Strict Scrutiny - Something Wicked This Way Comes: A SCOTUS Term Preview

Episode Date: October 6, 2025

Kate, Leah, and Melissa preview what fresh hell SCOTUS has in store for us this term, including challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Court’s continued obsession with fighting the culture wars. Then, after breaking down the latest legal news, the hosts welcome Lieutenant Governor of Illinois–and Senate candidate–Juliana Stratton to discuss Trump’s plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, how state and local governments can push back against this administration, and what gives her hope in this fight. Finally, a game to commemorate Chief Justice Roberts’ 20 long years on the Court. This episode was recorded live at the Athenaeum Center in Chicago.Favorite things:Leah: Bone Valley: A True Story of Injustice and Redemption in the Heart of Florida, Gilbert King; Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights, Lisa Graves; One Battle After Another; The Life of a Showgirl, Taylor SwiftKate: WBEZ Chicago; Block Club Chicago; Chicago Reader; The Chicago Sun-Times on Broadview; Heart the Lover, Lily KingMelissa: Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ezra Klein Hash Out Their Charlie Kirk Disagreement; Tony Shalhoub’s Breaking Bread (CNN); Mexodus (Audible’s Minett a Lane Theater); Meghan Markle in Balenciaga Learn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow 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 Americans United for Separation of Church and State. You don't destroy 250 years of secular democracy without gutting precedent, shattering norms, and dropping a few billion. The same people in groups that backed Project 2025 are part of a larger shadow network that's relentlessly pushing to impose a Christian nationalist agenda on our laws and lives. Church state separation is the bulwark blocking their agenda. One of the last bastions of church-state separation is our public school system. So they're pushing vouchers everywhere. They're arguing for religious public schools. Yes, you heard that right, religious public schools at the Supreme Court in a case that was on the court's docket from last term that we talked about on the podcast.

If you're listening to us, you're seeing the writing on the wall. We can, we must fight back. Join Americans United for separation of church and state and their growing movement because church-state separation protects us all. Learn more and get involved at AU.org slash crooked. Mr. Chief Justice, please support. It's an old joke, but 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 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 next. Hello Chicago. You look really fantastic, not at all like a second city. I think you are the first city tonight. We are so excited to be here. We are strict scrutiny. Your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. AKA the life of a SCOTUS podcast live show girl.

We are your host live from Chicago. I'm Leah Littman. And I'm Melissa Murray. And I'm Kate Shaw. And Chicago, we are so delighted to be here in my beloved hometown. And we are very appreciative of the warm welcome. You all have given us a much warmer welcome than you all have given some other interlopers who have descended on this fair city. Some people don't know how to be good guests.

That's all I'm saying. They do not. And yes, later in the show. we are going to talk about the outrageous conduct of some federal officials who are ostensibly enforcing immigration laws but are actually terrorizing the population and the way Chicago and Illinois are responding. But even in these grim circumstances, it is wonderful to be here. It is wonderful to be with my co-hosts on stage.

We don't get to be together in person all that often. It is great to be with all of you, our friends, the ones with matching circumstances. scars, not, this is not going to be the only Taylor Swift reference you will hear this evening. So, again, we are so happy to be here. Midwest is best. We are somewhat less delighted about the occasion, which, of course, is the start of a new SCOTUS term. Wait, wait, wait. Did the old term end? Yes, you can hiss, yes.

When did the old term end? So in order to set the stage for the new term, we have to look at SCOTUS terms past. We call this eating out of the trash. Yes, we are just little SCOTUS raccoons. Seriously, this last term was like the 1980s movie, the never-ending SCOTUS term. That is a deep cut for you, Jen Xers. We sat through so many bad decisions, Skirmetti, MacMood versus Taylor,

and that was all before we were inundated by the cool summer of the shadow duccott decisions where this court gave this administration's lawlessness win after win after win. And so, with that in mind, and in the spirit of a Brett Kavanaugh listicle, I am going to tick through some of the bullet points of this summer. So first, the court, with little or no explanation,

allowed the federal government to, one, stop and detain people because of their race and the language that they speak. We call this racial profiling. It used to be bad, used to be unlawful, but now apparently okay. The court also allowed the federal government to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funds that had been previously appropriated by Congress. We would have called that a separation of powers, but that is a bad thing right now. We also saw the court bless the administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.

We also saw this court allow this administration to fire top federal regulators who do things like protect consumers, ensure that products are safe, guarantee that labor laws, wait for it, protect workers. It's been a big summer. And don't worry, there are more petitions and more applications pending, including one that could hand Donald Trump the power to truly wreck the global economy by fully politicizing the Federal Reserve Board. So they are going to hear oral argument on that matter in January.

And what can I say? Like so many things in January will be wild. New Year, same BS. Just a quick explainer on the Federal Reserve thing. The court has allowed Trump to fire basically every official. Trump wants to fire in violation of federal law as litigation challenging those firings is ongoing. And in their initial opinion announcing this magical new rule, they kind of said every official except the Fed. because the justices and many of the conservative overlords that have shaped this court

have investment accounts. And I protect the family, 401K. She's going to be like this all night long. All night. I only had three cookies. So as Leah and Melissa both said, the court will actually hear arguments on this Federal Reserve issue in January. The underlying issue is whether Trump can fire.

Lisa Cook, a governor on the Federal Reserve Board. But what they're hearing in January is actually just technically oral argument on the stay application. The court did not definitively deny Trump the ability to fire Cook while the litigation is ongoing regarding the lawfulness of her purported firing. They just decided they needed to hear oral argument on that question before resolving the stay application. So this does have the effect of allowing Cook to keep her job for at least a few months. But this isn't really a big mark in the Trump is dealt a loss at the Supreme Court column. It's just a delay for the court to actually consider the stay application. So what Kate is saying is, are we out of the woods yet? No. No, we are not. Because when this

court typically migrates a stay application from the shadow docket to the merits docket, But usually the party seeking this day, which is often the federal government, prevails more often than not. So, for example, here we are pretty much primed to see another victory maybe for the court. I don't know here. They're genuinely cross-pressured here. Yes. I mean, the 401 case. Well, they want those, but they also want the presidential power. And so this is the cross-pressure.

Oh, so hard. Yeah. So hard. Right. So having kicked the can, at least for now, while they decide how to resolve this cross pressure, but the court did apparently feel the need to squeeze one last bad decision in before the end of the last term. So on Friday night, the court issued yet another shadow docket order allowing the administration to cancel temporary protected status for Venezuelan migrants. Temporary, yes, temporary protected status or TPS gives individual. individual's legal authorization to remain and work in the United States when conditions in their

countries of origin warrant it. Another Friday night drop is the Supreme Court in their showgirl era. Sorry I had to. You know, the court's order in this case is filled with a big, fat lie. They said they had previously resolved this matter referring to their stay of a preliminary injunction in the case, but as the Court of Appeals noted, This isn't the same case that existed at the preliminary stage, because now courts have reviewed this thing called evidence.

The Supreme Court obviously not familiar with a concept. So all three Democratic appointees noted their dissent in this order, but only Justice Jackson actually issued a written opinion, and so that was only for herself, and it's worth quoting a couple of sentences from. So she closed with this. This court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance of the equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power

over countless families' pleas for the stability our government has promised them. So I kind of thought we were in a government shutdown, and... We only shut down the good parts. Well, that stinks. I would hope that it would shut down these guys, too, or at least the shadow docket. Or if it doesn't merit a full shutdown, maybe just unplugging and replugging. the court back in to see if that fixes things. We might need a factory reset.

Yeah, alas, there is no rest for the wicked or the Constitution. But don't worry, they are not resting, which means we are not resting either. So here is what we have on tap for you tonight. First, we will start by doing some big picture themes, previews, if you will, of this upcoming term. And although we are going to mention some specific cases, we are not going to do our usual deep dives into these cases. If you want the deep dives on these specific cases, you are going to have to subscribe to our YouTube channel,

and you will have to hear it there for yourself. So it's not okay to be a fair weather fan and only show up for the live shows. You've got to subscribe and be there every Monday, just like we are, and we know you are. So we will be covering these cases in depth every Monday in your ear holes. But for now, we're just going to hit some of the same.

of the highlights. We are then going to cover some assorted legal news. And then, because we are in Chicago and this is a live show, we have a very special guest. I think you may know her. Yes? She is Illinois' lieutenant governor and a candidate for the U.S. Senate. So she's here in the building and she's going to be joining us. So give it up for her. And that's not all. I don't think they're going to give it up the same way

for our last segment. I think they will give it up. Maybe just the tip, but more. Okay. Melissa just learned what that means. As we were backstage, She's like, Leah, my friend said you said this thing just the tip, and he thought it was like really funny.

Explaining that to her was one of my proudest moments, actually. You just brought that on yourself. It's not often that I get to be Kate Shaw. But it happened tonight. It happened tonight, yes. And whoa, I can't unsee it. Okay. So, for our last segment, we are going to have,

have a strict scrutiny game. And this game is going to be a game in honor, a tribute, if you will, to John G. Roberts and his 20-year tenure as Chief Justice of these United's. Wait, there are no John G. Roberts fans in the audience. I'm genuinely surprised. Truly shocking. Truly, truly shocking.

So to give you a sense of the occasion for our games, Roberts is already the third longest serving Chief Justice. in the court's history, and I feel like I have felt every minute of it. He only has 14 more interminable years to beat Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure as chief, and actually just eight years before exceeding Roger Tawny's tenure. Some might say he has already exceeded Roger Tawny's tenure. Tony is someone who's being recognized more and more. Have you noticed that?

Roger Tawny is in his redemption era. Regrettably, yes. And if you want to know more, our last episode. be a good primer on the redemption court. Okay, we are going to shift now to some term themes, but before we actually do that, we want to kind of offer an asterisk to the kind of very idea of a Supreme Court term preview because in the age of the rocket docket, formerly known as the shadow docket, term previews are going to be totally incomplete. And a part of me kind of worries that even the idea of a term preview that just focuses on the case, the court

is slated to hear on the merits, kind of ratchets down, interest in, and focus on what happens outside of the merits docket? And as you know, if you're a listener, so many important matters are decided by the court these days on the shadow docket. I would even go so far as to say that the shadow docket may be the most important part of the court's docket right now, especially if you want to understand what this court is doing and how impactful it is on our daily lives. Yeah, 100%. And we don't know and won't know many of the important issues that will make their way to the shadow docket for this term. Now, the court does have some Trump cases on its regular merits docket already, a challenge

to the tariffs, a case about whether the president can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission, as well as a governor of the Federal Reserve. Right, so those two cases were migrated from the shadow docket to the merits docket, and there's another case that has also sort of emerged from the shadow docket and will now be on the merits docket. And that is to say, the court is very likely and seems quite, is is going to determine whether this administration can unilaterally rescind the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship.

So we're going to find out if the 14th Amendment is in fact unconstitutional, in part or in full. A part of the Constitution. Is it OK? These are not arguments. We knew were serious arguments, and yet that's how much the goal has shifted. Off the wall.

On the wall. So technically speaking, the court has not yet granted a petition in the birthright citizen. case, but as Melissa says, it is absolutely certain that they are going to take that case up. The administration has already asked them to do that, and I think it's a question of when and not if. But with those kind of caveats about a term preview duly issued, let's talk about the upcoming term, and we will start with some themes that are emerging both on the merits docket and on the shadow docket as the two kind of converge.

So one theme seems to be picking up on the birthright citizenship matter, something like times up before the 14th Amendment, as well as some but actually the 14th Amendment. So there seems to be like this cacamamey idea that the 14th Amendment had an expiration date when it comes to protecting the rights of, I don't know, racial minorities and anyone who isn't Pete Hegeseth. These folks do think that the 14th Amendment does contain one permanent principle, which prevents the government from protecting civil rights. Like this is literally, if you spell it out, the new vision of the 14th Amendment is one where the 14th Amendment's protections for civil rights were subject to an issue. expiration date, which is now, except when the 14th Amendment declares anti-discrimination laws to be the new discrimination. No expiration date on that baby.

So this should be really familiar to you all because we have talked about this. This is an ongoing theme throughout many terms on this court, but it really does seem to be reaching a fevered pitch. And one case where I think it's going to be especially apparent is in Louisiana versus Kelle. This was a case from last term that has been held over for this. term and the court has apparently decided that it needs to determine in the context of this case whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, this is the part of the Voting Rights Act, that is a nationwide ban on discrimination in voting, whether in the context of Section 2 the consideration of race in remedial measures for voting discrimination is in fact unconstitutional.

So Section 2, key provision of the Voting Rights Act still standing since the Supreme Court dealt an enormous blow to the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case in 2013, prohibits, among other things, legislatures from discriminating against minority voters by diluting their political power. So one way it does this is by prohibiting legislatures from drawing districts that overrepresent white voters, and it requires legislatures to draw districts where minority voters are fairly represented and have equal political opportunities, at least where such districts are feasible in the context of residential segregation.

Right. That seems like a pretty modest ask, like letting racial minorities have a say in our democracy. But apparently, even thinking about race as you try to construct a system that is fair to minority voters is apparently a bridge too far. So thinking about race as you try to remedy racially motivated vote dilution is apparently now illegal on constitutional race discrimination. Or it might be if some portion of this court has its way. Just so you know who to thank for this dumbass, the 14th Amendment has an expiration date on the Voting Rights Act theory, let me remind you that Brett Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court and two years ago, oh, love that noise, love that noise, oh my goodness, that's the Kavanaugh honk and I love it, so two years ago in a concurrence in Allen versus Milligan, a virtually identical Voting Rights Act challenge, which Louisiana said in that case was virtually identical to this one, Coach Kavanaugh decided to float his theory

that the Constitution only allowed Congress to adopt race-conscious remedies in the Voting Rights Act for a limited period of time. And what do you know? Time's up. Honestly, I'm low-key surprise Brett Kavanaugh is into Times Up. I'm not because... Oh, I got it, I got it.

Thank you. I got it. I think he's really into this expiration stuff because it's basically like a shot clock on the Constitution. Like, yeah? Brett Kavanaugh. He loves basketball. Sports. That was my impersonation of Amy.

Yes, I figured, yes, but maybe not everybody got it. So just to break this down a little bit more, these justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, claim to be originalists, right? They say they think the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when the document was drafted and ratified. And yet they somehow seem poised to embrace the theory that the Voting Rights Act was constitutional when it was passed in 1965, maybe when it was amended in 1982, but that the same constitutional provision, which to be clear, hasn't changed the 14th and the 15th amendments, now don't allow the Voting Rights Act in 2025, right? So if we're being technical, it really sounds like a vision of the Constitution that is evolving or like devolving. rather than originalist. Instead of living constitutionalism, it's dying constitutionalism. Let me say a little bit more about these erstwhile originalists

who apparently have no idea about the circumstances under which the 14th and 15th amendments were drafted and ratified. And spoiler alert, this was not a situation where, Congress was really concerned with race neutrality coming out of the Civil War that ended slavery and in their zeal to include the formerly enslaved in the body politic, not interested in a colorblind constitution. Yeah. So, and Louisiana versus Calais isn't the only case that has a kind of confused vision of equality and discrimination. There are other cases, including the ones challenging the exclusion of transgender athletes from sports. Right. So these are

two cases that have been consolidated, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia versus BPJ. And they both involve state-level bans on trans persons participating in sports teams that track their gender identity. Both cases ask whether the state bans violate the equal protection clause. And one of the consolidated cases involves a Title IX claim. Title IX is the federal anti-discrimination law that prohibits individuals or entities that receive federal funds from discriminating in educational activities or programs. And I really worry that in presenting the court with this Title IX claim, we are giving the court an opportunity to say that Title IX actually requires schools to discriminate

against trans kids in order to safeguard women's equality. This is an argument that the Trump administration is making all of the time in its EOs, and it would not surprise me at all if one of the justices in the six to three conservative supermajority also decided to let this one fly in a concurrence or maybe even a majority opinion. Yeah, because the administration that is so eager to blame women for autism is very concerned about protecting women. You know, the other case in this category for me is Childs v. Salazar.

That is the First Amendment challenge to the state law banning conversion, quote, therapy. kind of, quote, therapy that tries to counsel people out of being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or transgender. A UN expert has declared it a form of torture. Medical experts have opined that it is junk science. Part of what makes this case so unhinged to me is that the Colorado law is just a licensing scheme. So all Colorado has said is that licensed therapists, people in a profession that is regulated

and screened by the state can't do conversion therapy, something that is rejected by the standards of their profession. And the question in this case is, who is the victim? Is it the gay or trans patient who a therapist tries to torture and deny their existence? Or is it the Christian therapist who is subject to the state's efforts to regulate the provision of professional medical care? This is the culture war court, and they have taken aside. Let me weigh in some more on this whole culture war court. This is not the only issue in the culture war with which this court is preoccupied.

the court on Friday granted certiorari in another enormous Second Amendment case. This case is called Wolford v. Lopez, and it considers whether states may presumptively ban concealed carry on private property, except in circumstances where the property owner permits gun owners to concealed carry on their property. So this is a big one. Okay, so in addition to the court's eagerness to wade into culture war issues and a possible expiration date for the 14th Amendment, at least for some purposes, I think there are a couple of other related themes to highlight. One is the likely continued weaponization of the First Amendment, even while the executive

branch tramples it in all kinds of ways, but the continued weaponization of certain forms of the First Amendment to achieve reactionary goals. And here I'm thinking of two cases in particular. The first is the one that Leah and Melissa were just talking about, Childs v. Salazar, the challenge to a Colorado prohibition on conversion therapy. I do have this like possible silver lining, hope, about this case, that is if the religious therapist wins, as I think Melissa and Leah correctly predict that they will, if there's language in the case, in the opinion that the court issues about the

First Amendment, which is a First Amendment case, precluding government from taking too heavy a hand and prohibiting certain sorts of medical treatments, it would be, to be clear, a very hard pill to swallow in light of the court's decision last term, blessing the Tennessee ban on certain medical care for trans youth in the Scrametti case. But a decision in this case could, at least in theory, potentially be deployed to resist state efforts to prescribe or prohibit certain forms of medical care. And in this moment, anything that makes it harder for government to dictate treatment with Secretary Bear Juice as chief health regulator might be a good thing. So that is the silver lining that I am attempting to see in this case.

Kate. I love your optimist. I'll wait for it. Yep. No, go ahead. I deserve it. I do. This is an intervention.

This is my conversion therapy for you. So I think this case is really going to be hard for this court to literally lean back from their own tendency toward utter hypocrisy. Because conversion therapy has, as Leah says, lots of detractors in the actual medical community. And some might even say that the question of the efficacy of conversion therapy, is a matter of debate and controversy, not unlike the court's depiction of gender-affirming care in Scermetti or its depiction of abortion in Dobbs. And I guess in circumstances where certain treatments are being debated

and their efficacy is questioned, aren't we supposed to defer to state legislatures? Isn't that the idea? Yeah. Well, if the court is being consistent. Again, Kate. You're almost there. I'm not saying they will.

I'm saying if they are. You're so close. You're so very close. Yes, yes. Yeah, that's all I'm going to say. They are being consistent, though, in the following way, right? Like, the court has one set of rules for right-wingers, reactionaries, and the mega-rich, and another set for everyone else, like for my friends, everything,

for Democrats and progressives and women and trans people, and the gay and lesbian and bisexual community, the law, or at least my fantasy version of the law. So I agree with the predictive claim, but I think it's at least possible there could be language in the opinion that could be useful. But I have just floated the possibility. I am clearly in dissent on this panel. This is a two to one. That's right. Yeah.

So the second weaponizing the First Amendment case, I want to just briefly flag, is partially about the mega-rich. This is the first campaign finance case the court has had in a while, partly because there's not that much campaign finance left to challenge. Like it's mostly gone, but there are some provisions of federal law that remain, and one is a limitation on the amount that political parties can spend in coordination with candidates, and a case before the court presents the question of whether that loan, it's not loan, but that one of the few remaining provisions of federal law that does impose this kind of limit violates the first amendment. And so the National Republican Senatorial Committee is challenging that coordination limit. The Trump administration agrees, because of course it does, and the court has appointed

a lawyer, Roman Martinez, to defend the statute. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. October 10th is World Mental Health Day, and this year we're saying, thank you therapists. Think about it. Therapists hear all of our shit, all of it from everyone all day long. That's their nine to five.

And yet somehow they stay willing and able to help us all process it. That definitely deserves a big thank you. I mean, just based on the things I've voiced on, to my therapist. I mean, imagine how bad they'd have it if I didn't have a dog. Betterhelp therapists have helped over 5 million people worldwide on their mental health journeys. That's millions of stories, millions of journeys, and behind everyone is a therapist who showed up, listened and helped someone take a step forward. Moments in therapy, like the right question, a safe space to cry or a small

win, can change lives. So this World Mental Health Day, BetterHelp is honoring those connections and the therapists who make them possible. As I mentioned, October 10th is World Mental Health Day couldn't have picked a better time for mental health day than the week of a new Supreme Court term for reels. And this year, BetterHelp is shining the spotlight on therapists, people who truly make the world a better place, unlike some SCOTUS justices I know. One particular moment I'm especially appreciative of in my therapy journey is when I showed up in my first therapy session, which I called on an additional as-needed emergency basis after my bike accident last summer. I know I know I talk about the bike accident a lot, but that's because it was super dramatic and

affected me a ton. Anyways, I showed up sniveling, couldn't get out more than two sentences, if that, before just breaking down into ugly sobs. And my therapist didn't judge me. She made me feel less bad, help draw parallels between this experience and others that helped me see a way forward, and help me come up with ways to, in Olivia Pope's words, handle it. The right therapist can really change everything, and BetterHelp has more than 12 years' experience and matching people to the right therapist. BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and they're fully licensed in the U.S. BetterHelp also does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. And with over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp

is the world's largest online therapy platform. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of five for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. This World Mental Health Day, we're celebrating the therapists who've helped millions of people take a step forward. If you're ready to find the right therapist for you, BetterHelp can help you start that journey. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash strict. That's better h-e-l-p.com slash strict. Second theme I want to mention, I think, will also present both on the merits and the shadow docket, and that is whether the court is going to be willing to peek behind the curtain. And so, you know, to penetrate the black box of government decision-making, as Melissa's colleague,

Rick Pildas puts it, or basically instead pretend that this is a normal administration like any other. John Roberts has it in him or once did to probe the facially preposterous representations made by this very president. So OG listeners will recall that we spent a lot of time in the early days of the pod joking the justification was necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which was how the first Trump administration laughably tried to defend its efforts to add a citizenship question to the census. The court decided that was pretextual and struck it down, writing that, quote, we are not required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free.

You know, if anything, many of the justifications the administration is now offering are more preposterous than that one, although that one was just so... It's hard to top necessary to enforce the voting rights act. It is. And yet, I think they will. That was actually Wilbur Ross. Not Brett Kavanaugh. Like, justice for Brett Kavanaugh.

That was the sound they make when they're starting to enforce the Voting Rights Act. When they lined up to do it. The rallying drive. I think this is a really good point. And the tariffs cases, which will be heard on the merits docket this term, I think, is a prime example of this. Because this president is essentially taking ordinary episodes in the economic cycle. of our lives and transforming them into emergencies. Like, we have trade deficits.

That happens. Like, there are trade deficits. It's not necessarily an emergency such that you get to use this power that literally hasn't been used since Jimmy Carter invoked it during the gas crisis in the 1970s. It's another one for you, Gen Xers. You don't get to just use that for bathroom vanities. Or do you?

Because he is asking for the power to shitpost his way. to tanking the global economy and declare bathroom vanities essential to national security. More seriously, like a lot of the president's most chilling exercises of authority rest on pretextual emergencies, including the deployment of the National Guard. And there are no new ideas, right? So we just learned that the president is trying to justify the fatal strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean Sea on the need to prosecute the war on drugs. Nancy Reagan would never, would never.

You know, with the Trump cases that are already on the court's docket, it seems like the court is going to fuck around and find out with going further and further down the rabbit hole that is the unitary executive theory, taking us closer to making president's kings and to a possible coronation of King Trump. Speaking of making the president a king, I think it's time for our recurring segment. We need to talk about Justice Clarence Thomas. We do, though. So at a recent appearance, Justice Thomas was absolutely on brand. He was, and our OG listeners will remember not just the necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act line,

but also a regular line and a recurring segment in our first couple of episodes was Starry Decisus is for soccer. I should have asked you to say it with me. Maybe you have the shirt. And obviously we didn't just say that in the first couple of seasons. You have definitely heard us say it a few times since because it is kind of evergreen when it comes to this court. Well, as you know, we have been suggesting some new names

for the docket formerly known as the shadow docket, like the, we're perfect, we're beautiful, were Linda Evangelista docket, or the Scotus shitposts, or the just-the-tip docket. Because why? Because they say the country isn't getting fucked, but the country is getting fucked.

I am not a bad bitch, and this isn't savage. This is just a fact. Anyway, as we were renaming the Shatter Docket, Justice Thomas, decided to make the old Chubbett. chestnuts, starry decisis is for suckers, great again. That's right. So at an event in D.C. with his former law clerk, Jennifer Mascot, who is also a nominee to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Justice Thomas offered

the following thoughts on precedent. One, he said, some decided cases are just based on, quote, something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. Smells like immunity to me. It sure does. Or the shadow docket. Or every shadow. socket decision. Yeah. That's us editorializing. I didn't say that part. But here's something

he did say. So just as Thomas continued, quote, at some point, we need to think about what we're doing with stare decisis. So close. So close. Sir. Yes. We do. We do need to think about what you're doing. So the National Law Journal reported he also said about precedent, quote, If it's totally stupid, you don't go along with it, end quote. Ah, yes, women's rights, so stupid. Seriously, at this event, he said, Griswold v. Connecticut about protecting access to contraception was a decision that didn't make sense.

This is big, he admitted, energy. Thanks, Clarence, for just saying it. Now, maybe all of the men who say we are hyperbolic doomsdayers we'll shut the fuck up. It does seem like this term, the conservative supermajority is poised to go straight up stare decisis a serial killer mode. On the chopping block is Humphrey's executor

on presidential removal, Gingles v. Thornburg, a major voting rights precedent. I think it's jingles actually, yeah. So it's hard to overstate how foundational those decisions are, but even harder to overstate how foundational the idea of stare decisis is. It sounds like this fusty Latin word and concept.

That's how foundational it is. It's in Latin. It's in Latin. Yeah. That's how you know it's serious. That's how you know. Yeah. And we joke about it all the time, but this is a doctrine that is about both humility. Like, you don't have all the answers and the accumulated wisdom of all those who came before might be worth something. And it's also a doctrine of stability. Like we don't want the law to change radically because of the whims of five or six justices, but this is a court that has very little humility and it seems increasingly unstable.

Yes, and very little stability. Yeah, the humble, stable part was the tell. So the whole story Decisus is for Suckers Energy is already concerning, you know, because we aren't supposed to just disrupt settled precedent. But I think the thing that is even more telling about this court's radicalism is that it's not just overruling precedents. It's actually interrogating practices and policies that no one ever thought to litigate or challenge before. It's like everyone else was stupid until this court. They are going to go full on darkacy on the entire legal canon. We'll explain that reference in a

second. But it means making arguments that to date people were unwilling to make because they either had a sense of shame or an intellect that exceeded Brett Kavanaugh's. So here's the moment from the oral argument in darkacy I am referencing. But we've never suggested that in a case where Congress has given an agency the power to enforce something and the agency is bringing the charge, if you will, that that that's just not, it's, that's, that's, that's, that's settled. Well, it's settled only to the extent no one's brought it up and forced this issue since Atlas Roofing in this context. Nobody has had the, you know, chutzpah, to quote my people, to bring it up since Atlas Roofing. Now, though, they are saying this insane shit with their

full chest. That, of course, was the one and only Elena Kagan, if you didn't recognize her voice. So just to stay on this Justice Thomas event for one more beat, though. So he also had another interesting nugget that might have been a dig at at least some of his colleagues. So he said that he looks back on his almost 35 terms on the court. Yeah, that's a lot. He is also not, he's not the third long, but he's like in the fifth or sixth longest serving justice ever position. And I think if he stays till 2028. We felt it.

We've all felt it. Every moment of that, too. But so he's got a lot of terms to reflect on, and he said in this appearance that his favorite era was the 11-ish years when the court's composition was stable. So there's a long time when the court's composition didn't change when Justice Breyer was the most junior justice. And according to Justice Thomas, quote,

I've been here a long time now, but those were truly my friends. I don't get bored with the work of the court. I get bored with people who are boring, but not the court. Shorter, Justice Thomas, fuck them libs. Or, or alternatively, tell me you're not amused by Neil Gorsuch without telling me you're not amused by Neil Gorsuch. Could go either way. Or could be Brett Kavanaugh.

I guess why not both? So next up, we have a little bit of court culture for you. The lower courts are still doing court things, including something that's called law. You might have heard of it. might be appearing in the history books someday soon, and a district judge in Oregon an hour before we recorded issued an opinion finding the president's deployment

of the National Guard in Portland illegal. I should say, our last live show we got one of these while we were on stage and Leah had to speed read the opinion and then we sort of digested it. So at least we got the courtesy of an hour before Curtin to digest this one, but also a great opinion. Yeah, so basically the district court said

the president's reasons for deploying the guard were bullshit. Okay. All right, we are doing this in real time. I'm 100% sure the court did not say that it was bullshit. They came pretty close. This was a close reading. I'm reading between the lines. The court's actual words were simply untethered to the facts.

not conceived, in good faith, and ignoring facts on the ground. Shorter, Oregon District Judge, bullshit. Yeah, exactly. So the court concluded, the guard wasn't needed to execute the laws of the United States, and allowing the deployment basically as a response to protest, was inconsistent. with the, quote, long-standing and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition.

This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law. There's more. Oh, yeah. These are the words of a judge who was nominated by... wait for it, noted liberal squish Donald Trump. Also a judge who served on noted liberal squishes, Ken Starr's litigation team. Sometimes it be your own people. Yeah. So please do share this fact the next time someone says, oh, the lower courts all have Trump

derangement syndrome, they're just all out to get Donald Trump. And in that vein, we also wanted to acknowledge this goes back a little bit, but about a week ago, we got an opinion from Massachusetts District Judge William Young, and it was an epic opinion, and folks probably have heard about it. It's been covered elsewhere, but we really would be remiss not to spend some time talking about it. So the case involved a challenge to the administration's efforts to target for deportation, non-citizen students and faculty members based on their speech, and in particular speech critical of the Israeli government and supportive of Palestinian rights. So the plaintiffs accused the government of administering an illegal ideological deportation policy,

and there was some pretty stunning evidence that was admitted into the record that this was accurate.gif. That's exactly what the government was doing. So according to the trial record, federal agencies created a special unit called the Tiger Team. They're not sending their best people. Yeah. Anyway, the Tiger team relied heavily on the right-wing Canary Mission's website to identify protesters or critics based on their speech, which is what we call in the legal game viewpoint discrimination. And if you were wondering, viewpoint discrimination is a violation of the First Amendment. Yes. Yes. So Judge Young's opinion is framed as a letter or response

to a postcard that he received to his chambers. that postcard read, quote, Trump has pardons and tanks. What do you have? To which Judge Young responded, quote, dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, alone I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, we the people of the United States, you and me, have our magnificent constitution. Here's how that works out in a specific case. The opinion went on to underscore the dangers of the administration using deploying the vast resources of the federal government to suppress speech on the basis of viewpoint. And Judge Young touched on the practice of using masked agents for ICE enforcement. As he explained, quote, this court has listened carefully to the reasons given for masking up.

It rejects ICE's testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable. Ice goes masked for a single reason to terrorize Americans into quiescence. And this was a judge appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, served for nearly half a century, called this the most important opinion that he had had in his time on the bench. And that last quote is an unfortunate segue into local developments, and many of those are kind of more disastrous fallout from the Supreme Court's shadow docket. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Mosh.

It's another Supreme Court term, so with that on the plate, we need to compensate and be more intentional about the way I live, eat, and take care of my body. You know, the things within my control, unlike one first street. And I am always looking for an on-the-go protein snack that satisfies me, and now I found one that helps me live intentionally, too. Mosh bars. Mosh, which you may have heard about on Shark Tank, was founded by Maria Shriver and her son Patrick Schwarzenegger, with a simple mission.

to create a conversation about brain health through food, education, and research. Mosh joined forces with the world's top scientists and functional nutritionists to go beyond your average protein bar. Each mosh bar is made with ingredients that support brain health like Eshwaganda, Lions mane, collagen, and omega-3s, plus a game-changing brain-boosting ingredient you won't find in any other bar. Mosh is the first and only food brand boosted with cognizum, a premium neutropic that supplies a brain with a patented form of cytokoline. Mosh bars also actually taste great, and they come in nine mouth-watering flavors, including three new plant-based flavors like chocolate chip cookie.

But here's the best part to make you feel good. Mosh donates a portion of all proceeds from your order to fund gender-based brain health research through the women's Alzheimer's movement. Why gender-based? Well, two-thirds of all Alzheimer's patients are women. Mosh is working closely to close the gap between women and men's health research. I love my job as a law professor, so I want to keep my brain healthy and sharp, and if I can do so while eating delicious. snacks, well, sign me up. And guess what? Because it's pumpkin spice season, they have a pumpkin spice chocolate chip mosh bar. Pumpkin spice and keeping my brain nice, for sure. If you want to find

ways to give back to others and fuel your body and your brain, mosh bars are the perfect choice for you. Head to moshlife.com slash strict to save 20% off plus free shipping on the best sellers trial pack or the new plant-based trial pack. That's 20% off plus free shipping. on either the bestsellers trial pack or the plant-based trial pack at m osh-l-i-f-e dot com slash strict thank you mosh for sponsoring this episode so as we've discussed in prior episodes this court with no explanation recently stayed a court's order prohibiting ICE from using race ethnicity, language, occupation, and location as screening criteria for detaining individuals in Los Angeles.

Now, the court's order was formally confined to Los Angeles, but it seemed pretty likely that the court effectively blessing the use of racial profiling would emboldened this administration to begin using racially profiling methods in other contexts. and here we are. Other contexts and other places. And one of those places appears to be right here in Chicago. No, exactly. So the court didn't explain its decision.

Coach Kavanaugh did. He issued a cab currents to explain why the fascists could let their free flags fly. And here's how he described what is happening with regard to immigration enforcement. Quote, the government sometimes makes brief investigative stops. And quote, if the officers learn

that the individual they stopped as a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go. That's a funny. Big if true. Yes. All right. So we have a real on-the-ground report of how immigration stops are actually proceeding these days. And as folks in the audience here likely know, but listeners at home might not. The Chicago Sun Times and other outlets have reported that last week hundreds of federal agents descended on a South Shore apartment complex at one o'clock in the morning. They broke down the door of an apartment occupied by a 67-year-old United States citizen who was

then dragged out in zip ties. He was left tied up outside of the building for almost three hours. Another resident said she saw kids dragged out of the building without clothes on and into U-Haul vans and separated from their mothers. One resident asked agents, quote, why were they holding me if I was an American citizen? They said I had to wait. until they looked me up. Just to reiterate, brief investigative stops where U.S. citizens are promptly let go. So, friend of the podcast and former guest on the podcast,

Professor Anilke Hahn at Drexel Kline's School of Law, has coined a term for what the federal government is doing. He called it Kavanaugh stops. Let's make it famous. ABC has further details about these Kavanaugh stops and how they work. So one resident reported that his South Shore building was shaking. And when he looked out the window, he saw a Black Hawk helicopter hovering. Like, again, Black Hawk down, like Somalia in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

That's the kind of stuff that they're using right now on civilians. Another resident came out of her apartment at 10 p.m. to find officers pointing a gun in her face. She was then handcuffed and detained until around three in the morning. The administration has justified these appalling events in a statement claiming that Chicago's South Shore is, quote, a location known to be frequented by Trenda Aragua members and their associates. Now, it's been a while since I lived in the beautiful city of Chicago,

And when I did live here in the late 90s, there were episodes of gang violence, but I hadn't heard that Trenda Aragua was in the city. So I'm a little skeptical. But what I do know is I know who lives on the south side of Chicago, black people, college students, and white socks fans. And none of these people deserve this. No. And unfortunately, this is not all. So over the last couple of days, we have also heard about truly appalling ice conduct across Chicago.

And kind of recapping what is happening here in Chicago right now is unfortunately a good segue into our conversation with our very special guest. So our guest today is currently the lieutenant governor of Illinois. She is running to become the next United States Senator from the Land of Lincoln. Please give it up for Juliana Stratton. Thank you for having me. We are so glad you're here.

We have so many pressing questions. But before we get to ICE enforcement, if I wanted to get a hot dog, where would be the best place for a true Chicago dog? Wiener Circle! Circle. But the key is no catch up, right? Okay. Yes.

Okay. And Weiner's Circle is not the Supreme Court. Okay. Okay. But. Yeah. Okay. Just checking.

I also want to ask, where do you think is the best place for Chicago Pizza? And I understand you're running a campaign, so I understand if you might not want to answer that question, I still had to ask. Well, I heard Piquas, but I, I mean, there's a lot of great pizza in Chicago. I just want to, I think you should stop. Yeah, because when you start to take sides, there's lots of great pizza in Chicago. A politic answer. That's right. That's right.

All right, I will just say, I kind of want to loomal noughties. They decided we're doing Gerdonnas. We're doing, anyway. I'm not running for anything, so I can take a side. but I'm also going to try to focus us. So, sorry, no, but we obviously do have serious things we wanted to talk to you about. So over the last nine months, we all know the president has been increasingly aggressive in the assertion of federal government power.

And obviously we don't need to tell you, it seems that assertion has now reached Chicago. And actually, we wanted to start by playing some excerpts from recent speeches from the president and Secretary Hegset and then ask for some of your reaction. to those. Our history is filled with military heroes who took on all enemies foreign and domestic. You know that phrase very well. That's what the oath says, foreign and domestic. Well, we also have domestic. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country.

No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. A few months ago, I was at the White House when President Trump announced his Liberation Day for America's trade policy. It was a landmark day. Well, today is another liberation day. The liberation of America's warriors, in name, in deed, and in authorities. You kill people and break things for a living. Okay. Very, very normal. Yeah. So by themselves, these are incredibly chilling statements and they are even more alarming when you take them together. And just this morning, and we are recording on Saturday, Governor Pritzker shared that the Department of War, it never not sounds stupid. Yeah. The Department of War gave him an ultimatum. to call up the National Guard, or they would do it for him.

And they would send military troops into Illinois against the will of the state, its people, and its governor. And we said, hell, no. As... Yeah. Okay. I mean, think about this. I mean, you just heard that.

the enemy within. This is about a president, a wannabe dictator who sees American people, fellow Americans as the enemy and wants to normalize the presence of military troops on American soil. And we made it clear. Now he of course then gave the order to federalize troops to come to a city like Chicago, but we have made it very clear. We We don't want you here. We don't need you here. And we have, by the way, a governor. He happens to be the best governor in the United States, by the way.

And the governor is the commander-in-chief in our state. So we don't need a president telling us what we need to do. So this is an effort to cause real chaos, to stoke fear. And that's exactly what's happening, pitting us against one another, and we have made it very clear in Illinois what we are standing for and we're going to keep fighting to protect our people. You better believe that. LF.G. Let's go.

I was going to say, as the great Shea Koulet said, this is how we do it in Chicago. That's exactly right. Could we actually get you to say some more about kind of how state and local governments can serve as sites of resistance to federal encroachment. So we totally agree that the governor has really been incredible and a standout as I think there's been a lot of flailing because so much of what we're seeing from the federal government is so unprecedented. So how can states and localities become effective sites of resistance?

I think one of the things that in addition to speaking out, in addition to saying let's coordinate getting all of our leaders together and convening to say, here's where we are, these are our values, and we're going to stand strong. And by the way, people do want to see that from their leaders. They want to see leaders fighting back and not just going along to get along. So that is one thing. But I think the other thing that's been really important here in Illinois is we knew what would come about with the second Trump presidency. So we were proactive. We made sure that we enshrined the right to an abortion in state law.

We made sure, yeah. We made sure that we protected LGBTQ plus rights. We knew what was at, what was being threatened. And so we were proactive. And in many ways, being proactive is the way that we can resist. By not waiting for something to happen and then say, how do we react, but to say, you know what, we understand who he is.

He is not a normal president, and he is not a normal person. normal person and so for us we had to take action and I think that's what the people of Illinois deserve leaders who take action that is what we all deserve everyone deserves but Illinois right here all right you are in the Illinois state government now but you are running to be a member of Congress the Senate specifically. And at this moment, you were running on behalf of a party that's in the minority in the federal legislature. What should an opposition party be doing now to resist this president? Like, what are we missing here? Well, look, I sometimes wonder why it's so

quiet in certain circles and spaces, even within the party. What I can tell you is that When I'm traveling the state, and I'm doing a lot of that these days, more than any policy issue, what people are saying more than anything else, is I am looking for someone to go to the Met fighting for me. That is what I'm looking at. And I can tell you, we get a good example of what that should look like by just tapping into the energy that people are bringing. People who head to the streets and say no kings, people who say, hands off my health care, hands off my medical. They are showing us the kind of energy that they want. And I think that what we have to do is we have to match that energy. We have to meet the moment with the energy that people are expecting.

But I think the other thing is we're seeing it right now, for example, with the budget. We are seeing Democrats say we're not going to compromise and give up health care for Americans. And that's important. But that energy has to be. has to be sustained. The people, you know, Americans don't want to see Democrats, you know,

confirming judges that have no business sitting on the bench. They don't want to see Democrats confirming appointees to lead agencies that have no experience and have no business sitting on the bench. So we have to sustain this energy. sustain this energy. It's not just for right now. And the reason why I'm running is, yes, because I want to make sure that we pass good legislation. Yes, I want to make sure I use my bully pulpit and speak with moral clarity, but it's to push our party to be courageous

in this moment. That's what we need. That's the energy people are looking for. Like, so... I want to pulverize that and snort it. That's amazing. Yes. That is a great transition, Juliana. You are running for a seat that is open because Senator Dick Durbin is retiring. And among other things, Senator Durbin chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee when Democrats had a majority in the Senate. And if you are elected to the Senate, you will play a role in shaping the federal courts. So in that spirit, can we get your takes on the following questions? One, how would you rate the Supreme Court? Awesome, okay, bad, or 911, there's an emergency. There's an emergency. There's an emergency. We have a Supreme Court right now that is rubber stamping

this president's authoritarian agenda. And quite frankly, it is dangerous. We're supposed to have checks and balances, right? But there are no checks from this Supreme Court. So it is dangerous. They're getting checks from their emotional support billionaire. They're getting checks. But they are not checking the president.

Yeah. Yeah. The other branches. Right. Okay. So second question. If a nominee to the federal court said, allegedly, that one could, instead of responding to and complying with court orders, just simply tell the courts, quote,

you, would you vote to confirm them to a lifetime appointment on the federal courts? I'm not, I'm not someone who cusses a lot. Sorry, what? But I would say, it would be something close to him. But what I would say is, no, I mean, no, should not be, does not have the experience, does not believe in the rule of law, and should not sit on the bench at all. Absolutely not. So, taking you back to kind of the state official sort of question for now, we were talking

about a decision that came down regarding the invalidity, at least as a district court found it, of a decision to send the National Guard to Oregon. I guess I want to ask about, from your advantage in state government, kind of the role of litigation in this moment. So obviously, using the bully pulpit critically important, I think state and local officials both rallying the public and communicating about our constitutional values is hugely important. And as we've just been talking about, the Supreme Court has been blessing a lot of what the administration is doing.

But the courts are not just the Supreme Court. The lower federal courts are doing a great deal. So I guess is that a place that people should, not exclusively, but among other things, sort of look to as one potential check on the federal government? I guess there is litigation or will be litigation already filed against the federal government just by Illinois, right? Is it pending now, or it will be. And we are doing that.

We have a fantastic, not just a fantastic governor, but we have a fantastic attorney general in Kwame Raoul. And, you know, we are, you know, filing cases. We're going to court, and you don't see all of those cases on the front page. I mean, it's not always making the headline news, but we are doing that, and we are winning. And I think that's the piece that I want to make sure people understand, that the resistance is important because we are winning. We are getting to places.

And this is a very weak man in Donald Trump. And we understand that. And so when you push back, we see him start to change course. It doesn't mean that things aren't still happening. I mean, he came back today and said, well, now let's send troops to Chicago. We're going to see that happen. But when we resist, when we fight back, when we stand together, when we go to court and file these lawsuits, yes, it's important.

Of course, if they get appealed and the cases that get appealed to the Supreme Court, who knows what we will see happen. But every single step, we must fight back. We cannot normalize what is happening. We cannot just sit back on the sidelines. We have to be ready to go to bat every single moment, and that's what we're doing in Illinois.

That's the kind of leadership I'm going to bring to the United States Senate, by the way. So because you are so involved in a state, you know, that is really on the front lines of pushing back against an autocratic, aspiring, fascistic, authoritarian administration. Aspiring. You know, just to throw out some adjectives. And so you are involved in this fight and seeing it play out. can you give us

some reasons for hope or encouragement, like things to look to that we can say like, yes, this is working and we should continue to stay in this fight because I think so often it's just so draining and demoralizing

and people look around and they feel discouraged because it doesn't feel like there is anything they can do that will simply turn this off. Well, first of all, it is a very real thing about how people are feeling in this moment. People, you know, and this is part of the playbook to make us feel overwhelmed, to make us feel hopeless and helpless and confused

and scared, quite frankly. And I hear that a lot from Illinoisans all across the state. I think a couple of things. I mean, first and foremost, I keep saying that every time I walk into a room and I'm doing a lot of different events or gatherings and meet and greets. Protests, I've been out in the streets protesting. The day that I show up and no one is there, that will say something to me. But every time I walk into a space

and someone is still there, sometimes they bring their children, sometimes they come alone, sometimes they bring their whole little friendship group with handmade signs or whatever they need to bring. And every time I see that, I get filled back up. Because it is an example and a reminder that people are still in the fight. They are not giving up.

They're going to keep going every single day. The other thing I think of is my dad, Henry, who is 92, who marched from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Hey, Henry. Yeah. Yeah. And he has some health challenges now, and, you know, he wrote this article back in 1965 that's on the wall in the Illinois State Capitol in my office about why he marched.

And he said, I did not like how human beings were being treated, something that I think all of us are feeling every single day right now. And somebody must have asked my dad, well, what did you think you would accomplish by marching. And he said that I would stand up and be counted. And that is the moment that we are all in right now, right? That we all have to do our part to stand up and be counted. And so my dad, he didn't know what was going to happen after marching. He didn't know. He didn't know that there would be a Voting Rights Act. And he surely didn't know that right now in 2025, those rights are at stake once again at the age of 92. But what he knew is if I stand up

and I'm counted and then the next generation and the next generation continues that work and takes that baton out of his hand, we're going to be okay. We have been passed the baton and we must run with it. That is our responsibility. And when we do our parts, we will get through this. It's going to be hard, but we're going to get through it. Brett Kavanaugh is not the only one who knows sports. We can have a father of daughters and we can have a daughter of a great father. That's exactly right. Please give it up for Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton.

Thank you. She is running to represent and fight for the great state of Illinois. That's right. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Birch. It's new SCOTUS term season, which means we need help sleeping easy, and that's so much easier with a Birch mattress. Since sleeping on a birch mattress means you know you're sleeping on a mattress made

with organic, raw materials, source straight from nature, which are both comfortable and durable. Birch mattresses are stylish, comfortable, and most importantly, crafted with responsibly sourced materials. They're even plush and fluffy enough for my pup, who literally says no to just plain old, plain old cotton sheets and insufficiently fluffy towels. But she says yes to Birch, since they source only the finest quality materials like

organic fair trade cotton, organic wool, and natural latex to create luxurious mattresses designed to give you the best night's sleep. every birch mattress is constructed with non-toxic materials and a focus on breathability to keep you cool at night so you don't overheat from you know the news there's no better way to test a new birch mattress than by sleeping on it in your own home that's why birch offers a 100-night risk-free trial to see how your body adjusts they believe so strongly in their mattress quality that each one includes a 25-year warranty I want all my listeners to enjoy a deep restful night sleep with a new mattress from Birch. Go to birchliving.com slash strict for 20% off sitewide. That's birchliving.com slash strict and get 20% off sitewide.

Birchliving.com slash strict. I'm so am so am. I know. We cannot top that. We cannot do that. But never happens. We're actually going to play a game. We're calling two truths and a lie.

Maybe you've encountered it before. But this is the John Roberts edition. I hadn't seen the photo that we decided to use. This is great. Audio listeners, pull up the YouTube. There's a great mug of John Roberts that you need to see as we play this game. It is not muggy in here. All right, here is how the game is going to work.

We are going to read you three statements, then we'll read them again, and ask you to cheer for the one you think is the lie. Two truths, one lie, cheer for the lie. Okay, so I'm going to read them all, and then I'm going to read them each again. And I want you to cheer to the second round, okay? All right, here we go. Round one. John Roberts's childhood nickname was sober puss.

John Roberts graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School. John Roberts is known to ask restaurant servers for reading glasses. So now I'm going to read them again, and you're going to cheer for the one that you think is the lie. Okay? That means two-thirds of these are real. Okay. All right. Number one.

John Roberts' childhood nickname was sober puss. Number two, John Roberts graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School. You know they don't rank, okay. John Roberts is known to ask restaurant servers for reading glasses. So you're right. The lie is that he graduated first.

They're good. Sober-puss. I mean, sober-puss is very on-brand. Okay, round number two. Again, I'm going to read all three, and then you'll clap for which one you think is the lie. Number one, John Roberts coined the phrase, The way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Number two, John Roberts said violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

shouldn't be too easy to prove. Number three, John Roberts wrote a college paper titled Marxism and Bolshevism, theory and practice. Okay, got to pick the lie. Is it? One, John Roberts coined the phrase, the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Is it number two? John Roberts said, violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act shouldn't be too easy to prove. Is it number three? John Roberts wrote a college paper. Here's the thing. You all think you know John Roberts, but you don't.

Here's the lie. The lie is John Roberts didn't coin this phrase. It was coined by a Ninth Circuit judge, justice for Carlos Baia. Yeah, no. This guy just kind of picked it up. picked it up and tried to make it great again. And tried to make it great again.

All right, round three. All right, first of these, John Roberts is known to adjust the jackets and ties of clerks, including those who work for other justices. Sounds creepy. Sure does. John Roberts attended Public High School,

and John Roberts once accused President Obama's Solicitor General, the Solicitor General's office of being disingenuous. Okay, so, first, known to adjust the jackets and ties of clerks, including not his own. Okay, some. John Roberts attended public high school. John Roberts once accused the Solicitor General for the Obama administration of being disingenuous. And the lie here, you guys got this one.

Yeah, attended private all-boys Catholic school, La Lumiere. You guys really do know you're John Roberts. It would be hard not to. Okay. Round four. Number one, John Roberts is the youngest chief justice ever appointed. Number two, John Roberts wrote, I've always wanted to stay ahead of the crowd in his application to attend that private high school. 3. John Roberts received the most yes votes at his confirmation of any other sitting justice. Is it number one? John Roberts is the youngest chief justice ever appointed.

Is it number two? John Roberts wrote, I've always wanted to stay ahead of the crowd in his private high school application. Or is the lie number three, John Roberts received the third. John Roberts received the first. most yes votes at his confirmation than any other justice. Well, well, well. The lie is number one. He's young, but he's not the youngest. In fact, the youngest person ever appointed to the position of Chief Justice was John Marshall at the age of 46.

John Roberts was 50. Okay, final round, round five. Here are the three. Number one, John Roberts wrote an op-ed in his high school's paper to support opening the school's enrollment to girls. Number two, the first case that John Roberts argued and won at the Supreme Court was subsequently overturned. Number three, John Roberts is the first Harvard Law School graduate

to be Chief Justice. Which is the lie? Is it number one? John Roberts wrote an op-ed in his high school's paper to support opening the school's enrollment to girls? Is it number two? The first case John Roberts argued in one at the Supreme Court was subsequently overturned? Or is it number three? John Roberts is the first Harvard Law School graduate to be Chief Justice? This is close. I'm not sure which one of move. majority of you selected, but here's the lie. John Roberts actually wrote an op-ed opposing co-ed enrollment, to which once Samuel Alito said, I'm the chief misogynist on this court. No one puts Sam Alito in a corner. How dare you, sir?

Exactly. All right, you guys did pretty well. Very good. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. We are running out of time. but we have some notes before we go. And first, we want to give some audience shoutouts. So tonight we have with us Rachel Cohen, Rachel, you're here, right? Who is a wonderful, brave lawyer who some of you probably heard about because she went really viral when she resigned from Scad and ARPS, law firm you've heard of, with a scathing letter criticizing the firm and its lawyers

for bending the knee and failing to stand up to the administration. She's helping out with a great new project, American Demands, platform designed to raise public awareness about what progressives would do and should do if they take back Congress. So listeners, be sure to check out her new project. I also wanted to wish a very special happy birthday to one Nico Housen, who is in the audience all the way from Ann Arbor. So happy birthday to Nico.

Midwest groupies are the best. We also have fans in the audience who have traveled even farther away than Ann Arbor to be with us here tonight. And among them in the audience is my former colleague and an amazing law librarian, Berkeley Laws, Ramona Collins, who just retired after 24 amazing years. So welcome, Ramona. Congratulations. We also have with us some amazing not only friends, but also. So family of the pod. So my parents, who happened to be two great Chicagoans, Andy and Mary Shaw, are here. Somewhere out there taught me most things I know.

Not everything, but most things. And last but not least, we want to shout out our phenomenal intern, Jordan Thomas, and his wonderfully supportive parents who traveled all the way from Jersey to rep the pod. So give it up for Jordan. And one other very special birthday greeting to Jim Wickersham. Jim's son is one of the people making this live show happen, and he told us you're a fan. So thank you so much for listening.

All right, we've got some housekeeping. First, I am going to shout out Shadow Kingdom, and this is a time you all don't need us to tell you that free speech and democracy are under attack. So Crooked has a story that is a really great way to show how power can be challenged. It's a story of one of the most powerful labor unions in the country, ruled with a corrupt president

with ties to the mob. And in a turn of events, he gets ousted by young working class organizers who band together and fight back through guerrilla tactics and underground newsletters and late night meetings. They end up building a labor revolution that ends with Tony Boyle, the union's president, in handcuffs. So the series is called Shadow Kingdom,

Cole Survivor and it's a must listen so you can binge it now wherever you get your podcasts. We also have a note from our good friends at Vote Save America. Vote Save America is running a first of its kind pilot program to recruit candidates from Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas. So we are talking about school board races, city council, state legislatures, all of the races that shape our communities and build the bench for long-term progressive power. So if you are not in those States, do not worry. Vote Save America will connect you with incredible national partners at the National Democratic Training Committee and run for something to get you set up and ready to run anywhere in the country. And you can get on this right away. Vote Save America will be hosting a

live call on Tuesday, October 7th at 5 p.m. Pacific Time, 8 p.m. Eastern Time to welcome new people to the program. And Tommy Viator, a friend of the pod, will be there along with Vote Save America's partners who are driving this work, and they will break down everything it takes to run and how we can support you every step of the way. If you even thought about running, and I know that there are some people in the audience who are thinking about it or even doing it right now, I think there's someone who's running for office in Wisconsin. This is where you can start. So sign up for the call and learn more at votesaveamerica.com forward slash run. This was paid for by Votesaveamerica, and you can learn more at votesaveamerica.com.

This ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. And now, two favorite things. Okay, yes. So, Gilbert King's new book, Bone Valley, is out Tuesday. I read an advanced copy, and it is amazing. Lisa Graves has a book just out without precedent, how Chief Justice Roberts and his accomplices rewrote the Constitution and dismantled our rights.

Perfect start for the start of the term. That is John Roberts' 20th year on this. the bench. Also recommend one battle after another, a movie incredible. If it doesn't win, Best Picture, We Ride at Midnight. And I am going to start referring to the court as the Christmas Adventures court. And if you've seen the movie, you know, and if you haven't, you should. Okay. Also, obviously, the life of a show girl. Yes. Okay. I'm I don't have time to spell out all my complicated feelings about this album, which actually are complicated and nuanced.

This isn't the set of Max Martin Bangers we were promised. Some of it is kind of cringe, generic, and superficial. And also this is probably what happens when your circle is now Maga adjacent and your muse has the intellectual chops of Brett Kavanaugh. Like this is your brain on Travis Kelsey. But here's the thing. He's going to make a great first husband. Here's the thing.

It's really is. It's still in my favorite things because I needed some new music and an escape. And some of the tracks did that for me and made me happy. Like I love Elizabeth Taylor, yes, father figure, the life of a show girl, and canceled. And just to clarify and canceled, because I know it will be misappropriated and can be put to bad ends and introducing it in this moment is a choice but the lyrics resonated with me. That's a lot of qualifiers. The lyrics resonated with me. Leah's feelings are complicated. Exactly. And nuanced. And the part Kate alluded to up top, particularly it'll break your heart. At least you know exactly who your friends are. They're the

ones with matching scars. So that's a favorite thing from this week. All right. I will identify a few favorite things. Right now, Chicago media on the ground covering what is happening. So WBEZ, Block Club Chicago, the revived Chicago reader, folks on the ground from places like the Sun-Times bearing witness to government overreach in Broadview, in Logan Square, all over the city. It's so important.

They are so brave, and they deserve all of our support. Also, to echo the Lieutenant Governor, Governor Pritzker, favorite things, all the energy we all need right now, and also Illinois' great Lieutenant Governor, who was amazing. And brief meta-commentary on Life of a Showgirl, which is, here is my take on it. I think it's uneven, I think it's kind of disappointing in certain respects, but I actually think a life in the, she's demonstrating, maybe, bear with me for a sec, a life in the public eye where you have a lot of takes and you, you know, take a lot of swings, like, you you will miss sometimes, and the life of a showgirl is like,

you get up the next day and you just do the damn thing again. And maybe we have seen her model that, and that's energy I think we all need. So that's my take. And then totally different topic. Lily King, who I love, has a beautiful new novel called Heart the Lover. Oh, some people already know it. It just came out. Highly recommend that if you want to go someplace very different from the Hellscape we're in.

Okay, I am not going to talk about the life of a showgirl. Okay. Among my favorite things this week, I loved the conversation between Tanaasi Coates and Ezra Klein. I just thought that Tanahasi Coates was so fantastic and clear, such moral clarity in this moment, and I thought he was terrific. I am also really, really excited. excited about Tony Shalub's new docu series that premieres on Sunday on CNN. It's called Breaking Bread. I love Tony Shalub. Tony Shalub is a national treasure. If you don't know him, he was in Monk. He was also in the movie Big Night, which was fantastic. He was also Merriam Maisel's father,

Abe Weissman, and he was absolutely fantastic. I love it, and I can't wait to watch. I also want to shout out, if you are in New York City, there is a fantastic off-Broadway play called Mexidus, which I just saw last night. It is so fantastic. It is a rap musical in the manner of Hamilton. But instead of documenting Alexander Hamilton, it tells a story that none of us knows, but we all should know. And that story is that the Underground Railroad did not just run north to Canada. It also ran south to Mexico. And in the period between the Mexican American War and the United States Civil War, hundreds of thousands of enslaved people escaped across the Rio Grande into Mexico

in order to live freely. And they are not telling us this. What a surprise! But you can hear this amazing story, an amazing musicianship. Just a two-man show. It's absolutely fantastic. It is playing until October 18th

of the Audible Theater down in the village. If you get to New York, see it. The other fantastic thing that I loved this week was the other M.M., the Duchess of Sussex, Megan Markle, showing up at Paris Fashion Week at a Balenciaga show in an amazing white Balenciaga ensemble

that proves she's not afraid of the British royal family or skeins, and she looked luminous, absolutely luminous, and I hearted it. Thank you so much, Chicago. This was wonderful. Chicago, we love you! 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, 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. Matt DeGroote is our head of production team, Ben Heathcote, Joe Matoski, and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to Strict Trudney on YouTube to catch full episodes. Find us at 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.