Strict Scrutiny - The Hubris and Hackery of Aileen Cannon

Episode Date: July 22, 2024

Kate and Leah attempt to wrap their heads around Aileen Cannon’s bonkers decision on the Trump classified documents case. Then, Leah talks with Josie Duffy Rice, Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot, and Kyle Barry about the promises and challenges of relying on state courts and state constitutional law to address the criminal legal system. Check out Kyle’s piece on the subject here. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke, not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our legs. Hello, and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We are your hosts for this segment today. I'm Kate Shaw. And I'm Leah Lippman. And dearest gentle listeners, on our term recap episode, you heard us foolishly say that we had some evergreen content queued up for you that we

had recorded to give ourselves a bit of a break in July. And you will hear some of that content later in this episode. But because Eileen Cannon is in the middle of her brat summer, apologies to CharlieXCX, we also needed to record this topper to bring you up to speed on the latest from Florida Woman. Just like last week when we read Josh Hawley's book, So You Don't Have To, this week, we read Eileen Cannon's opinion dismissing the indictment against Donald Trump on the obstruction of justice and hoarding classified documents charges. So you don't have to do that either. I really wish that I was not professionally required to have read that opinion. I would like that hour, two hours of my life back. I'd like my brain cells too.

That would also be nice. So, you know, just to quickly bring you up to speed, I'd like my brain cells too. Trump. Trump clearly retained classified documents at Mar-a-Lago long after he was president. Those documents apparently included information about nuclear secrets and intelligence sources and methods, among other things. Prosecutors have video and photographic evidence of people moving documents and storing them in places including Mar-a-Lago bathrooms, as the FBI was seeking through an initially protracted and collaborative process of seeking voluntary return to get the documents back. There are also recorded conversations in which Donald Trump brags about having classified documents and admits that he hadn't actually declassified them. So on the merits, and that's just a sampling of the evidence, the case is a very, very bad one for Donald Trump. And this meant that Judge Cannon was left to resort to pretty

outlandish means to make the case go away. Basically, between her prior reversal at the hands of the very conservative 11th Circuit, which rebuffed her earlier efforts to interfere with the case, I kind of think Eileen phoned a friend about how to junk this case once and for all. And that friend was Clarence Thomas. And what a friend he was to her and to Donald Trump. Yes, a best friend, just like to Harlan Crow. He has so many friends. So many best friends.

So when we did our emergency episode on the Trump immunity opinion, we actually didn't spend a lot of time talking about Justice Thomas's concurrence. Although Melissa, in her infinite wisdom, both noted it and called it presciently a Cannon concurrence, or maybe it was a Cann concurrence, since it seemed clearly designed to either prod Judge Cannon along in her path of dismissing the indictment, or maybe just write her a roadmap as to how to do that. And it did that by signaling Justice Thomas's

interest in one of the arguments that Ken was entertaining about why the entire prosecution before her was invalid. I feel like there's an obligatory come on Eileen joke here. So just have that in your mind. I got it. I mean, is anything ever going to top a Stacey's mom joke? I'm not sure. I don't think so. We're not even going to try, but come on, Eileen. All right. So the argument that Thomas essentially laid out for Judge Cannon runs something like this. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution gives the president the authority to appoint principal officers. The Constitution goes on to say that the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. And some geniuses insisted that Congress has not, by law,

as the Constitution requires, vested the appointment of special counsels in department heads. And here, the relevant department head is the attorney general. Therefore, this argument runs, special counsels have to be appointed by presidents. And because Jack Smith, the special counsel in this case, was not appointed by the president, but by the attorney general, everything Smith has done is invalid. Again, Thomas basically devoted his entire concurrence in the immunity case to this argument, even though Trump wasn't even making that argument in that case, right? Thomas, just to spell this out, Thomas was not content for Trump to win an enormous sweeping victory

on immunity. He also had to offer another independent, unargued basis on which Trump might win bigly, which was that the appointment of Jack Smith and Robert Mueller for good measure was constitutionally improper from the jump. elite strike force legal team um and the argument justice thomas outlined in his concurrence slash can currents is the argument eileen cannon used to dismiss the indictment we said we read her opinion so you don't have to in trying to characterize it um i need to know like what is one step down from dadaist poetry or slam poetry, because that's where this one falls for me. I want to come to the defense of Dadaist poetry. I actually wasn't trying to disparage it broadly. I was just suggesting that Kavanaugh was ridiculous. But I do have actually a contender if we're looking for an analogy, which is Vogon poetry, which is the third worst form of poetry in the universe. And that is both a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference and a reference to the epic

forthcoming Harvard Law Review Forward, not written by one of the hosts of this podcast. And it is amazing. And that is all I'm going to say about that. But anyway, Vogue on Poetry is, I think, my nominee for the best comparison to Cannon's opinion in this case. I didn't think things could get much worse than a Brett Kavanaugh concurrence. And yet, here we are, America. And you know what? Vogue on poetry is only the third worst form of poetry in the universe.

So you're telling me things could get worse. I'm telling you, they almost certainly will. Oh, awesome. Yeah. So anyway, back to the reasoning in big air quotes of this opinion. So if you're thinking based on the description that we just offered of the Thomas slash Cannon argument, you may be thinking, wait a minute, there have been a lot of special counsels, not just Jack Smith, but Robert Herr, Mueller, the special counsel overseeing Hunter Biden's prosecution, you would be correct. And that is just in the past few years. So it turns out that both longstanding executive branch practice, as well as clear judicial precedent and the text of statutes passed by Congress are essentially impossible to square with Cannon's conclusion in this case. So maybe let's start off by quickly checking her claim that no law

vests the appointment of special counsels in the heads of departments. There are actually quite a few relevant statutes. Let's start with 28 U.S.C. Section 515, which provides, quote, each attorney specially retained under the authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the attorney general or special attorney. Seems clearly to contemplate the attorney general commissioning and specially retaining attorneys, doesn't it? Yes. Those are literally the words of the statute. They sure are. Let me continue. The same provision also refers to, quote, any attorney specially appointed by the attorney general under law, close quote, and provides that those attorneys, quote, may, when specifically directed

by the attorney general, conduct any kind of legal proceeding. Who does Cannon think is being referred to in these provisions if they don't allow for the retention of attorneys like Jack Smith? Let me read just one more. And that is 28 U.S.C. Section 533, which provides that, quote, the attorney general may appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. Should be boom lawyered, and yet it's not. It is not. You know, I want to go back to how you introduce these laws, which is that since the beginning of time, attorneys general have appointed special counsels, you know, the practice goes back to at least the Grant administration. And since 1999, a potentially relevant cutoff date, I'll explain in a second, there have been like at least seven special counsel appointments. So the reason why 1999 is a potentially relevant cutoff date is that from 1978 to 1999, the Ethics in Government Act was a law that also specially authorized the appointment of independent councils to investigate and prosecute government officials.

That law was passed in response to Nixon and Watergate. Don't worry, we'll return to that period in a bit. But Congress let the independent council provision lapse in 1999, in part because of evidence of special counsel abuses, Koff, Ken Starr, and Brett Kavanaugh. But that just means some people say, well, that law authorized special counsel abuses, Koff, Ken Starr, and Brett Kavanaugh. But that just means some people say, well, that law authorized special counsel, so all the appointments between 1978 and 1999 were fine. But that, of course, would exclude the 100 years of appointments before 1978. But the real history and tradition in this country is no law, just vibes. Judges get to say whatever they want, history notwithstanding. Indeed. So that's, you know, the period from essentially post-Civil War till 78, then 78 to 99, we were under this independent counsel statute. And then following the lapse of the independent counsel statute in 1999, the Department of Justice issued regulations implementing the statutory authorization of the appointment of special counsels by the Attorney General that predated that 20-year period in which we had this independent counsel statute. So post-99, under these regs, the attorney general has appointed multiple special

counsels. And Congress seems pretty clearly to have believed that all of that is just fine. There is not a hint of Congress responding to say something like, no, these laws don't authorize appointments of special counsels. Instead, Congress has clearly acquiesced and confirmed DOJ's view that the laws Congress has passed do authorize the appointment of special counsels. But now back to Watergate, as promised. So during La Faire Watergate, or as Brett Kavanaugh likes to call it, you know, the worst period in American history where people entertained the idea that presidents are not above the law,

four special counsels were appointed, though they called them special prosecutors. And of course, one of those proceedings made its way to the Supreme Court as Richard Nixon resisted efforts to obtain Nixon's recording. So what did the court say in United States versus Nixon, or as Brett Kavanaugh likes to call it, one of the worst decisions in United States history. Well, the court observed, quote, Congress has vested in the Attorney General, end quote, the power to conduct investigations and, start quote again, vested in him, that is the Attorney General, the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties, end quote. Then citing the laws, sections 515 and 533, we noted above. And the court continued, quote, acting pursuant to those statutes, end quote, the attorney general, begin quote again, has delegated the authority to represent the United States

in these particular matters to a special prosecutor with unique authority and tenure, end quote. How did Judge Cannon grapple with these aspects of the Nixon decision? By calling them dicta. And beginning with this, I can't remember, was it a Kavanaugh concurrence that you on an earlier episode might have referred to as a bad term paper? I do think that her exposition of the distinction between holdings and dicta also deserves that award of a truly, truly terrible term paper. So what Cannon tries to do is to get out from under this pretty clear language in Nixon by suggesting that these statements were not necessary to the disposition of the case, they

weren't presented, they were not argued. And in a way, I am not defending Judge Cannon in any way, but it is in some sense true that Nixon does not contain pages and pages of discussions of the permissibility of this appointment. And that is because no one was I think, of the current court slash canon's radicalism, which is that they are embracing positions that no one even had the audacity, including one Richard Nixon, to take. Because in light of 100 years of history and tradition appointing special counsels or special prosecutors, it has been widely accepted by courts and executive branch actors alike that even if there are arguments on the margins, the core permissibility of this practice is well settled. So Nixon never raised this challenge. There have subsequently been some challenges to appointments of special

counsels raised, but every court to have actually grappled on the merits with these arguments, and that includes a very extensive opinion by the D.C. Circuit, has rejected those challenges. And also, just going back to Nixon, I think there is a serious question about whether that language is even dicta, that is, whether it was unnecessary to the holding, since in order to decide whether the dispute in that case was justiciable, that is, whether the court could resolve it, the court had to decide whether the regulations gave the special counsel authority to contest the president's invocation of executive privilege because Nixon had argued in the case, the entire case was non-justiciable. There wasn't a controversy because presidents decided that issue, not special counsels. But I digress.

I wanted to kind of underscore like both the hubris and the hackery of this opinion. As we have now outlined, special counsels have been appointed for more than 100 years. Every court that has addressed the argument has rejected this challenge. Congress has seemingly ratified the attorney general's ability to appoint special counsels in part by appropriating money to pay these attorneys. And the 1966 statutes were passed in light of almost a century of appointing special counsels at that point, which also sounds like ratification to me. And she's like, retained, retained, retained, obviously does not mean appointing additional attorneys. It doesn't say appoint. Like she actually says this in the opinion, absent from, you know, this law is any reference to the verb appoint, an active verb used in the appointments clause itself. You know, and at times I take her

to be saying you can repurpose someone from within the department for a new role, but can't appoint from outside. She would find a way out from under this appointment if he had been somewhere inside the department, 100%. But yeah, she does gesture in that direction. Yeah. And as to the provision authorizing the attorney general to appoint officials, she says the term officials is not synonymous with officers. This is definitely like a boom-lawyered iteration of extreme textualism. She does deign to acknowledge that the words share linguistic echoes and roots, though. I mean, when you were just talking, Leah, about the hubris and the kind of everybody got it wrong, I was just brought to mind Melissa's I I learned it from watching you, Dad,

like sort of description of the Fifth Circuit. I think that's very much, there is so much like I alone understand it. That is the vibe of so many of the Supreme Court's recent opinions, right? Think about Loeb or Bright overruling Chevron and saying both the unanimous court in that case and all of the courts since just failed to understand the basic inconsistency of that rule with the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act. We alone understand it. You know, like there's like a we alone can fix it. We alone can see it. We alone can understand it vibe. And yet it is one thing. It's galling enough when it is the Supreme Court taking that position, but a district court judge? I mean, wow. But she is emulating what she has seen them do. And so I think that that is sort of the through line. Okay, a couple of additional notes. I mean,

one, in addition to claiming that this language from the Nixon opinion is dicta, she also has to get around the fact that even dicta is supposed to get some weight in the 11th Circuit. And she tries to do that by basically saying like, no, this unanimous 1974 opinion is not well thought out, thoroughly reasoned and carefully articulated. Pot calling kettle, pot meet kettle. No, no, no, no. That's her opinion is all those things. And the way you know that is because she repeatedly tells us after engaging in careful study and careful review. I mean, this is a real tell, not show. If you have to continually insist that you're answering the question the way you are because

you have engaged in careful study and careful review, which again, she says repeatedly. And also, by the way, it was a few weeks since she heard oral arguments by some law professors on this matter. But fine, she's engaged in very diligent study since. I feel like that's usually a tell that in fact, that is not what has transpired. Yeah. And on this point that she would have found a way to invalidate this case, no matter what, she also suggested that even if Congress passed a law authorizing the Attorney General to appoint special counsels, she wasn't quite convinced special counsels qualified as the kind of inferior officers that could be appointed by department ed so maybe that statute would be unconstitutional but you know back to the appointments clause

because that is the kind of the bulk of the argument you know the hubris point is that everyone has been doing it wrong for 100 years but her position would also call into a question you know a bunch of other positions that attorneys general create that aren't senate confirmed like deputy solicitor generals or deputy assistant attorney generals in various DOJ departments. And so that's a hubris, but there's also the hackery. It has been clear for a while that this is not a case of just incompetence masquerading as malevolence. And the latest antic to me just confirms it, like how decayed our institutions have become and were made to be during the Trump presidency and how much worse they will become under a second Trump presidency. Because if he wins, you know, Eileen Cannon is

going straight to the 11th Circuit, probably going to be on the shortlist for the Supreme Court, and everyone else put on the courts is going to be like her. Yeah. In case that sounds like we are just speculating, like, no, we are not. So on this point, there was a tweet from Representative Matt Gates just after this opinion came down. Her judicial photograph, right, in her robes is a judge canon, and just the text, future Supreme Court Justice canon. And as Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat wrote on Twitter, following the opinion as well, quote, the logic of corruption is one reason it is publicized. When you are trying to destroy the norms of democratic justice, such as the rule of law and impartiality, you have to signal to others the

rewards for transgressing professional ethics and more. And I thought that was a very good gloss on what we saw with Gates and others seeming to kind of attaboy Judge Cannon for this truly lawless opinion. She has now been celebrated for it. And that just further incentivizes this kind of behavior from her and other justices. I just said justices. Oh, God. The point is, she wants a promotion, and she is being told this kind of behavior is going to position her for one. And I was brought to mind of something from just a couple of years ago that I think actually illustrates just how insane the lower federal courts have gotten in just the last couple of years. And that is the lower court opinion in the Dobbs case. Dobbs, of course, in 2022 overruled Roe versus Wade.

But that was a case involving a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks. The law on its face was inconsistent with Roe and Casey. And so applying those precedents required striking down that Mississippi law. And even the Fifth Circuit understood that. So when this case, when the Dobbs case was before the Fifth Circuit, Judge Ho wrote a concurrence agreeing that this district court opinion in joining the 15-week ban had to be upheld. And what Judge Ho wrote was basically, he says, look, Roe is wrong. It's not supported by the text or original understanding of the Constitution.

But he goes on to say, basically, the only thing that requires us to rule in this way is Supreme Court precedent. He says, look, like, we weren't even asked to give oral argument in this case. The Mississippi lawyers kind of understood they were going to lose here. And that omission, meaning the omission of a request for oral argument, he writes, makes no sense but for the fact that Supreme Court precedent requires affirmance. So even Judge Ho, so hostile to constitutional protections for abortion, understood that it was not up to him to overrule Roe versus Wade in that case. And I think Cannon has essentially abandoned even that. I mean, there is just no way to reconcile this opinion

with a system of vertical precedent in which lower courts are bound by the pronouncements of higher courts because she doesn't recognize those pronouncements of case. I mean, she tries a little bit to get around Nixon, but fundamentally she doesn't think. I don't think Nixon binds her. What she decides

she's bound by is these assertions of their kind of ideal vision of the Constitution and law by particular justices whom she believes are entitled to deference and weight and are legitimate expositors of the meaning of the Constitution. So that's Justice Thomas and his immunity concurrence. That's Justice Scalia in his Morrison dissent. But that's not the unanimous Supreme Court in Nixon. It's not the majority opinion in Morrison. And you can sort of see there are some sources of authority she's willing to credit as legitimate, and some she is not. And that is wildly inconsistent with the rule of law. Maybe one more thing to mention, even though, as you said, Leah, most of the opinion is devoted to this Appointments Clause issue, It also kind of throws in casually that the funding mechanism for the special counsel

is also unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. But she says, ah, but we don't have to worry about remedy because I'm striking the whole thing down on other grounds. But, you know, belt and suspenders, I guess. Exactly. Lots of careful study and careful review went into this opinion. Some of you wrote in with some questions that we'll just kind of respond to. So this decision is appealable. The Solicitor General has already

authorized an appeal. An appeal has been docketed to the 11th Circuit. But this decision guarantees there is not going to be a trial before the election. Some people wanted to know, like, why not go with an immunity ruling? While, you know, the Supreme Court's decision in the immunity case directed lower courts to go through allegations in an indictment with a careful fine to comb, and that's not something Eileen Cannon was willing to do. So, you know, it also, like, avoiding the immunity ruling preserves that as, like, a backstop, right, to, like, do in the event that this case comes back to her. Some other people wanted to ask about the chances that she's removed from this

case after an appeal. I think virtually no chance in part because, you know, the 11th Circuit would have to say, this argument that Justice Thomas signaled interest in is so outlandish and so hackish, we are required to remove the district court for adopting it. And so I think Justice Thomas really did give her cover in important respects here. So anything else on this delightful avoidance clause decision? I mean, in terms of what next, there is the possibility of reversal, maybe even reassignment by the 11th Circuit. I mean, there is talk about a refiling of these charges by the U.S. attorney. Maybe she finds a way to find the U.S. attorney position unconstitutional as well. Who knows?

But I'm not sure that that's likely to happen in the short term. I think an ordinary appeal is more likely. And so this, too, is on hold for the foreseeable future. And I guess it just really underscores the correctness of the sentiment voiced in the shirt you are wearing right now, Leah, which is Justice Sotomayor's dissent in the immunity case with fear for our democracy, I dissent. I mean, the fear just mounts by the day. And I think that's the uplifting note I need to end on. Great. So I'll just add one more sentence on the possibility of refiling. I think part of why some people think that is unlikely is it would require Merrick Garland to authorize an indictment against the president's political opponent. And some people don't think that's

likely. And even if he did so, I think there would be a question about whether the evidence Jack Smith gathered would be admissible in that proceeding, you know, if Jack Smith's appointment was invalid. And so, you know, there are difficult questions that would arise there anyways. So thank you all for listening to this commentary on the latest and greatest emanating from the great state of Florida. I know several of you, many of you wrote in requesting an emergency episode on this. The bar for those during the summer is quite high after the court finishes releasing its opinions.

And we had been hoping to be able to use episodes we had already recorded this month. But alas, it seems it is always time for some bad decisions. On that note, stay tuned for a segment on state constitutional law, which is focused on criminal cases with some very special guests. The court's decision in Grants Pass, which rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to a law criminalizing homelessness, underscores the need for state court action in this space. And that is the topic that we will turn to next. But first, a quick note from Vote Save America. Now more than ever, down-ballot candidates and grassroots groups are getting lost in the national conversation and need our support. If you're looking for ways to help, join Vote Save America's 2024 volunteer program and take action to support these candidates and groups in your community and

across the country. Want to donate your money instead? You can also set up a monthly recurring donation through Vote Save America's Anxiety Relief Program. VSA does the research, and each month, they direct your dollars to the grassroots orgs and state and local candidates that need it the most. Then, at the end of each month, they'll tell you where your money went. We're just over 100 days out from the election day, and these people need our help. So go to votesaveamerica.com to get started. This message has been paid for by Vote Safe America. You can learn more at votesaveamerica.com, and this ad has not been authorized by any

candidate or candidates committee. With hot state court summer in full swing, Thank you. and other places, as well as voting rights, like in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. But state courts and state law are super important for so many issues that touch so many people's everyday lives in really significant ways. So we don't always have time to cover all of those matters, given everything that the Supreme Court has going on, which is why in this hot state court summer, we are bringing you an episode focused on state courts and state law as they relate to criminal legal matters. I am delighted to be joined by three amazing guests. I'm going to rattle off their names and impressive resumes, so please hold your applause for a second until we get through all three intros. First, we have Kyle Berry, who is the director of the State Law Research Initiative, a legal advocacy organization dedicated to reviving and strengthening state

constitutional rights that prevent extremes in criminal systems with a focus on excessive prison terms. Kyle previously served as senior counsel at the Justice Collaborative and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Kyle has written extensively on the court's judges and civil rights for a variety of outlets. We also have Katrina Kasha Szymborski-Wolfcott, who is a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, where she works to realize a fair and inclusive judicial system. Kasha is the managing editor of State Court Report, a Brennan Center publication focused on state courts and state constitutional law. Kasha previously worked as a lawyer at the MacArthur Justice Center and developed a robust state constitutional practice focusing on state anti-punishment constitutional provisions to protect and expand the rights of people held in carceral facilities. And finally, we have Josie Duffy Rice, who is a journalist whose work is primarily focused

on criminal justice. She is the host of the excellent series podcast, Unreformed, and she also co-hosts Crooked's delightful What a Day podcast. So Kyle, Kasia, and Josie, welcome to the show. Hi. Hi. Hi. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having us.

So there are also some kind of small world connections between this group. I should note that Kasia and I went to law school together. Kasia, this is a moment where you are allowed at most one embarrassing story about me. So I'm going to give you two seconds and then we will quickly move on. Yeah, I came prepared to talk for one hour about what Leah was like in law school, or I could talk about state constitutions. State constitutions it is, perf. Oh my god, Kyle and I are work besties. You guys are law school besties. This works out great. So why don't we dive right in? Why is it so important for state courts and state constitutions to play a bigger role in enforcing and articulating rights against extreme punishments? Or to put another way, you know, if one of you wants to answer

this part of the question, like, what are some additional ways that the Supreme Court is terrible, horrible, no good, very bad that they might not hear about as much on this show given the paucity of the court's criminal docket as of late? I can start with that one. Federal courts are currently inhospitable or, like, even just hostile to the claims—to claims of abuse or torture behind bars. So I know much more about conditions. I think Kyle knows much more about excessive sentencing. So I'm just going to limit my answer here to conditions. But an excessive sentence is like just the sentence that is handed down by a judge after you have been convicted of a crime. Like how many years are you going to spend in prison, for example? And then once you get to

prison, sometimes you're beat up. Sometimes you are held in extreme cold. Sometimes, in one case that I handled in federal court, an elderly man who had open sores on his ankles was forced to stand in a backed up shower that somebody else had defecated in for 45 minutes as wastewater seeped into his wounds. When he got out, the correctional official stripped his cell of anything that he could use to clean himself and then forbade him from showering for a week, and he developed a life-threatening infection and almost died. So that is the kind of thing that happens all over this country. We took that case. It went up to the 11th Circuit and the 11th Circuit was like, yeah, you know, this is bad. But, you know, we have never ruled in this exact circumstance that this is unconstitutional.

So this correctional official is protected by qualified immunity. So we the Supreme Court decided not to grant cert. So that that's where I ended. But qualified immunity is one reason why these claims go nowhere. There's lots of other, like, judge-made doctrines and, like, laws passed by Congress, like the Prison Litigation Reform Act, that make it really hard for people tortured in prison to get any relief. And then, Kyle, I think you wanted to add about sentences.

Yeah. I mean, I would describe the Supreme Court's jurisprudence when it comes to prison terms as just a complete moral, intellectual, and constitutional failure, which is to say a complete abdication of the judicial role in enforcing constitutional rights. And in this case, the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, which is at least theoretically understood as a right against excessive or extreme sentences. And the court has essentially taken the position that if you're an adult who's convicted of a crime, the state can send you to prison for however long, and there are virtually no constraints

on that. A number of commentators, I think Rachel Barkow at NYU Law is a leading voice on this, has called it the court of mass incarceration for this very reason, because extremely long prison terms have proliferated under its watch, and it's done nothing. So I think there's an opportunity there for state courts and state constitutions to fill that gap. And the other piece of it is that federal constitutional law is willing to tolerate so many atrocities just because they're attached to a prison term. Things that we would normally find morally and legally repugnant, separating people from their families, psychologically and physically torturing people. If it happens in the course of a prison term, again, the Supreme Court has been completely hands-off, providing no restraints, no limitations, and no rights enforcement whatsoever in that context.

Josie, I saw you nodding along. I don't know if you wanted to add anything. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, I think something that this podcast has been clear about, and I think people have been talking about a lot more recently, is just that the Supreme Court's power is not just in what it does, but in what it doesn't do and what it doesn't decide to take and what it doesn't decide to look at and what it decides it has no power over. And there has been kind of a like eyes closed, ears closed approach to criminal law when it comes to the Supreme Court, especially more recently. People sometimes don't realize how much of criminal law is local. And obviously, that doesn't mean that it never becomes relevant to the Supreme Court. But, you know, we're talking about states where 95% of cases are. And we're talking about these incredibly powerful courts that end up being the, you know,

the bottom line for so much of this stuff, given SCOTUS's refusal to kind of engage. And they just don't get as much attention as, you know, they deserve when we are talking about the powers that shape criminal law in this country. Yeah. So I definitely want to come back to the volume of cases that are heard in the state courts, because I think that that is really important. But first, I want to follow up on something that you all kind of mentioned, which is the things that the Supreme Court doesn't do. That is the spaces it kind of leaves open to just green light what is happening either with the lower federal courts or what is happening with lengthy sentences or in prisons. So I guess, could you, Kasia, you already gave

an example of a case where the Supreme Court essentially allowed a lawsuit against corrections officers to fail on the basis of qualified immunity, on facts where it seems like that should have warranted some liability. But I was curious if you had additional examples or areas of law where you think the Supreme Court has just kind of vacated the space and not attempted to enforce constitutional rights? Yeah. I mean, unfortunately, I have too many examples. Like another one that I always go back to is Johnson v. Prentiss. It was another MacArthur Justice Center case where a man was held in solitary confinement for years without any exercise, like not even an hour of exercise. I think there was a stretch of 18 months where he didn't even have one hour of exercise. And the Seventh Circuit found that there was no constitutional violation there. And the Supreme Court declined to review that case. And it could be worse. Like we have a,

like decades of Justice Thomas dissents where he's basically saying, hey, I don't think that the Eighth Amendment should apply to prison conditions at all. And I would love for the right case for us to be able to reverse ourselves on ever having said that the Eighth Amendment has anything to do with prison conditions. So I think that that's one reason why advocates started looking to state courts, because it was like, this is kind of a scary time to be doing these kinds of, bringing these kinds of cases to federal courts. So I promise I will let Kyle and Josie talk in a second, but I just want to underscore again, kind of iterate something Kasha said, which is things could get worse. Justice Thomas is laying breadcrumbs to make the law even harsher for people in prison right now. When he says the Eighth Amendment wouldn't apply to prison conditions, what he is saying is the only thing the Eighth Amendment has to say is about the length of the sentence that is imposed on

you in court. What happens to you in prison after that, the Constitution just has nothing to say, nothing to see here. And so like all of those cases that you just mentioned would go nowhere. Yeah. Well, and I think Kyle probably should jump in here about what Justice Thomas might think that the Eighth Amendment should say about the length of a sentence. Spoiler alert, also nothing. But yes, Kyle. How did you know? Yes. Yeah,

things could get even worse than that. Yeah, the position, you know, what I would describe as sort of the FedSoc right wing, quote unquote, originalist account of the Eighth Amendment that has gained some traction in various opinions from certain justices, e.g. Scalia, over the years, is that the Eighth Amendment has absolutely nothing to say about the severity of a criminal punishment, and prison sentences in particular. And so if prison is considered an acceptable type of punishment, then the number of years is beside the point for Eighth Amendment analysis. That's their view. That's never gained a majority of the Supreme Court, but that's the kind of threat that the far right wing of the judiciary poses,

which is to say, you know, they might step in if pulling out your fingernails is a punishment for a crime and say that's cruel and unusual. But beyond that, when it comes to the severity, if the punishment itself is permitted, the court's not going to do anything about it. And as long as they pull out your fingernails in prison, then you're fine. That's actually okay. Yeah. America's actually okay. America's thought leader. That's exactly right. Exactly. Yeah, a court can order it, but prison officials are allowed to do it. The majesty of the law or the Eighth Amendment, according to Justice Thomas.

So I feel like we have already been gesturing in this direction, but I want to make the point explicit. What is at stake here? If state courts became more aggressive in policing either lengthy prison sentences or demanding humane treatment for incarcerated people, what is the potential effect on a national scale? I'll give a general answer, and then people who know the law better than me can get more specific. But I would just say that like everything in criminal law basically trends and approaches and culture around criminal law originates on the state level and even more on the local level. So whenever we kind of have a conversation about what the federal government is doing, whether it's the president or Congress or the Supreme Court, whether it's, you know, like mandatory minimums or the 1994 crime bill or the death penalty, like it's, that's a trickle down effect. And we tend to think that the federal government has created the culture and it reflects

back, but that's wrong. What is actually happening is that in the 2,300 prosecutor's offices and 18,000 police departments and 50 states and a gazillion courts, like that is where criminal law practices become, we go from thinking they are cruel or unusual to them being very usual and us thinking they're fine. Right. And so when we think about what's at stake, like there is the specifics, which, again, people who are real lawyers are going to get into better than than than me. But I would just underscore the the pattern of behavior here, which is a cycle that lots of people generally have backwards, which is like, this is where it's shaped. It is shaped here, right? In these places, in these courts, by these people who have a wider birth to act, get less attention,

which is both good and bad, and are sometimes willing to be bolder and more creative, sometimes, almost always willing to be bolder and more creative, sometimes, almost always willing to be bolder and more creative than their federal counterpart. Yeah, I love that framing. And I just want to add in terms of the stakes, from a conditions perspective, like the prevalence of abuse behind bars is really astounding. And as Josie mentioned this before, about 95% of cases are in state court and over 90 percent of people incarcerated across the United States are incarcerated by states. So they're in state custody.

At any given moment, tens of thousands of people across the country are in solitary confinement. Tens of thousands of people every year are sexually assaulted behind bars. I think it's something like 45 percent of people who are incarcerated have been diagnosed with a mental illness. And something around 75% of people who are incarcerated say that they've never been offered any kind of mental health care behind bars. So I mean, I think it's like an issue of our humanity that like, we need to find a way to solve this. And if the federal courts are not going to step up, like then we have to turn to the state courts. But if the humanity argument isn't enough for people, remember, most of the people who are incarcerated are going to end up back in society.

They're going to be your neighbors. Their kids are going to go to daycare with your kids. We want people to come out healthy, and we want to come out like ready to be part of society. And we currently have a situation where we are, where people go to prison and they deteriorate because of the conditions behind bars and like no remedies. There's nothing that they can do about it. So I'm really hopeful that that state courts and state constitutions might help us find a way forward. For most of the sort of modern era of the last 60, 70 years, state courts have too often, in my view, been deferential to what the U.S. Supreme Court is

saying around excessive punishments. And we're going to get into the trend that's reversing that with state Supreme Courts stepping up, invoking state rights to do a lot more than what the Supreme Court has done. But that hasn't been the norm. The norm has been kind of following the Supreme Court's lead. And I think Josie very well made the point that that's extremely odd given the nature of these systems. And so it really makes, in this area of the law, as much as any other, it makes sense for state Supreme Courts to step up and do more and exert some power and independence from what the Supreme Court is saying about federal law. May they embrace their state court summer and state court spring and all state court seasons to actually do a state court thing rather than the federal one. But more seriously, Kyle, I think that that point kind of might allow us to transition to a more hopeful and optimistic part of the show, which is the recent trend of state courts actually departing

from what federal courts say are the constitutional protections for either lengthy sentences or conditions in prison. So I guess, could you give us some examples of where or how state courts have used state constitutions to expand rights beyond what the Eighth Amendment protections are for lengthy sentences? Yeah, sure. So I want to start with two cases that are actually decades old and kind of out in front on this issue, where two state Supreme Courts looked at what the U.S. Supreme Court did in a particular case and was like, nope, this is way beyond the pale and unacceptable, and our state constitution is going to do more. Exactly. One involved a case. There was a 1980 decision, Rommel v. Estelle. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a mandatory life

without parole sentence for someone who essentially stole about $230 over the course of 15 years through some very small scale check and credit card fraud. The Washington Supreme Court that same year considered a case with virtually identical facts. Someone wrote a few bad checks totaling about $400. And the court said, look, we can't do anything under the Eighth Amendment because the U.S. Supreme Court just said this was fine, sentencing someone to death by incarceration over $230. But the court also said our state constitution is its own thing. It has a right in the state against, quote, cruel punishments. And this is clearly cruel.

And we're going to strike this down. This sentence is excessive. The Michigan Supreme Court in 1992 did the same thing after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a life without parole sentence for merely possessing drugs, about 650 grams of cocaine. Court divided, U.S. Supreme Court, to be fair, said that a life without parole sentence for drug possession was constitutionally permissible. The Michigan Supreme Court one year later invoked its own state constitution to say, no, that's not true. And so I do want to underscore that this is not an entirely new trend, but what we're seeing now over the last few years is courts really

expanding protections in particular for children, teenagers, and the category of what's often called emerging adults, people in their early 20s up to about age 25 or so, and whether they can be sent to prison for the rest of their lives. And a number of state Supreme Courts around the country have said that regardless of where the U.S. Supreme Court would come down on these questions, we're going to protect these young people from the most extreme sentences that's provided for in criminal law and strike them down. I do want to give a shout out to home state Michigan. You mentioned a previous 1992 Michigan Supreme Court ruling. Since our Supreme Court flipped to a majority of progressive or democratic

appointees, they have reached decisions saying parolable life sentence for youth, you know, violate the Michigan Constitution, also directed that courts have to consider youth when imposing term of year sentences. So message to people, like, if you want to have a good time, state Supreme Courts matter because, like, you know, this is where a lot of the potential lies. So I guess, like, are there similar trends or examples happening in the conditions context in addition to policing lengthy sentences in the categories that Kyle mentioned? Yeah, I mean, I think certainly the state Supreme Courts, state courts more generally have been much more active in the excessive sentencing area. But there have been a few really, really great examples of just like case law that is what we'd like to see happening across the whole country in the conditions context as well. So, again, Washington might sound really obvious. Yeah, that seems like a kind of reasonable standard, right? But under the federal law, if you sue to challenge your conditions, you have to show that the person who actually did the abusing knew that there was an excessive risk to you and disregarded it.

So you basically have to show what is in the mind of your abuser. And it makes it really hard to do things like challenge institutional failures where there isn't one particular bad actor to point at. So that was another Washington example. I think that some of the expansions have come in states that have focused on provisions that are unique to their state constitutions.

So I guess, could you give us kind of an example of what that looks like? Yeah. So there are some very exciting provisions that just don't appear anywhere in the federal constitution. And one of those is a provision that prohibits treating people in custody with unnecessary rigor. But recently, an Oregon trial court ruled that their unnecessary rigor clause required a prison to provide gender-affirming care. Another great case out of Oregon had to do with masking during the COVID-19 pandemic. As somebody who was involved in some federal cases challenging COVID conditions, the idea that a court said that, I think it was inconsistent masking exposed incarcerated people in Oregon to, like, an inappropriate risk of harm under the unnecessary rigor clause, like that felt huge

compared to like the defeats that we were seeing across the country in federal courts challenging COVID conditions. So there are some bright spots. But I overall, I think there are a lot of opportunities in the condition context, which I'm happy to talk about later. So I guess i would put that question both to like josie and the group either like are there other examples where you know you see positive developments in this area or kind of missed opportunities where you think courts are maybe not doing what they could be doing in this space yeah i mean what i would say is the missed opportunities are infinite and

unknowable in a way that is like deeply depressing to think about. And sorry, that's like a depressing answer. But I mean, just to say like, there's so much harm. There's so like the day in and day out harm of the system is so overwhelming that like, even to talk about what state Supreme courts are doing that federal courts are, you know, not doing, it's worth underscoring that they're also not doing enough, nor almost could they. I think that the more positive framing of what Josie was saying is that while the missed opportunities are infinite, these are also places where the law could go and where I think there is some hope, perhaps especially at the state court level, the law will go. And so take the example of a recent case from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which completely banned life without parole or death by incarceration sentences for anyone under the age of 21. This is significantly further than the U.S. Supreme Court has gone and even other state

courts in this area. And I think what I want to point to about functionally what the court is doing is that it's a court that is finally asking the state and the prosecutors to justify what they're doing to these young people. So I think what the court and what other state Supreme Courts have done in similar cases is to demand that the state and the prosecutors provide some evidence-based justification for imposing the most extreme punishments, in these cases, upon young people. And so you see the courts looking to neuroscience and other social science, for example, and noting that there's scientific consensus and unrefuted evidence that younger people have reduced culpability. They have a greater capacity to change.

And that's really important in these cases. So I guess I would like to hear, you know, what you think is driving some of these decisions, like what you think is leading state courts to depart from federal counterparts, but also more specifically, whether you think there is something institutionally about state courts that potentially makes them more receptive to these claims, or if it is just, it just matters who's on the courts and that is, you know, what is doing the work here. As to the second question, I think it's both. And this is kind of what Josie raised earlier about how state courts are institutionally well positioned to be enforcing rights within systems that are inherently state and local systems.

And I think there are facets about state constitutions. Kasia talked about some of the rights that are unique to state constitutions that open the door to some more aggressive judicial review in these areas. And I think that's all been important for state courts as they issue better and stronger rights rulings in this area. But I think let's also be real, who serves on these courts is critically important. And it's a part of our advocacy in trying to push for expanded views of these rights, a key part of that is being very straightforward that courts need more people who have been public defenders in their careers. Courts need more people who have litigated civil rights claims and actually represented

and advocated for people who have been subject to abuses in these systems. Because at both the federal and state level, that perspective has been largely absent from judicial decision-making and replaced by a bench full of corporate lawyers and prosecutors. And so I think we need to be real about how much that matters. So I think both things are true. I'd also say it's worth recognizing the broader trend in state Supreme Courts, which has been a focus of the Republican project for 40 years, and it reflects that. We have a history in this country of state Supreme Courts in this country for years were more democratic, and now they're more conservative.

And that trend has continued, and we've seen the influx of money in these elections. Brown Center has done incredible work on that over the past 20 years, really looking at who's trying to get certain state Supreme Court Court judges elected and how and what impact does that have on their decisions? And so, you know, I just would point out like it obviously does really matter who's on the court and it also matters who's has power in those states in order to kind of drive what they're trying to drive. So I guess next question is kind of looking ahead, but also trying to take some lessons from the past. And it's, I guess, two part, which is, what do you see as some challenges to a state by state strategy, but also what's next for this movement? A few challenges. You know, I think the obvious one is that if you have a state-by-state approach, some states are going to be left out. Like, you know, you're doing an

analysis and you're figuring out which states are really the places where these kinds of claims could be fruitful and state Supreme Courts seem poised to expand rights. That's not going to be all 50 states, unfortunately. So at the end of the day, a state-by-state approach, I don't think, is not a perfect replacement for a high federal floor. So we have to keep trying to move the whole country and all of the institutions towards expansion, one way or another. Yeah, as far as what's next, I think that we will see state constitutions play a much bigger role in the broader movement to abolish life without parole or death by incarceration sentences. You know, when you start to kind of look under the hood of life without parole and other extremely long prison sentences in the U.S. are decided by race. They're given to people who have endured extraordinary trauma,

who have lived in extreme poverty, who have intellectual disabilities. They are at best arbitrarily, but more realistically, doled out in a discriminatory fashion. And that applies across the board. And so right now, as we have this conversation, there are cases pending in both Colorado and Pennsylvania in their state Supreme Courts challenging life without parole for people who are convicted of felony murder, which is to say, it's the theory that allows murder convictions, even for people who did not intend to kill nor actually kill anyone. And yet they're serving mandatory life without parole sentences,

and those decisions should come down by the end of 2024. And I think mandatory sentencing of all kinds is going to come under closer scrutiny as, again, as more state courts ask the question of whether certain sentences are necessary and serving any kind of legitimate purpose. So a couple of years ago, I worked on a story in Tennessee where there was a 52-year mandatory minimum sentence for juveniles convicted of felony murder. And the state Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of that sentence. And it's interesting how state Supreme Courts are influenced by other state Supreme Courts. When you say that's the longest sentence that exists in the country, even in some of the more regressive states, like, they don't want to be the worst, right? What it signals to people is, like, this, we're out of step, and we are reflecting a different reality than the rest of the country. And so I, you know, I think, you know, the state, I think the points made about a state-by-state strategy are right. It's obviously quite inefficient to do things 50 times than one if you can get away with it. But,

you know, you are creating trends that hopefully reflect their way down. Yeah, Josie, I love that point. At the Brennan Center, since we launched this project, the State Court Report, we've been tracking state Supreme Court cases that advance state constitutional law. We have a whole database. You should check it out. I'm subscribed. I'm very subscribed. Everybody should subscribe. So I read all of these cases, and we get all this commentary on these cases. And over and over again, all of these cases, all these state Supreme Courts are citing to each other. Like there's always a section that's like, you know, we are not the first state to consider this question.

Like here are five other states that have considered this question, and here's how they did it. And they're borrowing reasoning from each other. So it is true that even if you're just practicing in one state, it can have a spillover effect. And just to kind of take that point from the horizontal level to the vertical level, you know, Josie and Kasia, you're talking about state courts influencing each other. But that also kind of over a longer time horizon has the potential to influence federal law as well, you know, potentially not with the Supreme Court, but maybe down the road, you know, on this podcast, we've talked about before how when the 19th Amendment was ratified, you know, that followed a state constitutional movement that had secured women's right to vote right in state constitutions on a state by state basis, you know, similarly, the movement for the Equal Rights Amendment followed on state constitutional initiatives

and state organizing in order to, you know, enact anti-discrimination provisions at the state level. This was also, you know, a dynamic in the same-sex marriage and marriage equality litigation, where you had states being first movers in recognizing constitutional rights to marriage equality. And when the Supreme Court eventually recognized that, it pointed to the states and said, look, the sky doesn't fall in a world of marriage equality. And this shows, again, like a changing trend, a changing culture, and states signaling like what this constitutional provision means. And so if, you know, just to kind of put in a plug,

this is uncharacteristic and out of character for me, but a plug for optimism, like I recognize that like the short term horizon and the federal level at the Supreme Court is not great when we are thinking about like these sentences or conditions of confinement. But I also think it's wrong to say, well, if I just focus on the state level, I can make things better in my state for people who live here, because that does really have the potential to shape things down the road at the federal level for everyone else. And so if you're thinking about, you know, upcoming state Supreme Court elections, you know, here in Michigan, there is a woman running who's actually a colleague of mine, Kim Thomas, who works on behalf of juvenile justice. And so if you're thinking about people getting on the state court

who have actually had experience representing people in the criminal legal system against some of its worst excesses, she would be someone. The following year, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley on the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced she's not running for reelection. So control for that court is going to be up for grabs. These, these are all opportunities to not just make the law better at a state and local level, but to change what Josie referred to as, like, the culture and the trends, you know, that have the potential to influence other states, but also at the federal level kind of down the road. Yeah. I also want to add that I said something about one of the drawbacks of a state strategy being that some states are left behind.

But I just sort of want to add a little bit of a more optimistic spin to that because I think that there's a strategy for every state. Like, it's not going to be the same strategy if you're trying to limit harm, but there's still work that can be done. And I've been really inspired by the people in the reproductive rights space in this regard, because you see people in some states like, you know, swinging for the fences and trying to get a state Supreme Court to declare that abortion is protected by the state constitution. And in other states, the strategy is, well, let's try to pry open this, the exception a little bit. And, you know, obviously a lot of that's very depressing, but the point is like, you don't give up on any state and you don't give up on, on, on any, anybody. And, you know, I, I really like firmly believe that there is a way to expand rights for people in every single state. I'll just say that it's a good reminder, too.

Like, I also find myself getting caught up in this, like, oh, my God, the future of my work is in Clarence Thomas', that, like, you know, sentencing and prison conditions aren't covered by the Eighth Amendment, which, you know, that's not something that, like, that's not actually a position that most, you know, judicial professionals in this country hold, I think. I think that's fair to say. And not, like, it's not, they actually are on the fringes of something that can be protected in a much more extreme way. And it's a reminder. They are one branch of the federal government, but it's only the federal government. There's a whole other government that matters. I live in Georgia, so that's also not super encouraging. But in theory, if you live in a more logical state.

I would underscore that this movement that's prioritizing state constitutional rights is not abandoning the Eighth Amendment. It really is also about strengthening the Eighth Amendment is actually uniquely suited to kind of be strengthened by the state-level trends in the rights-enhancing direction. Because part of the legal test under the Eighth Amendment doctrine is looking to trends, looking to consensus across what states are doing. So final question to all of you, what can listeners do to get involved in this movement or advance the ball or any kind of final thoughts, you know, you would like to leave people with? Well, 33 states this year have openings or have races for 82 seats on their state Supreme Courts. So, you know, pay attention to what's happening. Pay attention to those races. Those are typically very low information races. So become a high information voter. Go to state court report. Read up about all these races. Tell your friends about them. Vote. If you are an attorney, take on some of these conditions

cases pro bono because I think that one of the reasons why the law has been so bad in this area is because so many of these plaintiffs are pro se. So, you know, if you work at a law firm, take one of these pro bono and reach out to subject matter experts if you've never done one of these cases before. And like, everybody's door is open. Like, I'm speaking for like all of my colleagues, everyone I've ever worked with. I'm speaking for all of my colleagues, everyone I've ever worked with. I'm sure that they would all be thrilled to hear from you and just give you advice on whatever the case is.

Every time an incarcerated person is represented when they are challenging their conditions of confinement, we have an opportunity to make good law. Yeah, and if you're a public defender, please consider becoming a judge as well. I think that's increasingly of increasing importance. And I think a lot of people who are anything other than a prosecutor or a big law attorney think that their odds of becoming a judge are kind of a long shot.

I actually think we should give credit to the Biden administration for doing an unprecedented job and putting more public defenders and civil rights lawyers on the federal bench. But we need more people with that background kind of putting their names in at the state level as well. I agree with Kasia that my door is open. I don't mind you speaking for me on that one. And part of the reason for the state law research initiatives existence is to help people to bring claims, both to challenge extreme sentences or also conditions of confinement and to provide resources and networking and expertise to anyone who's interested in kind of learning more about how to effectively bring these claims. So be in touch. Yeah, well, my advice is to reach out to

Kyle and Kaja. I'm going to be less help, but reach out to them. But really, I mean, the election point really is so important. And even people who are generally high information voters are not when it comes to judicial elections. And they're so incredibly important. And there's more to understand than just what happens when you go to someone's website on this, right? Because there are so many dynamics kind of driving the power behind these elections. And so there's that, I think, is like, these are races that we can win. The ROI on these races is really, really high. And yet, like, they still don't get the attention that they should get. So as always, I'm beating the same drum.

Know who you're voting for for DA and know who you're voting for on court. And that's, yeah, that's the bottom line. That's the most basic thing you can do. I've also been a longtime fan of Josie's, so that's very— You and me both, Kasia. You and me both. But not of me, just Josie. I've been a short time, shorter time fan of you, Kyle, just because I have been following your work more recently than I was introduced to Josie's. And of course, Kasia and I, again, go back to law school.

Very fair. I'm a big fan of Josie too. It's very understandable. That's very kind and a lie. But I do want to say that Kajra and Kyle also have amazing newsletters. State Court Reporter is really good. And Kyle, what's your newsletter called? Yes. I look at SLRI. SLRI.

SLRI. What's it called? Behind the Bench is the name of the newsletter. Behind the Bench, yes. Behind the Bench, Kyle's newsletter is really good. Yes, Behind the Bench, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's really good. Behind the Bench is one of my favorite things good. Yes, Behind the Bench, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's really good. Behind the Bench is one of my favorite things to read just like hands down in the world.

Yeah, it's so good. We're preaching to a very small group of people who are in the court newsletters, but if you are, these are two great ones to read. This is really my audience on this podcast episode. I'm going to plus one all of that. And just to reiterate, the great organizations that are doing work in this space, either for purposes of reaching out to them, if you are potentially thinking about working in this area or for supporting them in other ways. Kyle, as we mentioned, is at the State Law Research Initiative. Kasha's at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law running the state court report. There's also the MacArthur Justice Center, Rights Behind Bars. Kasha, you mentioned a lot of this litigation is happening pro se. They are attempting to intervene in that space in order to help shape the law in more positive ways and more coordinated ways.

So, again, there are organizations there that are willing and excited to help, but stay informed, both as an electoral matter, but also as a lawyer. There are different things you can do. So thank you so much, Kyle, Kasia, and Josie, for joining us for this at times very bleak, but at other notes, sometimes optimistic or meant to be helpful episode on state criminal matters in state courts and state constitutional law. We really appreciate it. Thank you for having us. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for having us. One last thing before we go. It's such an uncertain time, but there's one thing that always makes us feel better, retail therapy and getting involved in progressive politics, obviously. At the Crooked Store, you can do both. Shop a new collection

of progressive merch for summer and feel good knowing that a portion of the proceeds from every purchase goes to support organizations doing incredible work across the United States to ensure every voice can be heard. Pick up a hot people vote tee for your next canvassing shift or grab a let women run everything hat for your next feminist global takeover picnic. Head to crooked.com slash store now. Associate producer, our interns this summer are Hannah Seroff and Tess O'Donohue. Audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Madeline Herringer and Ari Schwartz. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. And thanks to our digital team, Phoebe Bradford and Joe Matosky. Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube to catch full episodes.

Find us at youtube.com slash at strictscrutinypodcast. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast apps 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. If you thought Friday was the best day of the week, well, think again. Jon Stewart's new podcast, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, will have you saying, thank God it's Thursday. That's right. Every Thursday, Jon and his special guests delve into current events from the 2024 election to the ups and downs of the economy and all of the chaos and corruption in between.

There's no telling where the conversation might go. Listen to The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart wherever you get your podcasts.