Amazon purchased a fawning documentary of Malinia Trump and its founder Jeff Bezos attended Trump's second inauguration. Amazon reached a deal with the new Trump FTC to settle this lawsuit that the Biden administration had initiated for $2 billion. Now, that is a huge amount, but some say it's substantially less than what Amazon might have owed if the FTC's lawsuit had been allowed to proceed. Amazon subscribers got about $51. as a payout. I'm saying all of this because I just want to make clear that there is a cadre of

oligarchs who are supporting this president, and they would love to see an FTC that's absolutely aligned with his agenda, which is to say an FTC that is not interested in consumer protection, an FTC that is more inclined to turn a blind eye to the rampant consolidation of wealth. None of this is a coincidence, and I just want to make that clear. So, and rant. So I totally agree with that. And I'm going to give two other examples in addition to the Amazon Prime Settlement, the lawsuit challenging potential price fixing in the insulin drug market or at least the kind of like intermediary market. And also this pretty important FTC rule about non-compete clauses and their unenforceability. That rule was challenged a district court struck down that rule. And the administration, this administration, after the change and personnel to the FTC decided not to appeal that district court opinion. So you have at least three major actions. actions that have been substantially thwarted, or at least there's some real question in the settlement terms context, about whether the president has already had enormous impact on the direction of this supposedly independent agency.

Imagine what you could do if you could get the whole agency staffed with your toadies. Totally. Well, you know, we've got some pretty clear indications already. And I'm so happy, Melissa, you brought up these specifics because you would never really know this from the tenor of the oral argument. There were surprisingly little about the FTC itself in this really. abstract and, you know, sort of perfunctory in lots of ways, performance of the justices. But in terms of the FTC, I had this op-ed in the Times last week that quoted something that Rebecca

Slaughter, who's obviously the commissioner who brought this lawsuit. So she was on a panel with a bunch of former heads of independent agencies all fired by Trump. And it was a fascinating panel that my colleague, Carrie Kalianesey convened. And she just told this story. So she was in office when January 2025 rolls around. Trump is inaugurated. And she basically, she's asked about the importance of independence for an agency like the FTC. And she said something like it kind of is captured to my mind in this single image, which is the president on stage flanked by these tech company heads like oligarchs as opposed to being flanked by heads of state or civil servants or anybody else. And she says, I looked up at that stage and it occurred to me that the

FTC was an active litigation with almost every single one of the companies whose leaders were on stage with the president. They are the ones flanking the president at his inauguration. And, you know, I think is a perfect distillation of the beauty of independence. And also why, exactly as Melissa was just saying, allowing this sort of independence is a real problem if you think essentially all of government should just be an extension of the president. So end my rant there. My rant is not done. But the agencies are going to be making decisions based on the precedent's preferences and the president just so happens to love being given things. Like huge fan of Santa, that guy. And six members of this court seemed fully prepared to sign

Gilded age 2.0 bigger, better, wetter. And yet at the argument, these guys were also just really lazy. Like it sounded at times like they were almost bored. They had maybe one maddening talking point, which we'll get to. I'll tease it now. They just dramatically reimagine what is going on in our system of constitutional governance. And that was basically all they came up with. And aside from that, you know, they just asked John Sauer, the Solicitor General, who argued for the Trump administration, you know, in favor abroad presidential power and overruling Humphreys and eliminating independent agencies. They asked him, we're right, aren't we? We're totally right that the president has to have this power, to which Sauer unsurprisingly said, you're doing amazing, sweeties.

They asked him some other things, such as the Federal Reserve Board is different, right? And we don't have to decide annoying stuff, like whether our reasoning might mean dismantling the civil service, right? To which Sauer basically said, oh, oh, for sure. I mean, on the Fed, to your kind of like, a lot of this was surprisingly kind of lazy feeling for something this high state. he basically asked about the Fed just quoted back to the court their own incoherent language from the Wilcox shadow docket order about how the Fed was probably different. So he just like said the word salad that they wrote in that order and they all nodded and were like, okay, yes, that's right. But there was no substance on either side of that exchange. It was

one of the many moments that made me want to put my head through a wall. Well, in Sauer's defense, and it really does pain me to say that, but we're trying very hard to be an even-hand podcast in 2025. But in Sauer's defense, he understood the assignment and the assignment is to be a yes man in all things. He says yes to the president and he says yes to these justices. He essentially just stipulated that they don't have to decide other things that they don't want to decide right now on things that are inconvenient truths that are getting in the way of making this unitary president. He told them you don't have to make up any of these arguments right now. And he didn't make any up. And it all seemed good for everyone. Yeah. And like that is one part of what I found

to be crazy making about this argument, which is the extent to which it read or sounded to me like fan service, you know, fan service about the justices and for the justices. Seriously, the basic tenor of this argument was we are so right. We're such geniuses. Everyone else has been really wrong, including those chumps on the New Deal court. They were very, very wrong. And we are now going to correct all of the wrongness that has dogged the American public for the last 90 years. You're welcome. But you know who is not wrong in the justice's estimation? And the person for whom a lot of the kind of fan service seemed to be provided, or at least in whose name the fan service was provided, was the great man himself, Antonin Scalia, who was the only real authority and the only real

source of anything this court will recognize as law, except for occasionally, when he doesn't go far enough. And then they regrettably have to suggest that even he was not reactionary enough for this court. But I do want to play to pretty jaw-dropping exchanges along these lines of kind of Scalia fanfic. They came up in response to some of the Democratic justices pointing out that the court would be overruling a centuries worth of precedents that a bunch of earlier justices blessed if the court does the damn thing. So let's play. First, the Republican appointees, posing some questions, and Sauer's responses.

Response to Justice, so to my worst question, you have Taft and Scalia, right? It's not too shabby. I think those are outstanding jurists, and with respect to Justice Scalia, in particular, one of the greatest jurists in the history of the court. It's creating junior varsity legislatures, which would be unconstitutional under Justice Scalia's dissent in Mestrata. Like, new, no law just by. dropped, no law, just Scalia opinions. And hearing this argument, like, it helped me understand

why they were really struggling in Olivier that Pryzer Heck case from the previous week. They were so busy preparing to lionize Scalia, it was jarring when all of a sudden there were questions and concerns about an opinion written by the great man himself. Like, the dissonance was just too much. And this, you know, Scalia fan service worldview was also evident in some truly moronic comments by John Sauer about wolves, which we will play and then explain. Here, though, this wolf comes as a wolf, right? I mean, the restriction on executive power is right there in the statute. I can't address all the wolves in the world, but this wolf when it comes to constitutional structure is Fenris, the most dangerous wolf in the history of

Norse mythology. If you are like, WTF is he talking about with dangerous wolves and Fenris, I'm sorry, you are not a member of the right-wing legal cult. Like, when I heard this, it reminded me of that like 90s anti-drug commercial. Like, this is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Like, this is your brain. This is your brain on Fed Sock talking points. Like you just start saying things like wolves. Yeah. This is like the hotboxing that you've been talking about for years now. So I too had a full body kind of cringe experience during that moment. There, you know, for a couple reasons. One, just the kind of insubes. sane, lack of self-awareness and insularity.

These are members of a club. They're speaking to each other in their secret language, which is like Scalia references, Scalia polls, dissents. But also they were, I think, particularly in the Fenris invocation, much lamer than Scalia himself with least frequently had rhetorical flair going for him. So they can't even do that. But, you know, the effort to appeal to, I guess, a combination of Scalia stands and Norse mythology stands is, we should explain, a reference to Scalia's

dissent in Morrison v. Olson. Morrison is the case that upheld the independent council statute, which is one of the post-Watergate reforms that created this independent council who was not removable at will by anybody in the executive branch in order to investigate allegations of high-level misconduct by executive branch officials. So given the nature of the position I just described, you can see why it made sense for its occupant to enjoy a degree of independence from the executive branch's political leadership. And when this arrangement was challenged, the court, in an opinion and written by Liberal Squish, William Rankwist, upheld the constitutionality of the statute. But the great man, Antonin Scalia, decided to dissent from the majority in Morrison v. Olson.

And basically, he went off. And by off, I don't mean OFF, I mean A-W-U-F. He went off to say that the independent counsel statute was unconstitutional. He described the law as a major threat to the separation of powers. And in describing the independent counsel statute, he decided to be, uber dramatic, writing that this wolf comes as a wolf. Humphrey's executor, what big teeth you have. He didn't say that part.

An invisible ink, you had to like hold the opinion up to the light. But basically, this is the vibe. So since Humphrey's executor dropped, you know, 90 years ago, we have never really experienced the true separation of powers until now, when this court is going to do us a solid and give us a real separation of powers, the lines that Scalia imagined in Morrison v. Olson, but didn't have the votes to call into being now does. So it's going to be awesome. There were a lot of other maddening aspects of the argument, and we're going to spend a little bit more time next week on some of the

implications of the case with a very special guest. But let's just take a few more beats, including on the theory the Republican justices are poised to embrace, and that is the unitary executive theory. As we have said before, the UET slash UTI proceeds as follows. It notes that the Constitution vests the executive power in the president. It insists that this means all of the executive power. The Constitution doesn't say that, but you would never know it from the way the court's Republican appointees, especially the Chief Justice, love to say all of it. The Constitution also requires the president to take care of that the laws be faithfully executed.

Adherence to the UET say this means the president has to be able to dictate exactly how the laws are executed. Constitution does not say that explicitly. And the UET takes these things, which again, the Constitution does not say, and then declares the president must be able to control anyone who exercises significant executive power, which they then assert means the president must be able to fire at will, because that's a core component of controlling the underlings and the executive branch, anyone who exercises that significant executive power. This is me staring in Dobbs and Roe versus Way, just like things the Constitution doesn't say, but are nonetheless totally. fine. Anyway, I'm at Agrawal, who represented Rebecca Slaughter, tried to meet the justices where they are, which is to say he tried to talk to them in their preferred history and tradition vernacular. And as he noted, there's literally a decades-long history and tradition of Congress setting limits on the president's removal power. But again, this was another example of bringing principles

to a gunfight because these justices only want to talk about history when they're distorting it. to tell us that fetuses should be able to own AR-15s and that the Freedmen's Bureau was really about providing aid to Confederate slave owners whose slaves had been confiscated by the union. I thought Agarwal did a good job, a great job maybe, showing how history and tradition were actually on his side. But again, the whole argument assumed a kind of principled reason that I just don't think was ever going to be there. Yeah. You know, listening, I had a somewhat different take on Edgar Wall's performance. Like, I thought it was a little mid. You know, he had good arguments because there are good arguments for independent agencies, but at various

moments, his defense of them sounded to me like a little tepid. And I just wondered about the choice, which, you know, we've seen in a few cases, you know, I've seen in some that just like really irked me to put up someone with Republican credentials as the advocates, Agarwal clerk for Alito and Kavanaugh in an effort to get credibility with the Republican appointees. And I just think, like, they don't care. They're not going to listen. You know, particularly in a case like this, right, like it's just been decided. So put up someone who will tell it to them straight to their faces, speak to the public, and be unapologetic in a defense of independent agencies, you know, like frankly, justices Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor were during

this argument. Like, I just like, this move irks me a little of like picking a Republican advocate because you think they'll have more credibility because I just think it kind of like plays into the idea that they do and should have more credibility. So I mean, this is basically the tension that Jody Cantor's article about the liberal justices is sort of teasing out. Like, do you try and negotiate or do you just go straight forward and, you know, like tell these guys to fuck off that they're wrong? And, you know, I think there is something different about fellow justices trotting that line as opposed to an advocate. You know, I didn't see his selection as the advocate as an effort to find common ground. I thought he was selected because he is someone with these

conservative bona fides who maybe could get the benefit of the doubt, but probably not. But I also think it was meant to underscore maybe for the public that literally two generations ago, the idea that Congress could limit executive removal power was actually a conservative argument. And third, I think Slaughter's side probably recognizes that the best they can hope for for their client and everyone else similarly situated is a narrower decision that carves out some exceptions. And Agarwal press this point assiduously. So no, I think you're exactly right. It was not a fuck you. The unitary executive theory is straight fan fiction garbage. And you are all a bag of hacks. Like he was definitely not saying that. But I don't think he was ever going to be in a

position to say that. And I don't know that any advocate could be in a position to say something like that, although justices could. I'm not asking for that, although that would be fun. Right. And at a certain point, I wonder, like, if there are clients who just think, like, this is not a serious court. So like it's in my interest to like demonstrate that. But like the added value of a Republican advocate is just unclear in cases like this. So why not pick the best advocate? And sometimes that will be. That's fair. You know, a Republican, you know, we'll talk about Roman Martinez in the next case, who was terrific. Other times like here, I just think there were better options. Like Jennifer Bennett, who we've talked about, Isha Anan, Pam Carlin, Deepak Gupta, like I could go

on. And it was just like kind of disappointing for me to listen to. I was thinking about Selah Law, which was an interesting case where the first Trump administration, joined in the challenge to the constitutionality of the single member director structure of the consumer financial protection bureau

and so they had to appoint an amicus the same way they had to appoint one in the campaign finance case we're about to talk about and there was what seemed at the time a very crafty decision

which was to appoint Paul Clement, a conservative with like great bipartisan credibility to defend the structure of the CFPB and he did a fantastic job

and it didn't work right they struck it down and they laid the foundations for the court to just basically say in this case, ah, the writing was on the wall in Sayla Law. And so I wonder whether that kind of shed some doubt on this as a strategic matter. And the other thing I thought was that I found so galling,

really on the part of the justices, more than Agrawl, although I don't know that he handled it as I thought he should have. The justice is having invented this distinction in Sayla Law, where a single member director structure is constitutionally intolerable, but a multi-member one is at least for now fine. This is, of course, only five years ago, and five years later they're about to say, well, that one's not fine either. But it was an invented distinction. It never really made any sense, as Kagan made crystal clear in her descent in Sayla Law.

But then they made Agriwal defend the distinction which they made up, which was so outrageous. But he did. And they asked him if he thought Salah Law was correctly decided, and he said yes. And I just think once you've done that, you've given the game away. And I don't think they were at all fair to make him defend their insane distinction. But I also think that if you say Sayla Law was right, I just think there's no chance. You even have a principled basis on which to say I should win here, let alone a chance of winning here. And so that I think was kind of tactical, but there probably nothing that could have been done.

Nothing. Advocate selection or kind of argumentation or otherwise, they're going to do what they've already decided to do here. But I do think that maybe other ground could have been gained along the way with a different approach. I don't know. I think they were in the bag for this. it could have been anyone. And so it's just like, why pretend? Well, I mean, I give him credit for making the point in making it, I think, to the public. Like, these are not woke views. Like, these were conservative principles. I don't think he made that to the public. I just don't think

he was affected. I mean, anyone listen. I mean, I got that. I mean, like, the whole history and tradition piece, I think he really laid out. Like, there is a long history of this. And conservatives used to think that this was a conservative posture. And I do think the emphasis on history was striking in that that Trump administration never affirmatively brought up history and didn't do a good job of engaging with history when the occasional question arose,

which is a pretty clear tell that they do not think that the history is on their side and that is because it is not. This is a world turned upside down. I'm defending John Sauer and amid Agarwal. What is happening?

It truly is the festive season. It is. I'm giving. You're wearing an almost festive sweater for the season? It's a cute colored sweater. It's green of some sort. Well, the kind of green for when you're losing separation of powers, but gaining a better version of that.

A better version that we have long needed. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Fatty 15. Again, I do not like this whole aging thing, but what I really don't like about it is that there are so many different effects of aging. There's the poor sleep. There's the lack of energy. there's your stiff joints, your abnormal blood work, anything else. And many of these real health concerns just diminish your level of comfort in your body. Well, listeners, I'm excited to share with you C-15 from Fatty 15, the first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered in more

than 90 years. It is an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long-term health and wellness, and you guessed it, healthy aging. Based on over 100 studies, we know that C-15 strengthens our cells and is a key healthy aging nutrient, which helps to slow down biological aging at the cellular level. In fact, when our cells don't have enough C-15, they become fragile and they age faster. And when our cells age, our bodies age too. By replenishing our cells with the crucial C-15 nutrient, Faddy 15 effectively repair cells reverses aging at the cellular level and restores our long-term health and wellness. What I love about Fadi 15 is that I hate having to take a whole boatload of supplements. But with Fatty 15, I know I'm addressing all of the things that

really matter to me. My external health, my internal cellular health, all with one supplement. And I absolutely love it. It comes in a beautiful glass and bamboo bottle so you can put it out on your counter and know that you're still styling and profiling because they have you covered. Fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your C-15 levels to help support your long-term health and wellness, especially as you age. You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com forward slash strict and using the code strict at checkout. Okay, so let's talk about what else was screwy during this argument.

One thing that seems important to highlight was the complete erasure of Congress, which, again, we've occasionally made the same mistake too because, as Melissa often asks, what is a Congress? but the court seems confused too, and it's kind of the whole premise of this debate was the erasure of an entire branch of government. So they seem to think pretty clearly that only presidents and maybe only Republican presidents represent the Democratic will. They refuse to acknowledge that Congress is democratically accountable and that both Congress and previous presidents have signed lots of laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act, but many, many others creating these

independent agencies. So it is a bit much to now decide the court needs to be the guardian of democracy by striking down this law and by extension, lots of other laws that the people's actual elected representatives have passed. Justice Jackson was, I thought, excellent in really driving this point home. And essentially working to, as I think Jackson's questions really brought out, make the president, the repository of even more power, as we are seeing in real time the catastrophic consequences of a president who seizes more and more power, breaks laws, assert sweeping authority over the administrative state, and more. So they're insisting that the exacting, executive branch is the only truly democratic branch and also unitary at the very same time that

we are seeing the executive branch, not exercising just the president's whims, but also being driven by a lot of, in the immortal words of Melissa Murray, the new DEI cadre, Dix, ex-husbands, and imbeciles. The theory that makes this whole song and dance about giving POTUS control over these agencies, the thing that makes it so great is this idea that all of this is good for democracy, that it makes the agencies subject to democratic control because Congress was apparently not Democratic at all and it makes them accountable to the president who is the most democratic figure in the entire government.

So anyway. Also, when did this court decide it loves democracy so much because partisan gerrymandering would like a word? Like, when exactly are we a democracy versus a republic? It's a little hard for me to follow. Justice Kavanaugh, Throughout the argument also kept making these gestures towards liberty and essentially conjuring this idea that the really dangerous thing for liberty is the prospect of these unaccountable

agencies. And I was just sort of sitting there thinking, like, do you read the paper? Do you read? Because, sir, you know what else is a true danger to liberty? An unconstrained, unfettered president, just doing things. Kavanaugh stops are a danger to liberty. sir, be so for real. Any event, just as Justice Jackson challenged Sauer's argument that the unitary executive theory is good for democracy, she also challenged the administration's arguments about constitutional text. And I thought this was a really important intervention. John Sauer was essentially gesturing toward the vesting clause, which states that executive power is vested in the president. This was supposed to be a kind of slam dunk argument that the

constitution gives the president all the power. And Justice Jackson was like, sir, I see that you've read the Constitution, good for you. Here's another unexpected but welcome development. What do you think of the necessary and proper clause? Because that is also in the Constitution. And it also says, quote, the Congress shall have power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution and the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. Kagan has been shouting into the void about this for years. Congress can the Constitution makes crystal clear address how powers vested in other departments like in agencies are exercised. Congress makes those agencies. The text of the Constitution actually says this stuff unlike the redlined version of Article 2 that has all of in the executive vesting clause. So on this textual point, I wanted to highlight, I'm not going to play the clip, but just describe it. This other. worldly thing that Justice Barrett floated. So she asked Sauer, do we the court really have to decide which clause in the Constitution is the basis for the unitary executive theory? Can't we just be

kind of vague about the whole thing and gesture at the Constitution and say, voila, the unitary executive theory is a thing, but not explain why that is? Like, she was really, I think we should play the clip. I think it, I actually, let's play the clip. Let's play the clip. So General Sauer, you argue that the removal power comes from the vesting clause. And I understand why you make that argument because that would be the broadest authority, because it would give, you know, that would be the full unitary executive theory. But there are other theories of where the power could be located. For example, if it was part of the take care clause, then it might be more limited because it might apply only or give removal authority only over those officers who exercise significant

discretion, or it might be an adjunct to the power of appointment, which would mean that inferior officers didn't come within it. And I don't read our cases to this point to really be very specific. They mention all three, and they could be mutually reinforcing. Is there any reason for us to be specific about it in this case? This is maybe the best evidence that no thought, no arguments going on, right? It's just like the talking points of a cult. And like you need to believe the right things. And that's it. Because when I hear stuff like this, like I wonder, do they think they are serious or do they understand they are parodying legal analysis? It's also just like, it's one thing if you're sitting around trying to figure out, you want to, like, actually bring a lawsuit.

Like, how do we frame our claim? Like, what, what, you're building something from the ground up. But to say, we're going to announce a constitutional rule based on something. We're going to strike down a law. Let's just spitball, like, what we think the Constitution, like, where we should find. It is so on brand. They have been telegraphing this all fall. Yeah. Right. This is just like her book tour interviews. And it's just like Brett Kavanaugh's Eighth Circuit talk, where they were just like, all that stuff we do on the shadow docket, we're just kind of freestyling. Like, we don't really, and we're not trying to be really concise or precise here because

we know that we don't want to get locked down to anything. We haven't really figured it out. Like, who wants to be pinned down? I'm a free agent, like, about everything. We're just blowing up agencies. We just have to figure out why. That's what we mean. Free agent, free agency.

Be free of them. That's the whole point. I mean, again, she's doing exactly what. conservatives and Fed Sock have accused liberals of doing for years. I mean, this is the same argument that people leveled against Harry Blackman and Roe v. Wade, like, the whole idea that Blackman couldn't identify the precise part of the Constitution that authorized a right to choose abortion. She's basically like, we can do that here too, but for blowing up agencies, right? And Sauer and everyone else is like, yeah, that seems right. Like be as vague as possible. Just do it.

All right, don't worry. We have other complaints. There is the complete unwillingness to own up to a legal principle and its implications. Obviously, that was on display in the Barrett excerpt, but appeared throughout the argument. The administration is peddling, and SCOTUS is about to embrace, but maybe hasn't figured out the precise constitutional foundations for it. But the theory says that because the Constitution vests executive power in the president, the president must be able to fire everybody who exercises significant executive power. This necessarily raises a lot of questions that sweep beyond the Federal Trade Commission, such as, if that's the rule, who else besides commissioners, exercise significant executive power? And as we said at the outset, Sauer and the Republican justices seemed totally unwilling to engage with this inconvenient question, much less to answer it. At times, they declined even to acknowledge it. This led to the following exchanges. But you're putting at risk the independence of the tax court, of the federal claims court, Article 1 courts, you're putting at risk the civil service. I don't see how your logic could be limited. As to the non-Article 3 courts, we haven't challenged the removal

restriction as not yet. Not yet. And we recognize that there are some line-drawing issues as to those that came up in cases like Frytag and Ortiz. Again, those aren't presented here, those aren't briefed here. Not yet, but our logic has consequences. Once you use a particular kind of argument to justify one thing. You can't turn your back on that kind of argument if it also justifies another thing in the exact same way. I know what you don't challenge. You're missing the point. Just details. No big deal. No rationale. No limiting theory. Just vibes. Like maybe this is how the just the tip migrates into the merits docket, right? Because like they don't actually say this is what this theory is going to do. They just say, like, oh, yeah, we're just saying

this about multi-member commissions, but, like, we're not actually blowing up, like, all of government yet. Like, that was really their line. Like, don't worry, this won't blow up the government yet. Slight problem was Neil Gorsuch couldn't keep it in his pants. Like, he could not contain his excitement about blowing up the government in other ways. And this came up when several of the Democratic appointees observed, like, you know, today there's been this kind of settlement and compromise. Congress has given these agencies a lot of authority, some executive, some more adjudicative in nature. At the same time, it has limited the president's control over these agencies. So the agencies get to do a lot, but we are not creating them as a mechanism for expanding presidential authority.

Their point was straightforward. We shouldn't now give the president more control over these agencies and disrupt that settlement. And Justice Gorsuch took this as an invitation to blow up the agencies themselves, as you can hear here. General, let me suggest to you, that perhaps Congress has delegated some legislative power to these agencies. Let's just hypothesize that. And let's hypothesize, too, that this Court has taken a hands-off approach to that problem through something called the intelligible principle doctrine, which has grown increasingly toothless with time.

Is the answer, perhaps, to reinvigorate the intelligible principle doctrine? and recognize that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority. Is the water warm, General? Sorry, what was the last? I couldn't hear the last bit. Is the water warm? The intelligible principle to which Justice Gorsuch is referring in that passage is a key component of the court's settlement around what's known as the non-delegation doctrine. The non-delegation doctrine is the idea that Congress cannot delegate its legislative power

to other branches. And the court last relied on this view. in 1935, and the argument there was that in these two laws that were struck down, the Congress had given the executive what was essentially a blank check when it delegated power to these agencies. Since that time, though, the court has held that congressional delegations of power to agencies are fine when the Congress provides an intelligible principle that guides the agency's use of the power. And again, because we're quoting great men, no less than Justice Scalia, wrote the major decision, Whitman v. American Trucking, making this point about the intelligible

principle and the non-delegation doctrine. As Kate recognized, sometimes the great man, just not reactionary enough. But, like, Neil Gorsuch was seemingly suggesting, like, maybe we're just not thinking big enough. Like, maybe we should also blow up the agencies themselves by reviving the non-delegation doctrine. Yeah. It's also, I mean, I'm sure it won't give them much pause, but they might have to work a little bit to explain why the same court that went so badly awry in Humphrey's executor in 1935 the same year was actually properly channeling the non-delegation doctrine, which we have under-enforced since. What is time, Kate?

I am sure they will find a way. Speaking of doctrines designed to constrain agencies, at various points, we were reminded that the court's ruling in slaughter will probably not benefit Democratic and Republican presidents equally. Different Republican appointees made clear that they have still got the major questions doctrine in their back pocket, which they will undoubtedly use to say that Democratic agencies cannot do things that trigger the Republican Party and Republican appointees. So, yes, both Republican and Democratic presidents will be able to fire agency heads and

staff agencies with their own people. I think even this court couldn't, although, you know, maybe I shouldn't call it into being identify a rule that explicitly prohibits a future Democratic president from doing what they're about to say Donald Trump can do. But it might not matter because only the Republican. appointees in the agencies of Republican presidents get to actually do things when they had the agencies because the major questions doctrine will be waiting in the wings to invalidate anything significant that Democratic agencies might try to do. So more crazy making things.

The Republican appointees were, for the most part, not bothering to come up with arguments. They had basically one talking point that consumed a ton of the time of this oral argument, which was, what if Congress decided to turn every department into a multi-member commission? What? Because we all know the real danger is Congress, first of all, passing laws at all, but second, limiting the president's power too much by trying to install these bipartisan commissions at the head of bodies like the Department of Defense, Education, Agriculture, Interior. Like, this was what they decided to spend their time on.

Elena Kagan had this, I thought, really epic response to that string of hypotheticals. It strikes me, Mr. Agawai, as I listen to this, you know, if you go back to, let's say, the education department with the chief just, which the chief justice raised, that the more realistic danger here is that we'll have an education department as authorized by Congress, by law, that won't have any employees in it. And Justice Barrett kind of poohed this concern saying, like, who can possibly say what will happen? Like, we can't possibly predict it. Like, it's a real mystery girl. Yeah. And I already mentioned the way the professed originalists on the court were pretty uninterested in actually engaging with history. But I also want to say that when they did engage, they got some pretty basic stuff wrong.

So one, they think statutes with terms of years but not explicit removal protections mean the president can fire those people in those offices at will. But as professors Lev Menand and Jane Manners have been writing about for years, that is just not how terms were understood. Barrett really botched this in a question that she was asking about the Revolutionary War Debt Commission, which is an important early agency that had appointees with these terms of years. There were also, I think, some real misrepresentations of a case called Parsons, a case called Ex parte Hennon, even Marbury v. Madison. So Lev Menand had a really good post-argument blog post on notice and comment that got into some of this, and so we'll post that in the show note. All right. Let's touch briefly on the implications of what the court is likely to do here. So first of all, this ruling is very likely to give us an FTC that is the FTC of Jeff Bezos's dream. So awesome. It's also going to give the President of the United States sweeping powers over every other agency in the administrative state. So what he's doing with the Department of Justice, the CFPB, Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, he will be able to do elsewhere. if you've loved this last year, you're going to love what's coming. It's going to be great. An utter nightmare. And yeah, that's what this court is going to unleash. Also, you know, so we now

are going to, after this decision comes down, have these agencies with a lot of power that were designed to have that power wielded by these balanced bipartisan leadership structures. And it really does raise the question. Maybe it would be better not to have some of these agencies at all if they're just going to be the playthings of an aggrieved and self-dealing narcissist, although not have the agency that all I worry, I am now channeling Neil Gorsuch, which is not really what I mean, but I do mean that, you know, this is a critique that folks like Josh Chaffetz at Georgetown have made, but when the court, say, in INS v. Chata, invalidated the one-house legislative veto, left broad delegations, but without congressional ability to oversee those delegations of authority, like the

court just thinks like, oh, what will happen if we pull this block out and leave the rest of it intact. And sometimes it is much worse than if they just, obviously, best case scenario, didn't meddle at all. But, you know, maybe the agency's left standing are worse than if they did not exist at all. So the New York Times had a piece on the potential blast radius of this decision just to name some agencies potentially affected. You know, there might be up to 50, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and more. And we actually aren't going to play this exchange, you know, which I thought of when you were talking about the history, Kate, but during the argument, Justice Kagan asked the Solicitor General, look, you would agree, wouldn't you, that the founders wanted power separated, right? To which he said, I agree with an important caveat, the presidency itself, you know, to which Justice Kagan was little taken aback and said, you know, that's not a caveat.

Right, that's, right. And, you know, honestly, so this is our recap. I know we went long. We will go more quickly on the rest of this. Hopefully you didn't have to listen to this argument, not worth your time, unless you want to get amped up with rage. Like, you know, It's very clear, 6'3 Humphreys' executor overruled, or at least declared, no longer applicable. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Earth Justice. Guess what, folks? Earth Justice is taking the Trump administration to court because they are determined to protect our public lands from fossil fuel drilling, they're determined to save our bedrock environmental laws, and they are determined to defend our future on planet Earth. Earth Justice has 200 of the best environmental attorneys, and they represent their clients

free of charge. Every lawsuit they file is funded by people just like you. Yes, the Supreme Court is a challenge these days. That is a euphemism. But that's what makes Earth Justice's expert litigation even more important. And right now, Earth Justice needs your support to scale up and meet the threat of the Trump administration. So we are inviting you, listeners districts, your

to help Earth Justice take on the fights ahead. All of your gifts to Earth Justice are tax deductible and donations made through December 31st will be matched up to $25,000. Earth Justice is using their legal muscle to protect our public lands and our climate. They represent clients free of charge, and that's everyone from communities and tribes and conservation groups that get top-tier legal representation from Earth Justice even when they lack resources. There are major victories and there our historic fights. Earth Justice, for example, has defended the roadless rule that protects millions of acres of acres of the Arctic from fossil fuel projects, and they're going to continue to do so. Earth Justice is working to block large-scale fossil fuel and mining development

on federal public lands and waters, and they are protecting the Arctic, our national forests, and our national monuments. And Earth Justice isn't satisfied with just plain defense. They are winning cases internationally and pushing the clean energy transition forward at the state and local levels. And right now, you can donate to Earth Justice to support their lawsuits that go to protecting our planet. Every gift through December 31st will be matched to double your impact. So head over to earthjustice.org forward slash strict. That's earthjustice.org forward slash strict to make your tax deductible donation that will be matched through December 31st. Now, because things can't get any worse, the following day, the court decided to hear argument

in the campaign finance case, National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission. What could go wrong? It seemed like the Republican justices and the advocates arguing against the campaign finance regulation mostly wanted a rerun of Trump versus slaughter. play that one back. They had such a great time in that one. Let's do a quick refresher of the campaign finance case. So the provision at issue here is the anti-coordination provision, which basically limits the ability of entities here, specifically political parties, to spend money in coordination with a political candidate. So unlimited coordination would allow individuals and entities to circumvent contribution limits, which are still intact for now. Contribution limits restrict the amount of money

that someone can give directly to a candidate and to a party. It's much smaller for individual candidates. It was $3,300 at the time this case was filed and to a party more than $40,000. And a donor can actually give a bunch to state parties to get that number actually overall closer to $500,000. Small contribution limit for candidates, relatively speaking, larger for parties,

but the limits, again, for now, do still exist. The contribution limits prevent quid pro quo corruption. So the idea here is that preventing a single individual from giving a ton of money to, a candidate makes it less likely that the candidate will be captured by that individual going forward. The coordination limits, by contrast, effectively prevent and runs around the contribution limits because they don't allow individuals to give money to a party that would then effectively be given to a candidate. The lawyer for the challengers, former Solicitor General Noel Francisco,

basically laughed off the suggestion that there might be any corruption going on here in politics. And And it was such a jarring intervention that we thought we should play it. I need to suggest that the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the current president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration, does not give the appearance of a quick, Pro quo. Your Honor, I'm not 100% sure about the example that you're looking at, but if I am familiar, if I think I know what you're talking about, I have a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew from the federal government was an effective quid pro quo bribery, which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that. Maybe not the salary, but certainly the lucrative government contracts might be.

So that was fun to joke about Elon being uncorruptible, wasn't it? Oh, yeah. Great times. And also just like, no, no one's saying the salary was a problem. We're talking about billions of dollars in contracts. Like, come on. Anyway, but on the kind of slaughter slash Humphreys energy that Leah was mentioning, the court really brought to this argument,

there was the same kind of insularity and also sort of like polarization of the right-wing legal profession. At various moments, it became very clear that the Republican appointees view themselves as part of a club that includes Republican advocates. they are all in the same team. They are all engaged in the same project. So here is an exchange between Kavanaugh and Francisco, as Kavanaugh was asking about other campaign finance regulations aside from the anti-coordination limit that was actually at issue in this case. Do you think it's constitutional? Your Honor, I don't have a position on whether it's

constitutional or not. I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument here that it's constitutional, but it's still only the second of the... You're not going to want that cited back to you in a couple of years. Assume for the sake of argument. Okay, that's all right. literally yucking it up with Noel Francisco, former Solicitor General in the first Trump administration about how they are coming for the remaining last shards of campaign finance regulation. It was almost like Fed Sock Madlibs, and it reminded me so much of the references to Wolves and Scalia in the slaughter argument. Second and relatedly was the courts and the challengers' unwillingness to recognize or at least acknowledge the implications of the new legal

theory that they were pushing and their unwillingness to adopt any kind of limiting principle here. So this was very much like the energy and slaughter. Here, it seemed like the Democratic appointees wanted to know, okay, if you win on this campaign finance challenge, where does your craptastic logic then take us? And here's the response. I understand. What I am saying is that that's not what we're challenging here. I appreciate that. But how can your argument be today that these limits can fall and it will be okay because the other limits exist if you can't make a representation that we're still going to have those other limits. Translation, shorter Noel Francisco, you can kill this limit because other campaign finance regulations will prevent corruption,

but also I refuse to say we won't challenge those other campaign finance regulations and we probably will. This generated a rejoinder from Ramon Martinez, who is the court-appointed amicus defending the judgment below. So remember, as we've said, because the Trump FEC was on the same side as the challengers here. The court appointed Martinez, who was a former law clerk to both the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh. So he is totally fluent in right-wing legal speak, but actually deployed that fluency for the forces of good in this argument.

So let's play a clip here. And I think what Mr. Francisco's position is, and I think I'm glad he laid it out, this wolf comes as a wolf. He has basically told you that they're going to keep litigating to knock down every single one of the restrictions. And that includes the limits on donors to candidates directly. But just listen to how the donor candidate limit is going to be undermined. As Kate said, as we learned, you got to speak in fluent Fed Sock about the wolves.

And there were also just striking moments where the justices wanted the advocates, at least the ones on the same team that they are, to tell them they're doing amazing. And that all criticism of them is unfair. Here you are. In our much maligned, I think unfairly maligned decision, in Citizens United, the effect of the provision at issue was to privilege certain corporations, namely the corporations that control all of the national media and disadvantage other corporations like Citizens United and the effect of our decision was to level that playing field. Here, it is not apparent to me who is benefited by this provision and who is

disadvantaged by the provision. And I would appreciate your enlightening me on that. Sure. I was in D.C. And listened to the argument a couple of hours after it happened and I texted you guys. I was just, I howled as I walked into the metro listening to this. I mean, he really cares. And honestly, I think that that gave me a great deal of energy because the criticism

actually on some level does get to them. I mean, it's maybe a small comfort because they're still going to do what they're going to do. But the fact that maybe I should remind everybody what he's talking about. right. So in 2010, in his state of the union address, President Obama made this comment that we'll play here. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our election.

And as the camera panned to the crowd, it caught Justice Alito very conspicuously mouthing, not true while shaking his head vigorously side to side. Really, not true, really. But again, the fact that Alito is still mad about this almost 16 years later tells you everything you need to know about him. And another, I think, rinse and repeat aspect of this argument was the fact that the court, by inserting itself into this area at all, is upsetting settlements that Congress and the president, the actual Democratic branches here, brokered. Is this like a time to remind everyone that a wise man once characterized this kind of negotiation and settlement as, quote, hashing out in the hurly burly, the given take of the political process between the legislative and the

executive. Yes, that was none other than Chief Justice John G. Roberts in the majority opinion in Trump versus Maysars. And wait for it, he was quoting a young Antonin Scalia. Even Scalia was getting things wrong, it seems. Anyway, Justice Sotomayor made this very point to Noel Francisco. See, she speaks fluent Scalia too. She basically said, look, you're arguing that we have to strike down this campaign finance regulation because our previous campaign finance decisions like Citizens United benefited corporations and advantage them relative to political parties. Well, now we have to come in and correct that imbalance. We had a settlement. You fucked it up. Now we're correcting that imbalance. Basically, we're just fucking shit up. And this court is now going to fix it by fucking up more

it, this doesn't seem very sustainable. And again, back to the slaughter recalls, this was just like when the court effectively upset the settlement compromise that Congress made, delegating broad authority to administrative agencies while then insulating the agencies from presidential control. And now we're going to unpack that and they're going to have to fix it going forward. So basically, they're just fixers. They're handymen, not justices. A few more highlights. slash low lights. I want to play this clip with zero context. Boy, you are assuming a lot there about

people's honestly dumbness. I thought this evergreen for this court, assuming a lot about people's dumbness. I just want to say maybe another word about appointed amicus Roman Martinez of Latham and Watkins. I thought he did a really excellent job arguing

that there are serious jurisdictional problems here, and specifically that there is no live controversy and no prospect of enforcement of the regulation, both because neither of the petitioners, Vice President J.D. Vance and Congressman, former Congressman Steve Chabot from Ohio, neither is currently an active candidate for federal office. And in addition, the Trump administration has said very, very clearly, we are not going to enforce this law. We think it's unconstitutional. And you can get an opinion from the FEC that will be an absolute shield to any potential public or private liability if, you know, you're concerned about the possibility of future enforcement.

So there's literally no actual live dispute for the court to resolve here. And I just want to play a clip where I thought Martinez got kind of close to telling the justices, like have some self-respect, at least try to look consistent and like you're doing law. If any other plaintiff in this court told you that his injury is speculative, that it's uncertain, that it's premature, that it might happen and it might not happen, they wouldn't have a prayer under Article 3. The same rules apply to the vice president. There's no politician exception to Article 3. This is why I said, like, I thought he did great. Like, you know, I know the court

appointed him, selected him, but it was just fabulous, I thought. And like, he also invoked the Texas SB8 case, you know, when some of the justices were floating the prospect of like private enforcement, even if the federal government might not enforce the regulations. He's like, look, you said the prospect of private enforcement wasn't enough in the Texas SB8 case. So like, QED, And there weren't like many questions either to Noel Francisco or the federal government on mootness, but at least some of the chief's questions to Martinez sounded like a little friendly to me. And, you know, Martinez noted that the challengers can seek an advisory opinion from the federal election commission that would immunize them from future enforcement by a future administration if they're worried about it. And, you know, there weren't any questions from, you know, Justice Jackson, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and maybe even Kagan in the, the seriatim section where the justices go one by one to martinas or to mark elias who argued for the interveners so maybe maybe they will say this is all moot i'm just going to say maybe this is another opportunity where they appoint someone with conservative bona fides and you know again as long as

they're good i don't have an objection fair enough fair enough he was great all right um the court also heard argument in ham versus smith this was a death penalty case about atkins challenges atkins versus Virginia is the 2002 decision that prevents states from imposing a capital sentence on someone who has severe intellectual disabilities, although the decision also allows the states to define and determine who has an intellectual disability. Under Alabama law, someone claiming an intellectual disability under Atkins has to prove, among other things, that they have a true IQ of 70 or less. And post-Atkins, there has been a lot of litigation around the way states actually implement the prohibition on executing people with severe intellectual disabilities.

In Ham, the specific question is how courts should weigh the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores when they're assessing an Atkins claim. So the defendant in Ham, who prevailed below, scored in the mid to low 70s on multiple tests. The district court and the Court of Appeals said that based on the standard margin of error, these scores might indicate the defendant could qualify as mildly disabled and actually may have an IQ below 70. And so they therefore considered not just the IQ tests, but also other evidence of intellectual disability. The state seems to want to press a rule that makes an individual's IQ that is like whether it is below 70, a way of foreclosing an Atkins claim if it is not below 70.

But prior to this, making a showing of intellectual disability was not just based on a number on a test score, but could also be shown through kind of adaptive functioning limitations. And some of the Democratic appointees suggested that this particular case, might not cleanly present the question about multiple IQ scores like being enough because it's not clear the state has or applied a version of a rule that would say a defendant can't show intellectual disability if their IQ is above 70. And there were also conflicting experts about the defendant's intellectual abilities. The district court credited the defendant's expert. You know, I say that knowing how well this court respects district court's fact findings, but still.

Right. The court also heard oral argument in FS credit court. versus Saba Capital Master Fund. The question here is whether the Investment Company Act creates a private right of action that is legal authorization for private entities to sue. And this case invites the court to clarify when statutory history and legislative context might matter to that analysis, as Justice Sotomayor noted during the argument, you know, there are reports from the legislative history, both the Senate and the House, saying they understood the statute to have a private right of action. This, I don't know if you guys felt the same way, but this, to me, was another case also the same week

in which the kind of clubby in-group feel was just sort of like so present and kind of turned my stomach. So one issue in the case, or like maybe the biggest issue in the case is how the court should grapple with both its own decisions and statutes passed by Congress before the court's very hard textualist turn.

That is before the court decided to totally change the way it reads statutes. And, you know, in particular the question here is, you know, whether it will read implied rights of action into statutes that don't explicitly have those rights of action. So let me just play one clip from that here. If the court lets the Second Circuit's decision stand, the clear statement rule in Sandoval and Gonzaga will have little meaning. The court should leave private rights of action to Congress and reject Saba and the Second Circuit's unworkable return to the Ancien regime.

So there were just like all of this talk about like the Ancien regime and like when that changed and what earlier decisions were like tainted by that. And it just, you have to be so deep in the weeds to even decode what they are talking about. I was just like, you really don't have to make this as impenetrable to allay audience, and yet you're choosing to. But, yeah, honestly, like, I talked to my Fed court students about this, about how, like, they have to kind of learn the different players because, like, so much of this now is about, like, context, relationships and, like, memes in almost a certain way about, like, this is just, you know,

what this stands for and, like, the social understanding of different groups about, like, this period or this area of law. And on this, like, insularity point, like, there was one moment I think where one of the advocates asked Paul Clement, who was arguing on behalf of a private right of action, you know, for respondents, like, I know this is awkward because you're usually arguing against legislative history. And it was just so, again, like, clubby, insular, like, these are the rules. And, like, we can all kind of joke about them because, like, we all understand it. You know, on the substance, I'm not sure how this case might come out. It's possible this will be the rare case where the court says there is an implied right of action in this. statue, but unclear. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Skims. Guess what, folks, the holiday season always brings one person that's really difficult to shop for. In my life, it is a certain teenager with very discriminating tastes.

But that is why this year, for the holidays, I'm going to be stuffing that stocking with all of the great finds at Skims. Why? Because according to my teenager, Skimms, is comfortable, flattering, and consistent. Yeah, I mean, you can't make that stuff up. They love how the fabrics feel. They love that they feel great on, and they love that you can always count on them. They fit the same way every single time. And honestly, you can't get that consistency from your Supreme Court, so you might as well get it from your loungeware. At this stage of my life, I'm also

focusing on comfort, consistency, and flattering loungeware, which is why I'm changing up. my loungeware and I'm headed to the skim shop for the very best pajamas. Literally, I feel like I sleep better in skims. I especially love the new skim's sleep set. This is a very cute little pajama top with matching pajama bottoms. They come in all kinds of colors and some very festive holiday prints. So get on it. Start shopping for yourself as well as those very hard to please people on your holiday list. head over to skims.com for your new favorite pajamas. After you place your order, the folks at skims are going to ask you how you heard about them.

Guess what? You need to select the podcast option in the survey and then select strict scrutiny from the drop-down menu that follows. Let them know who sent you. And if you're looking for the perfect gifts for everyone on your list, the skims holiday shop is now open at skims.com. head over there for your comfortable, flattering, and consistent new loungeware. That's all for recaps. It was a lot. Hopefully you're still with us. But we will now turn to a grab bag of news and court culture.

First, the Supreme Court vacated a Second Circuit opinion upholding New York's vaccination requirement. As a parent with kids in New York City public schools, I am psyched. So, measles for everybody. It's the giving season. So the requirement, I should say, applies to both public and private schools, and it has no religious exemptions. The court just basically directed, at least at this point, obviously, I'm sure it'll go great down the road. But at least for now, the court just said the appellate court had to reconsider its decision upholding the requirement in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which we talked about a good amount on this podcast. That's the case that held that parents had a First Amendment right to opt their children out of storybook time at school when the story.

when the storybooks had LGBT characters. The plaintiffs slash challengers in the vaccination case argued that the vaccination requirement and the lack of exemptions for vaccinations was animated by religious hostility. I will also note that there was a

maddening typo in the opening paragraph of their submission. So can I read it? Please. Just read the last sentence. No, but I love that it's so petty and so good and also just like really fucking bugs me. Okay, okay. Today in New York, if a vaccine would harm your lungs, you may be exempted. But if it would harm you soul, you may not.

You soul. Just one letter. Just get that hour in there. Just say me in. Could not land that plane. When Jenny McCarthy is editing your briefs. Justice for Jetty. Anyway, in other news, Judge Emil Beauvais of the Third Circuit attended a Trump rally.

And when asked by MS Now, why was he at the Trump rally, given that he is a member of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Beauvais responded, just here as a citizen. Seems almost quaint, but maybe I'll just read a little from Canon 5 of the Judicial Ethics Code. A judge should refrain from political activity. That's all I'm going to say, because it seems pretty straightforward. The actual text includes the admonition that a judge should not, quote, attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other events sponsored by a political organization or candidate, end quote. Again, once you take away the reading requirement for a federal judgeship, I think everything's off the table. Yeah, you know, he, he, Judge Beauvais, is really upping the ante in the American.

America's next top SCOTUS justice race, like those idiots on the Fifth Circuit think they can get a Supreme Court nomination by writing screeds about Joe Biden in their opinions. Like, get real. The Dark Lord of the Third Circuit is showing you how it's done. And if you're not a contributor to Stephen Miller's substack, you just don't have the game. Well, can I ask me a serious question, though, about that, like, is cluelessness about things like these canons or genuine, like, I really don't care, do you just watch me kind of energy? You think it's the second? I think it doesn't matter. Like, it's just so whackadoodle. I think it's the second. Like, it's just so, like, I am not a judge, right? I am aware that there is this canon, right, that says, like, judges shall not participate in political activity because, like, even observing the courts, right? Like, I know, like, judges do not engage in these activities and opt out of many of them in order to avoid the appearance of engaging in politics. and partisan activity.

So the other thing, too, is, like, you can't get mad as the Supreme Court and some of these lower court judges do when people talk about, like, you're clearly doing politics if you're literally going to a political rally. Like, you don't get to talk about how, no, what we're doing here is a law, and you dumbfucks out there just don't get it. Yeah. Yeah. So during this particular rally, you know, Donald Trump once again said a bunch of horribly

racist things, you know, including some directed at... So it was a Thursday. Right, right. About Representative Ilhan Omar. You know, the crowd shouted, throw her out. And again, Judge Beauvais is in the crowd. Like, is he chanting along? It's just horrifying. Jesus Christ.

In other news, Alina Haba announced her resignation from whatever it was she was doing at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of New Jersey. So this is, of course, fresh on the heels of the Third Circuit. opinion that affirm the district court opinion finding that HABA was unlawfully appointed

to head the U.S. attorney's office for the district of New Jersey and therefore could not exercise the powers of the U.S. attorney in the district of New Jersey. So she basically said, you can't fire me because I quit. And I don't know what she's going to go do with herself, but MS now has reported that with respect to one of the other sort of dubious acting U.S. attorneys, this one, Lindsay Halligan, she is apparently actually going to go before the Senate as Trump seeks her confirmation to be a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney, which I genuinely am looking forward to popcorn galore as we watch that confirmation hearing, if in fact it ever comes to pass. I'm a little dubious. But, you know, I don't think you have to show every charge to

their grand jury. No, I haven't read. No, you don't have a right not to testify. against yourself. You don't. No, I haven't read the Fifth Amendment, but I'm sure it's not as good as the fourth or the third, because it's after. All right, well, the possibilities are pretty exciting. So we'll see if that actually does come to pass.

In the meantime, the district courts are still courting, unlike some high courts we know. Judge Zinas granted Kilmar Obrego-Garcia's petition for habeas corpus, ordering ICE to release him from custody ASAP. That is a developing story as we record on Thursday. But that is a major development, and it comes with a finding of some incredibly egregious conduct by the federal government in his case, which we're all familiar with, but we now have some additional detail on. Another district court, Judge Breyer, that's Charles, not Stephen, issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the president's continued federalization of the California National Guard is unlawful. It opens with this line, quote, the founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balance.

Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one, end quote. I feel like as I was saying that first sentence, the founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. I thought John Sauer would say, with one caveat. But Judge Byer's opinion was stayed until this upcoming week. The federal government has already appealed it to the Ninth Circuit, so there's likely to be some quick appellate developments there. And speaking of the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit issued some additional opinions respecting the court's decision to take on bank, the challenge to President Trump's federalization and deployment of the National Guard in Oregon. So one judge Jay Bybee did not really see this coming, honestly, penned a long statement

arguing that the president's deployment of the Guard may violate another provision of law that the parties actually really haven't focused on, and that is the domestic violence clause in the Constitution, which says, quote, the United States shall guarantee to every state in the union, a Republican form of government. That is a little bit more familiar to a lot of people, but the rest of that phrase says and shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of the legislature or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence. So Judge Bybee suggested the clause meant the Ninth Circuit was wrong

in the case involving the deployment of the National Guard in California to defer to the president's assessment that one of the conditions authorizing the deployment of the National Guard has been met. To which newly appointed Trump judge, Eric Tong, said, at no, he wrote that, quote, Judge Bybee's work is, in the end, a great labor producing a mouse, end quote. And we should have been a reference to a wolf. Should have been a reference to a wolf. It's got to be a wolf. But we should also note that Judge Tongue has some issues of his own. So when he was nominated, it came out that he said some kind of rando things. So in his past, he had said that he believes, quote, in gender roles and that women are simply better than. men at some things. I would say one of those things is law, but I digress. He also went on to say

that when these radical feminists try to blur gender roles, they undermine institutions like marriage, institutions which hold society together. You know what else holds society together, Judge Tonga, a constitution. And it seems that that was kind of Judge Bybee's point. And before we gild the Judge Bybee Lilly a little too hard, we should also note that he was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush. And he, along with John U, drafted the so-called torture memos, which were a set of legal memoranda, justifying the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques in the aftermath of 9-11. So just got to say, Judge Tong, when you've lost the author of the torture memos, where are you exactly? And where are we? We are at the end of this episode, which means

it is time for our favorite things. That's my attempt to transition. My favorite things are Wolves. Yes, exactly. My favorite thing is Neiris, the fiercest of all the Norse Wolves. No, my favorite wolf is a dire wolf. I was going to say a dire wolf reference I could get behind. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But actual favorite things. So Don Moynihan had this great post about, you know, slaughter and the project at Will, whose will, that I definitely recommend. I want to call out Alexandra Petri, friend of the pod. She had a great piece in the Atlantic documenting the Kennedy Center Honors. It's called Trump's very weird night at the Kennedy Center Honors. And I mean, she really just puts her finger on the pulse of all of the weirdness that happened

there. And I'm not even just talking about the bad plastic surgery. Like everything is covered. It's truly a rollicking read. I also wanted to recommend a book, A Flower Traveled in My Blood by Haley Cohen Gilliland, which is about Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s when a military Rihunta would just randomly disappear people. This is a chronicle of the work of mostly women getting beyond their family roles, Judge Tong, to try and recover their family members. Oh, that's great. It's been on, I think, the Times, like, best books of the year list, and I didn't mean to read it. So that's good. I really do need to. I want to call just a long piece of investigative reporting that ran in the New York Times late last week by Megan Tuwey and Isabella

Kwai. Pretty incredible investigative reporting on the Tate brothers. That's Andrew and Tristan Tate these Manistphere stars and accused rapists and sex traffickers who have very deep ties to a lot of people in the Trump administration, including like Barron Trump, which I had not known, but is detailed in the article. So pretty incredible investigative reporting that seems to have spanned the U.S., the UK, Romania, where they were living for some time before they were sprung out of their, you know, release limitations and allowed to return to the United States. I mean, profoundly disturbing, dystopic account, but just really incredible reporting. So definitely read that if you haven't. All right. So let's turn to some housekeeping before we go. First up, this week on runaway country, Alex Wagner is joined by three incredible guests to dig into the chaos at the Pentagon. First, former CIA analyst and former Assistant Secretary of Defense and now Senator Alyssa Slotkin joins Alex to talk about her stance on both the boat strikes and Signalgate and how it has been in the crosshairs of the president and his

allies. Then Ben Rhodes weighs in on the reputational damage and what it says about America on the world stage. And lastly, Nancy Yusuf, one of the journalists who gave up her Pentagon press pass rather than bow to the authoritarian rules that Pete Hegeseth was seeking to impose on the press, shares what it is like reporting from outside the walls while still holding Hegseth accountable. It is a jam-packed must-listen episode. Tune into Runaway Country Now on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. And guess what, stricties? We are headed to the West Coast, Best Coast.

In case you missed it, or in case your group's signal chat included an Atlantic journalist and you didn't get all the info, strict scrutiny is headed to the West Coast for the first time ever. You can catch us on March 6th in San Francisco at the Herps Theater and on March 7th in Los Angeles at the Palace Theater. You can come for the analysis, but stay for the general. bullying of Chief Justice John Roberts. Don't worry, he can take it. Tickets are at crooked.com for it slash events, and you should grab them before they sell out. West Coast, Best Coast,

we're coming for you. Strict scrutiny is a Crooked Media production, hosted and executive produced by Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and me, Kate Shaw, produced and edited by Melody Rowell, Michael Goldsmith is our associate producer, Jordan Thomas is our intern, audio support from Kyle Segglin and Charlotte Landis, music by Eddie Cooper, production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Mattra Groot is our head of production, and thanks to our digital team, Ben Heathcote, Joe Matoski, and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to Strict scrutiny on YouTube on YouTube on YouTube on YouTube.com slash at Strict scrutiny podcast. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to strict scrutiny in your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Please. ... ...