Strict Scrutiny - The Legal Battles Over Trump’s War on Blue Cities

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

Kate, Leah, and Melissa dive into the legal pushback over ICE and the National Guard in Chicago and Portland, anti-marriage equality goblin Kim Davis’s unwelcome return to the courts, the administration’s lawless strikes on boats in the waters around South America, and the specter of Trump 3.0. Then, they preview November’s SCOTUS cases, including Learning Resources v. Trump, which challenges Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Favorite things:Leah: Task (HBO Max); West End Girl, Lily Allen; The Kavanaugh Stop - 50 days later, Chris Geidner (Law Dork); The Supreme Court’s Self-Defeating Supremacy, Steve Vladeck (The Supreme Court Review); God’s Chief Justice, Doug Bock Clark (ProPublica); Lawyers March for Democracy on November 15 at 1-3pm.Kate: The Emergency, George Packer; Expert Backgrounder on War Powers Resolution 60-Day Clock for Boat Strikes Expiring Monday, Rebecca Ingber and Jessica Thibodeau (Just Security)Melissa: Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy, Judith ResnikHurricane relief for Jamaica:The WalkGood Jamaica Relief FundThe American Friends of JamaicaGlobal Empowerment MissionMercy CorpsFood for the Poor Jamaica Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by smalls. As you know, I am a dog person, not necessarily a cat person, but you know what I don't want? I don't want cats to have terrible food, which is why whenever one of my friends comes home with a new baby and that baby happens to be a feline baby, I recommend that they get their baby smalls. If you want your fur baby to be healthy, to not have gut issues, give them a diet upgrade with smalls. And for a limited time, you can get 60% off your first order of smalls plus free shipping when you head over to smalls.com slash strict smalls cat food is protein packed with recipes that are made with preservative free ingredients that you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door that's why

cats.com names smalls their best overall cat food and starting off with smalls is really easy You just share information about your cat's diet, health, and food preferences, and Smalls puts together a personalized slantler just for your cat. So there's no more picking between random brands at the store. Smalls has exactly the right food to satisfy any cat's cravings. And Smalls doesn't just have great food made with great ingredients that you would keep in your own fridge. It also has other things that your cat will love, like treats and snacks. And you can add them all to your Smalls order and they can be delivered to your house. So there's no stopping at the pet store lugging a bag of kibble home and everything else. It all just comes straight to your door

where your cat is waiting to receive it. The team at Smalls is so confident that you will love their product that they are going to let you try it risk free. That means you order it. It shows up at your door and if your fur baby does not love it, they will refund you. So what are you waiting for. Give your cat the food that they deserve for a limited time because you are a strict scrutiny listener. You can get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com forward slash strict. That's 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head over to smalls.com forward slash strict. Mr. Chief Justice, please support. It's an old joke. When I argue, man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.

She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Okay, I might just supposed to, like, open as this, as though things are normal? Yeah. Or you can not open if things are normal, and this can just be the cold open. All right. I'm going to just try with a straight face and voice to begin this journey.

All right. And in three, two, one. Hello, and welcome back to strict scrutiny, your podcast, about the Cypriam card. And the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw. I'm the Portland Frog. She's in a full frog suit if you're listening and not watching.

She is in a full frog suit. It is glorious. Go to YouTube if you haven't and see this with your own eyes. And I'm still an adult. Melissa Murray. Is this fashion? It is not fashion. I'm sorry.

I hate to break it to you. All right. Just to recap, we are. Kate Shaw, an inflatable amphibian, and Melissa Murray, and we are our host of strict scrutiny. And per our last episode, per as usual now, we are going to talk about some legal news, much of which concerns the ongoing challenges to the president's attempts to militarize law enforcement in American cities. And that is why Leah is here. This crossed you. It's also Halloween. The hands. I didn't see the flippers. It's very hard to work under these

conditions. I just want everyone to know. For all of us. Some more so than others. Kate. Anyway, again, we are going to be covering the ongoing challenges to the president's efforts to militarize law enforcement and to turn the American military against ordinary Americans, specifically those who are dissenting, protesting, inflating, all of them, really. And then we're going to switch to previewing the cases the court is going to hear during the first week of the November sitting. So, Leah, is that enough of a lead-in for you to exit the suit? Yeah, I'm going to do a costume change. Excellent. Get into some real fashion. But no break. It's Taylor Swift style, no break. You're just going to, it's going to take me, you're going to jump into a pit

and, like, one second later. You're going to be in your law professor. Oh, Leah, that was really happens. There she is. I also just like, it's just such an amazing demonstration of, like, this is what these guys are triggered by. They're triggered by that suit. The suit is the predicate for just the ugly honest. I just wanted to point out that you all were also triggered by it. We're not responding with near lethal force, though. We're just laughing. Melissa's world and looks can kill. That is true. We are all Bonvino now. What is this name? Bonvino or Bovino? Bonvino sounds like a good one. I know. There's also Bon Gino. Yeah, I can't get anything about. There are a lot of. This is just Bovino.

Bovino guy looks like the guy in whiplash, the music teacher. Do you, did you see that movie, Kate? No. I didn't. Should I? Okay, never mind. Okay, I think I think we've, a little bit, we've, a little bit, we've, let me just say what else we're going to do in the episode, and then we'll come back to Leah's second

outfit. Is this fashion? No. This is fashion. Come on, Melissa. It's not. It's feathers. It's not.

No. I would like to do the episode in this outfit. Okay. That we will, I will allow. I don't know about Melissa. I think the outfit is such that you're blocking your own light, but continue, please. I think it looks great. I am my own light.

It's the sparkle. It emanates, yes. Okay, so we are somehow going to get through a conversation about this halacious timeline with Leah in her showgirl get-up. First up, the news. We are going to start with some developments from the windy city. First, the Seventh Circuit has granted the administration's request for an administrative stay, pausing Judge Sarah Ellis's order, requiring Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino to meet in person with her each day. Judge Ellis's order was issued after a hearing on October 28th. The hearing was about

ICE's alleged violation of the judge's temporary restraining order prohibiting the use of tear gas and other riot control measures against journalists, clergy, and other protesters during what has become known as Operation Midway Blitz. The Administrative's Day gives the administration a temporary reprieve, but, you know, just of this daily reporting obligation. The administration is still seeking mandamus in the Seventh Circuit challenging that aspect of the order. Although, interestingly, the administration isn't challenging other aspects of the order, including that the agents on the ground in Chicago wear body cameras, which they had not been. But mandamus, just for folks who aren't familiar with it, is an extraordinary remedy. it is typically available outside of the normal appeal process for orders and decisions that aren't normally appealable, but only when district courts are really, truly, and wildly out of line, is mandamus ever supposed to be appropriate?

So the administrative stay is not granting mandamus. That request is still pending. And while it is still pending, the litigation challenging, you know, the rest of ICE's conduct in Chicago is proceeding. And even with the temporary restraining order, in effect, the conduct... Am I allowed to say some things? Melissa? I'll allow it. I just wanted to point out that I was not allowed to speak for the first page of this episode.

I think it's punishment for celebrating Halloween. That was inadvertent. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Floor is yours, showgirl. Okay. So, even with the temporary restraining order, in effect, the conduct of ICE and other federal officers in Chicago has left state officials to resort to these kinds of pleas. I've sent a letter to Christy Nome and to the Department of Homeland Security leadership, asking them to pause all of their federal agent operations for the entirety of the Halloween weekend.

I'm asking for basic human decency. I think their response will be revealing. They've disrupted everything for more than two months already. Give the children and the families of Illinois a break. Crispy Nome, of course, has announced that she is utterly lacking in human decency that Pritzker was appealing to. She says immigration enforcement will be happening in full force. We're going to be out on the streets in full force and increase our activities to make sure kids are safe. Every day in Chicago, we're arresting murderers, child pedophiles, those who have

perpetuated assault and pornography against children. We're going to be out there to make sure that they can be safe, enjoy the holidays, spend some time with their families and their neighbors and their communities, and they don't have to be the victim of a crime. Okay, having a normal one I see. Also out of Chicago, we saw a spate of additional charges against regime opponents, specifically Democratic politicians and political candidates, including Kat Abagazalia, who is running for Congress, as well as five others, including a ward committeeman and a candidate for Cook County Commissioner, all were arrested for their involvement in the protests at the Broadview Immigration Facility, where there have been regular protests for many weeks now. So the indictment alleges that these individuals blocked the path of a nice vehicle, which seems possible and also maybe not criminal, but also that they banged on the hood of a car, that they broke a mirror, that they scratched the word pig in the side of a police vehicle, which honestly sounds like bullshit to me. Maybe someone did that, but these five individuals running for Congress and serving as local elected officials in Chicago, I highly doubt they did that. Also, they often live stream.

Yeah. They're protests. Yes. I doubt they're also keying the word pig into the side of official vehicles. And at this point, I don't know why we should believe a word that comes out of their mouth. And indeed, and of course, the individual's charge have said that these charges are all retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. So I want to come back to the possibility that this might be bullshit. But, you know, among those condemning these charges are the people running against. at Bougazalia, which feels like an important demonstration of the value of solidarity. So, quote, this unjust prosecution is an attempt to intimidate and silence those who stand up for their rights and beliefs. It's an attack on anyone sickened by masked men roaming our streets and shoving our neighbors into unmarked cars.

It's a threat to everyone willing to call this what it is, creeping tyranny. Fine said. Today it's cat. Tomorrow, it could be any one of us, end quote. So, you know, along the lines of, should we even believe these outside? allegations, we wanted to note what has become of some of the federal charges that have been filed against other people for allegedly assaulting or impeding ICE or Homeland Security investigation officers. So a district court in the Western District of Texas recently granted defendant's

motion to dismiss. And in that case, you know, the court noted that it was the government agent that had smashed the defendant's car window, even though they indicted the defendant for using force against the officer. You know, the court's opinion went. on to explain that the government's seizure and scope of the arrest and use of force were all unreasonable. You know, they broke the defendant's car window because they said he didn't roll down his window. And just to quote one passage of the opinion, quote, viewing the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the government's conduct in this case has been outrageous. And the court noted the feign concerns for safety as well as affidavits based on

inaccurate assumptions and blatant misstatements and more. And so given that this is the government's conduct, you know, we should, I think, view the broad view indictment with a healthy dose of skepticism. Speaking of inaccurate assumptions and misstatements, the Supreme Court has asked for supplemental briefing on the National Guard case out of Chicago. So just by way of background, the court's request arises from a challenge to a district court order effectively in joining the president in the administration from deploying the National Guard in Chicago. I will just note that even in the absence of the National Guard as a federal police force, the government still has a panoply of options for terrorizing the denizens of the Windy City. They have ICE. They have

customs and Border Patrol. They've got lots of things. So you don't have to sweat the National Guard here. But in any event, the Seventh Circuit declined to stay, the district court's ruling. And so predictably, the administration decided to rush off to the shadow docket to ask daddy court to please stay the lower court's order blocking the president from deploying the national guardic and fellow Americans in Chicago. Poor little baby. Please, please, sir. Can you make some more justice?

But government, you know, when they went off to the Supreme Court, they did that, but they had also first consented to the extension. of the district court's temporary restraining order that they are purporting to request a stay of. Make it make sense. You know, the government's litigation behavior in this case and others has been appalling. You know, it is making district court judges' lives

so much more difficult with the disrespect, lack of candor, and this manipulative, abusive litigation conduct because they're running off to the Supreme Court saying, you need to free us from this order, which we have consented to the extension of. Back to Skodas's request for the supplement. briefing that we got last week. So specifically, the justices asked for more information about the following question, quote, whether the term regular forces in 10 U.S.C. Section 124063

refers to the regular forces of the U.S. military or non-military forces. And that matters because this statute, 12406, which is the statute that the president relied on to federalize and deploy the National Guard, says the president can only do that, right, can only call them into federal service in circumstances where the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. And President Trump maintains that he needs to federalize the National Guard in Chicago because he isn't able to execute the laws of the United States using just ICE, CPB, and DHS officers. However, the issue the court is going to resolve here is whether that is even a prerequisite for deploying the National Guard under this law or whether the

president is only permitted to call up the National Guard if he's unable to execute the laws of the U.S. using, quote-unquote, regular armed forces. That is why SCOTUS has asked the parties to brief whether regular forces refers to the armed forces or non-military forces. So ladies, what do we think? Yeah, so I'm not sure exactly what to make of this. Like, on one hand, I'm worried it's like a dare to dream situation. Are they actually going to deny the stay request? You know, on one hand, the supplemental briefing order suggests there aren't five votes right now for the administration's positions like the president's determination is completely unreviewable by courts. On the other hand, it could also suggest there aren't five votes to just straight up deny the stay for the reasons explained in the district court's order, namely the president isn't struggling to execute federal law in any meaningful sense that would provide him emergency powers. So a part of me is also like a little concerned about going this route because it evades the court having to like,

frontally confront what courts can and should do when the factual basis for the president's claim of authority is bullshit. And it tees up this question of like, can the president deploy regular militarized forces when? And that seems to push us closer to the insurrection act question. I don't know. What do you think? Yeah. I mean, I think starting from when the president first used this statutory provision in L.A., we noted that some of the legal questions presented by this invocation are not presented if he simply invokes the Insurrection Act, which feels like enormous escalation, but would not require the sort of like a showing that the regular forces or that he can't execute the law with the regular forces. And so, yeah, I'm, I think there

is some short-term optimism. They're not going to like tomorrow or like today ruin Halloween by just allowing them to be unleashed even further in Chicago. And yet I worry that they'll somehow just push him. If they don't allow him to go this route, that just pushes him into the arms of the Insurrection Act in ways that I find really scary. The idea that we are going to applaud this court for for now holding the line. I mean, that to me is the scariest part. There's a kind of normalizing exercise to this whole challenge that we should really surface and make clear. You know, part of this is the administration now becoming like the Fifth Circuit, a way for this court to exercise some good PR for itself.

Yeah, I am bracing myself for the, isn't the Supreme Court great now takes, you know, in the event that they deny this state application because those are inevitable. An opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Right, exactly. Mutual arbiter. Exactly. I did want to shout out, like, this request for supplemental briefing definitely derives from an amicus brief that was filed by Professor Marty Lieberman at Georgetown Law School, obviously hat-tick. to him for flagging an argument that flew under the radar and actually getting the Supreme Court to potentially, you know, dive into it. I also did want to add a renewed shoutout to

Anil Kalhan, you know, the professor who coined the phrase Kavanaugh stop, because I do think that helped create conditions in which the court feels at least some pressure to not continue just being yes men to the president. And this is also, you know, kind of a reflection of the work that people have been doing, documenting conditions on the ground in Chicago and elsewhere, you know, where the National Guard and other excessive federal law enforcement deployment has occurred. I have to give it to Anil, calling these Kavanaugh stops, like gets where Justice Kavanaugh lives. He does not want to be the guy for whom these stops are named.

And it's so funny that he doesn't want to be that guy, but he felt like it was a good idea to write that concurrence, which thus making him that guy. That's making him that guy, but here we are. Anyway, so those are the developments in Chicago. We also got developments in Portland, Oregon this week. So when we last spoke to you, we mentioned that a Ninth Circuit panel with two Trump appointees and the majority issued a stay that blocked a district court order preventing the deployment of the National Guard in Portland.

Well, now the full Ninth Circuit has vacated that panel order, and the issue is headed for full en banc review before the Ninth Circuit. This now means that the district court order blocking deployment of the National Guard is again in effect, at least until the full Ninth Circuit resolves this issue. I will just remind listeners that in that first three-judge panel decision, Judge Susan Graber dissented and she encouraged those who were losing faith in the judicial system to just hold on so that the system would have the chance to work itself out completely. And it seems like she was talking about exactly this, the full Ninth Circuit vacating that decision and then now going to en banc review. So we shall see if our faith shall

be restored. As we did with the, you know, cases concerning indictment of individuals for allegedly impeding federal officers, here too, we wanted to highlight some of the Department of Justice's conduct in this particular litigation to underscore, again, the intense gaslighting and bullshit that really lies under the president's claims to authority. So in this litigation involving Oregon, plaintiffs challenged one of the assertions that the government made to the Ninth Circuit and that the three-judge nine circuit panel, or at least the two Trump appointees and the majority, had relied on in order to stay the lower court's order. So specifically, the panel stated that the actions of the Portland Frog and Portland Chicken had forced the

redeployment of nearly 25 percent of federal protection services officers, about 115 officers. But the government was a little evasive about the exact number at oral argument, and in discovery, they admitted that there were never 115 officers redeploy to Portland. Rather, the number was in the 20s, except for one month back in July when it was 31. Still seems like a big difference. Yeah. Math is hard. Is this boy math? It's also like we saw the frog and freaked out math. And so it felt like a big number. So, okay. So. The inflation. Okay. So DOJ responded to this revelation by saying, oh, that error, that is no big deal.

That's harmless. It didn't matter to the panel opinion. And we never meant to say that 115 federal protective services officers were deployed at the same time. Just like overall across several months. But also, here are some other whoopsies we uncovered upon reviewing our own claims. it actually wasn't 115 total officers, even if you put them over the course of several months. Then it was more like something in the 80s. And also, we might have said that it's undisputed that nearly a quarter of the entire service had to be redirected to Portland during a relatively short time.

But really, it was only like half that, but really no harm, no foul. Anyway, we are just emphasizing this, listeners, because these are the kinds of facts slash falsehoods on which these claims of emergency authority rest. This is what the Department of Justice is presenting to federal courts to justify this administration's actions. And this is the kind of slap dash, hasty, make it up as you go along, approach to law and governance that this Supreme Court has apparently endorsed and could continue to endorse. So just wanted to flag it for you. But lower courts are still doing their part to see through the BS. So after we wrapped recording and were about to go trick or treating, some district courts gave us some real treats, although there is unfortunately a trick wrapped up in there. Anyways, so two district courts concluded that it is illegal for the Trump regime to withhold SNAP benefits, the supplemental nutrition assistance program that provides people with sustenance who aren't able to afford food. Snap includes about 41 million people. And as part of the shutdown, Trump announced that he was just not going to pay out funds for SNAP. So,

let people go hungry and starve, even though money had been appropriated and put into multi-year contingency funds to ensure the people wouldn't go hungry in the event of a shutdown. And yes, he's doing this as he is constructing himself a new ballroom. One district court gave the regime until Monday to inform the court if it was going to use contingent funding to proceed with reduced benefits in November, but a second judge immediately restrain the suspension of SNAP benefits. So it seems like under that ruling, SNAP benefits should immediately go out. So one other treat. The latest ruling against another Trump administration policy, this one, a policy of systematically detaining any immigrant facing possible deportation,

reach something of a milestone. So now more than 100 federal judges have ruled that the efforts to just detain everybody as part of immigration enforcement are elites. Unfortunately, as I said, there was also a trick in store. So the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit marked spooky season by granting the Department of Justice's mandamus request, finding that the district judge's order that required Border Patrol official Greg Bevino to provide the court with daily reports about compliance with the district court's temporary restraining order, the Seventh Circuit concluded that infringed on the separation of powers and put the district court in a position of Inquisitor. The good news, however, is that the temporary restraining order itself remains in place. This is the order that restricted the government's ability to arrest and deploy non-lethal munitions against journalists and protesters. So that order remains in effect. It's just that the district court's additional precaution to ensure the government's compliance with that order, unfortunately, no longer is.

strict scrutiny is brought to you by aura frames oraframs i swear to god is the one gift that never gets old whenever i wrap this up and give it to someone for the holidays for a birthday they love it and act like i am the smartest person in the world i am smart because i know that everyone loves an aura frame why because who doesn't want to have wonderful pictures of friends and family just scrolling constantly on your brand new or a frame that hooks up to your computer, hooks up to your phone, and allows you to download all of the best pictures, all of the latest pictures in real time.

It's absolutely fantastic. It's a great gift for new parents. It's a great gift to share with grandparents who maybe are away from their grandchildren. Literally, it's the perfect, foolproof gift. Everyone you give this to will absolutely love it. You can upload unlimited photos and video. You just download the ORA app to your phone, connect to Wi-Fi's, and boom, you're in business,

no hidden fees. You can preload photos on the ORA frame before it ships. So when it arrives to your chosen recipient, they are ready to not only receive this wonderful gift, but they have at their fingertips all of these wonderful photos of you and your family that they have been missing. You can personalize your ORA frame by adding a message before it arrives. and going forward, you can share your photos and videos effortlessly, straight from your phone all year long. I'm telling you, I just gave it to one of my friends for his birthday, and as he said,

you are a great gift giver, MM, and I'm like, that's correct. Oroframe was named number one by wirecutter, and you can save on this number one wirecutter perfect gift by visitingoraframes.com. For a limited time, strict scrutiny listeners can get $20 off their best-selling Carver Matt Frame with the code ORA 20. That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com promo code ORA 20. And you can support strict scrutiny by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions may apply. Shifting gears, we wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things that are going on at the court, not necessarily in oral arguments, but behind the scenes. So currently pending in the court's cert pool,

is a petition from Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court, who refuses to issue marriage licenses because, in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges, she would have to issue them to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, and she says that issuing them to same-sex couples violates her religious beliefs. Her cert petition asks the Supreme Court to review a Sixth Circuit decision holding that because she was functioning in her position as a state actor rather than as a private citizen, her actions are not protected under the First Amendment. However, in addition to making that request, Davis has also asked the court to wait for it, overrule Obergefell versus Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage across the nation. She argues that a right

to same-sex marriage has no basis in the Constitution. I hope no one tells her about executive privilege, which is also not in the Constitution, but whatever, it's going to be a real hard day for her when she gets that news. But this is where we are, folks. Obergefell v. Hodges in the crosshairs, apparently. So this is not Kim Davis's first SCOTUS rodeo. She is something of a repeat player, having petitioned the court for review in 2020 at an earlier stage of the litigation. There, the court denied cert, but notably, justices Thomas and Alito took that personally, issuing a statement respecting the denial of cert. They didn't dissent from the denial. That is, they wouldn't have heard Kim Davis's case, but they had some things they wanted to say about

Obergefell. And what they wanted to say was a broadside against Obergefell. So the two justices accused the Obergefell majority of, quote, altering the Constitution and, quote, having ruinous consequences for religious liberty. So this is the first conference at which the court will consider Davis's latest challenge because the court doesn't grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences that's become the practice. So there would have to be a second conference before we hear about any cert grant if they stick with, again, past practice. So if the justices deny review, however, we could hear about it as soon as Monday, November 10th. And again, to underscore that there are no new ideas in related news on Friday, October 24th, the Texas Supreme Court amended its judicial code of conduct to permit justices of the peace to refuse to perform same-sex marriages based on their religious beliefs.

This follows a years-long legal battle involving a McClennan County, Texas judge who face sanctions and public warnings for doing so in. in 2019. The court's new rule states, quote, it is not a violation for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief, end quote. I will also note that you could have sincerely held religious beliefs that people of different races should not be married, and this would seem to be okay here too. Moving on, justices in the wild. We had a lot of Justice Barrett in the wild sightings when she was in the first couple of weeks of her book publicity tour. But we saw in the last week, Justice Isotomayor in Jackson, actually out and about in Massachusetts.

Justice Sotomayor appeared at Boston University Law School, where she was in conversation with her former clerk, BU alumnus and current counsel at Oryk, Caesar Lopez Morales. The Justice, who appeared in a pair of red and white Nike dunks. Fashion. And comfort. Okay, that's fashion. Yeah. What's on your feet, Leah? Not Nike dumps.

Albirds. That's great. Comfort for sure. Anyway, so she encouraged the audience to keep the faith and to keep fighting. As she said, quote, I refuse to be a bystander. I get up every morning ready to fight every morning to dissent this vehemently as I humanly can. And to scream from the mountaintops, no. Justice Jackson was a little more opaque in her conversation with Danielle Hawley,

the president of Mount Holyoke College. This took place at the Springfield Public Forum. in Springfield, Massachusetts. Justice Jackson told the audience, quote, anything worth doing takes effort, which was ostensibly about her path to the bench and the hard work that it required, but could also have been a meditation on her efforts to save this court from itself. Speaking of efforts to maybe save this court from itself, the New York Times Jody Cantor is now officially on the Supreme Court beat for the gray lady. And she has a new piece about the tensions between the three Democratic appointees.

about how to approach their time in the jurisprudential wilderness. What did you all think of the piece? Well, I had great quotes from both of you. 10 out of 10. No notes. Look, I mean, I think that we are not the audience for this piece because we have been talking about these dynamics so much. Like, it's just we are kind of obsessed with this. Like, it's impossible to do what they're doing. They're taking very different tax in dealing with the collapse of the constitutional order.

colleagues how to speak to the public and to try to persuade at the same time. And I think at different moments, we've had different kinds of sympathy for different approaches, or at least I have. I did learn a few things from the piece. One, this made me so furious. So we know on the bench, Justice Jackson sometimes gets side-eye from her colleagues. I didn't realize that's also true in conference, which the piece suggested, like, they don't like that she talks for a long time in conference and that she brings detailed notes. And I was just like, as a compulsive overpreparer myself. Like, you know, I would have pages and pages of detailed notes to be sure that I had really thought through everything I wanted to say. And I would show up and do that. And they're like,

somehow that's offensive or unsurious or something like. You know, the first black woman on the court is really just there to get the door until the end of time, or at least a new justice. So don't consume all this oxygen with your ideas and conference. The idea that they go to conference to ostensibly speak with their colleagues about how to resolve these cases, maybe have a debate, explain their reasoning just in like free-balling it is insane, right? Well, do you remember Justice Barrett at her confirmation holding up the note pad? No, no notes. Yeah.

You know, as lots of notes? Katanji Brown Jackson. You know, I have been teaching for 10 years, and like, I still go to class with pages and pages of notes, like, detailed notes, including like a one-page sheet that is like a densely packed outline of everything. And it's just... Let me... Can I just say this?

Because this actually, again, she is the only black woman on the court. People routinely, even before she became the only black woman on the court, talked about was she qualified, was she smart enough. They still continue to do this. Under those conditions, wouldn't you over-prepare? Like, if you want her to stop coming with notes, stop having your little minions out in the world. Tell her that she's stupid constantly.

Like, shut up. Like, this is every black woman who ever worked at a job. Yeah. Like, you just show up because you have no safety net and you have lots of notes. And then that's held against you, too. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So that was pretty enraging.

Yeah. I mean, it's an impossible task that the three dissenters have. And I do not envy them. They all seem really committed to staying the course and pursuing in their own different ways. Like what they think is the kind of like right way to try to either keep things from going radically off. course or to tell the country they already are. And so I guess I felt like a lot of empathy and gratitude for them and the impossible position they're in. I think that was my big takeaway. I loved Pam Carlin's drop the mic. Oh my gosh. Yes. Oh my gosh. Too late.

Friend of the pod, Pam Carlin, telling it like it is. So what she said is, quote, the problem with waiting to speak frankly is that, quote, over time you normalize what's going on, end quote. And she said it might be tempting to hoard influence and leverage for a, quote, cataclysmic case, end quote. But by the time that happened, she said, quote, it may be too late. I mean, and this is sort of the anti-Jackson position. Like, instead of speaking freely and publicly and forthrightly, you kind of hedge because you're trying to maintain equanimity with your colleagues. And just like, maybe there's no time for that right now.

Yeah. That's what we've been saying, I think. Yeah. And, like, I can imagine a world in which this is like a both and, right? Like some people try one course, like some people try another. But I'm very sympathetic, obviously, as a piece made clear, like to the Pam Carlin view of, like, what exactly are you waiting for? Like, they have so allowed the president to just demolish so many aspects of our constitutional system. What, again, are you waiting for?

So I was talking to a friend about this, and one of the things that he noted, and I don't know that Jody meant for this to be sort of the tenor of the piece, but there is this kind of setup where, you have Kagan, the tactician, and then Sotomayor and Jackson, the emotive, like, forthright speakers. And my friend, I think rightly mentioned, like sometimes speaking forthrightly and to a particular audience is a strategy. And it's also tactical. And I wish that had come across more clearly to all audiences. I thought Sotomayor, though, came across as like somewhat between the kind of Kagan and Jackson polls. Well, I actually thought she came off as like, she was very much like that when Justice Jackson wasn't on the court. So I think about her intervention and Dobbs is like, you know, I'm not convincing these guys. Let me talk to you people. Like,

will this institution stand the stench? Blah, blah, blah. And now Justice Jackson is maybe taking it on even further. So it's not that Sotomayor has moved. Maybe it's just the moment has moved even beyond where she was. Yeah. Yeah. This episode of strict scrutiny is sponsored by Better Help. The days are getting shorter, there's less sunshine, and you know what that means. It's time for the seasonal blues. But don't worry. Shorter days don't have to be so dismal.

It's time to reach out and check in with those that you care about and to remind ourselves that we are not alone. BetterHelp is prepared to help you handle all of the winter blues and blas that are coming your way. Better Help therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and they are fully licensed in the United States. BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you, so you can just focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences, and BetterHelp's 12-plus years

of experience and industry-leading match fulfillment rate means that they typically get it right the first time. And if you're not happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is one of the world's largest online therapy platforms, having served over 5 million people globally. And more importantly, BetterHelp works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. So this month, don't wait to reach out. Whether you're checking in on a friend or reaching out for a therapist for yourself, BetterHelp makes it easier to take that first step. And Strict Streetney listeners

get 10% off their first month at BetterHelp.com slash strict. That's better. H-E-L-P-com slash strict Shall we turn from article 3 to article 2 for more hope and aspiration? Yes. Excellent. Okay. In additional article 2 news, we should note that the president's bombing campaign

against Caribbean boats continues apace. ostensibly in the absence of law. The only difference now is that the campaign to decimate these boats has no longer been confined to the Caribbean. It has expanded to the Pacific Ocean and again seems to be predicated on totally unsubstantiated claims of drug trafficking. So the administration has acknowledged even more lethal strikes on boats in the Eastern Pacific, this time four boats. These attacks left 14 people dead and one survivor. And this is apparently the first time multiple strikes were announced in a single day. Yeah, which did feel like a genuine escalation.

And it just seems more and more apparent that this president badly wants a war with Venezuela. Could it be because of oil? Maybe, or maybe he just like wants a little war. Like, I just don't know. Yeah, yeah, just seems like a fun thing. I mean, you know, he obviously has had a lot of antipathy to the Maduro regime. So I think this, again, could be a both and there are multiple reasons. But they all seem in confidence to be moving us.

in this direction of the strikes turning into something that begins to look more like full-scale war. And on Friday in that vein, we got news that the administration's aggression towards this, you know, the Maduro regime in Venezuela was likely to escalate into actual full-scale military campaigns, including striking military targets inside Venezuela. This is according to reporting by both the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal. And, you know, they're trying to suggest this is just ordinary drug and addiction to bomb boats, which it is very much not. But you cannot make a plausible argument that bombing inside a sovereign state, whatever your relationship with that government, is not war. Like that would be essentially launching a war with Venezuela,

and it feels like we could be on the precipice of that. You can't make a plausible argument, and yet I wouldn't put it past Brett Kavanaugh to try. So did any of you see the 1997 movie Wag the Dog? Yeah. Yeah. This is Wag the Dog. Yes. That's why I said, like he just wants a little war. Well, I mean, Wag the Dog, they start a war with Albania to distract from a sex scandal in the administration. The jokes write themselves.

Anyway, in addition to what is happening in the Caribbean and now in the Pacific, we wanted to also acknowledge the percolating effort to ignore the 22nd Amendment and install Donald Trump in 18. third term as president. So here is noted constitutional law scholar and former football coach, Senator Tommy Tuberville, on this issue. If you read the Constitution, it says it's not, but if he says he has some different circumstances that might be able to go around the Constitution, but that's up to him. We've got a long way to go before that happened. The president, for his part, has been reading the Constitution, it would seem, and And although it seems he is not reading the polls, but he also had this to say. I have my highest numbers that I've ever had.

As I should, I ended eight wars, and we have the greatest economy and history. I have the best numbers for any president in many years, any president. And I would say that if you read it, it's pretty clear. I'm not allowed to run. It's too bad. I miss it. But we have a lot of great people. So thoughts on this.

One, it seems to me an enormous mistake to take Donald Trump just like offhand, seeming to concede that he's not allowed to run as somehow forever resolving the issue. Like he's done. He's like seen the light. He's not going to try to like further explore this possibility. I think he's, we're going to see a lot more rounds of this. And I also just think it really matters how we talk about the 22nd Amendment and the two term limit, which is, you know, not the way that Tuberville is talking. about it. But, you know, I do think that there are ostensibly serious people who are like, I don't know, he says he's got a plan. What are the legal arguments that would actually entitle him to run for a third term? And I just feel like a thought experiment, like, if you'll indulge me briefly, is helpful, which is like, what if Trump announced that women wouldn't be voting in the 26 midterm elections or that he was giving every red state a third senator? Or can I just interrupt you right here? Because I just want to point out that you basically manifested the reconstruction and demolition of the East Wing. And I'm a little concerned here. I better not go on. Like you are exercising these witch-like powers on Halloween. Okay. I'm done. I am saying that he is when he says I might have the ability to run for a third term, he is just saying we are actually going to stop pretending there is a plausible argument and I am going to announce that I am suspending the Constitution. And we absolutely have to talk about it in those terms. Agreed. If he continues

to publicly play with the idea of not leaving. office when a second term is done. I won't say anything more. All right. Speaking of life tenure, let's switch to case previews and talk about what the Supreme Court is going to get its little hands into this week at its first week of the November sitting. The sitting is two weeks long, just a reminder. And as is our practice, we're going to preview the cases that will be heard during the first week. We'll get to the second week in time. First up, though, RICO versus United States. So this is one of the, many criminal cases on the merit stock of this term, although it is not a case about RICO,

which is the federal racketeering statute. It's just a party whose name is RICO. So here's what the case is about. Isabel RICO is the defendant in the case. She was on supervised release after serving time in prison for meth and heroin distribution. While on supervised release, she moved to another county without telling her probation officer. By the time she was re-arrested in 2023, the 42-month term for her supervised release had expired. However, the district court applied the fugitive tolling doctrine, meaning it did not count as time on supervised release the many months when she was a fugitive and out of contact with her probation officer. The court sentenced Rico to prison time again with an increased sentencing guidelines range

because she had absconded. And the question before the court is whether the fugitive tolling doctrine can be applied in the context of federal supervised release, even though there is no explicit statutory authority for courts to do that. It'll be very interesting to hear what noted libertarian Neil Gorsuch has to say about this, especially given his prior embrace of the rule of lenity. That is the rule of statutory construction that says criminal statutes ought to be construed if there is ambiguity in favor of the defendant.

It may also be an opportunity, I think, for a strange bedfellows coalition of Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Jackson coming together. I don't know if that's enough to overcome the law and order crowd, but it'll be interesting. Law and order or no law and no order. just depending on the context. Well, depending on the president.

Exactly, exactly. So on the same day that RICO will be argued, the Supreme Court will also hear Hensley v. FloreCorp, a case concerning the liability of government contractors. Floor Corp is a government contractor that employed an Afghan civilian who turned out to be a suicide bomber. An Army specialist Winston Hensley was injured in the suicide bombing, and he sued Flore Corporation in state court for negligently employing and supervising the suicide bomber. The issue before the court is whether a federal common law defense preempts a state law claim against a government contractor in these circumstances. If the court answers this question in the affirmative, it will probably be extending a 1988 Supreme Court decision, Boyle v. United Technologies, which immunized a government contractor from suit where the contractor performed the contract according to specifications, to cases like this one, hencely, where government contractors violate the terms of their contracts. and they would be saying those contractors also can't be sued. So Boyle is a somewhat famous slash infamous federal courts case written by Justice Scalia.

It foregoes bright line rules in favor of a loosey-goosey standard for when federal courts can fashion federal common law, something Justice Scalia was often at pains to say federal courts shouldn't be doing. You know, that is like the great man was of the view that federal courts shouldn't be acting like common law judges. I had always gotten the impression that he had like quietly noted some misgivings. about his opinion in Boyle after the fact. Like when you interviewed with Justice Scalia and they asked you, like, what opinion of his do you disagree with? You basically weren't allowed to say Boyle after a certain period of time because it was just

so boring. And everyone said it. He's like, yeah, I know. Get over it. I was fond of saying that. So it should be noted that the federal government is weighing in here as an amicus. And it has asked the court to leave aside the question of whether Boyle should be extended and simply establish a rule of constitutional immunity under the Supremacy Clause.

So that's kind of an escalation. Not surprisingly, Flora Corporation would be absolutely fine with this option as well. Interestingly, there are a number of different groups, surprising groups, really, who are not in favor of this option, who are arguing in favor of Hensley and against this kind of immunity. And it includes states of a wide variety of ideological. biological posture. So red states like Alabama and Mississippi and blue states like Minnesota and Oregon and purple states like New Mexico and North Carolina are all weighing in here to say that they do not want this kind of immunity for government contractors and circumstances like

these. So this may actually be the judiciary's version of the Epstein files. Apparently saying no to government contractor immunity when the government contractor defies the terms of their contract is the one issue that unites all facets of our polarized country. So the Supremacy Clause question could have important implications for some current events and some questions that people have been raising over the last few months, specifically about the potential for state imposed liability against federal officers who violate state law. So Supremacy Clause immunity is the doctrine that limits state's power to impose legal liability on federal institutions or federal officers.

And the doctrine arose from a state's prosecution of a deputist. federal marshal. After the marshal shot, a person trying to assassinate justice field. Supremacy Clause immunity is also related to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which goes back to McCulloch v. Maryland, where the Supreme Court said Maryland couldn't tax the national bank and instrumentality of the federal government. So the basic gist of the doctrine is that state laws and specifically criminal laws can't be enforced against the valid actions of a federal officer who's acting with federal authority. But the standard has a lot of wiggle room built into it, like determining when an act is authorized by federal law.

The doctrine also limits immunity to actions that are no more than necessary or needed to perform whatever the federal function is. Supremacy Clause immunity is implicated where state law is trying to limit or hold liable the federal officer from doing something that's pretty integral to functions and duties that federal law authorizes. So there is something that makes a lot of sense to this doctrine of immunity, but the question is, can it totally disable states from pursuing federal officers if they exceed the bounds of their authority under federal law. And if you're picking up what Kate is putting down, it should be clear to you, listeners, why supremacy clause immunity is such a big question right now. It should also be clear why this administration is pushing it at the Supreme Court

and why so many states of differing ideologies seem to be resisting it. This is because supremacy clause immunity will affect whether states can potentially impose criminal liability on and prosecute federal officers who are part of this militarization of American cities. And that means whether they will be immunized for abuse of innocent bystanders and protesters who are simply exercising protected constitutional rights. This is really about whether states can prosecute federal officers when they tear gas protesters or body slam people or zip tie kids or shoot non-lethal weapons at journalists, protesters, et cetera. So this is a big deal.

And Stephen Miller, this is the vice, vice president of the Trump administration, says that, of course, the state should not be able to do this. So let's roll that tape. To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties. and no one, no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. All right, so insofar as he's making this confident categorical claim, he's wrong,

but it is definitely unclear exactly what the scope of supremacy clause immunity is. And the fact that we right now have the federal government asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on this really important question in a case that is flying under the radar, although not, if we have anything to say about it, is, I think, quite significant. And just stepping back for a second, like part of why we are talking about the prospect of state liability against federal officers is because of the limited availability of federal remedies against federal officers who violate people's constitutional rights. So you can sue federal officers to get an injunction that would stop unconstitutional conduct, but the Supreme Court has

vastly limited your ability to sue federal officers for damages if they violate your constitutional rights. So you can sue to prevent future violations, but not hold liable officers who engaged in past violations. There's a 1971 case Bivens versus six unknown named agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and that case recognized the ability to sue federal officers for damages for violating Fourth Amendment rights. And this court, that is the modern court, the Roberts Court, has predictably been hostile to that precedent. It is from the 1970s. Cases from the 70s really aren't entitled to stare decisis effect when you think about it. That was a joke anyways. So this court has vastly narrowed. Right. Is it? Yeah, no, I know. A little problem with manifesting there. But

modern court Roberts court has really narrowed the ability to sue federal officers for damages with some justices included noted libertarian Neil Gorsuch and his buddy Clarence Thomas calling for Bivens to be overruled. And so the fact that you can't sue federal officers for damages under federal law is part of why people are talking about, you know, state liability for federal officers who violate, you know, state law. And why there is a real fear that this court will find another way to shut any potential doors that remain somewhat open. So this is a case. We're going to be watching very closely and obviously not just for what it's going to say about federal common law and defense contractors. All right. On to the next. Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited versus

Burton will be argued on Tuesday. This is a civil procedure case, and specifically it asks whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60C1 imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. As a general matter, Rule 60 sets forth the circumstances under which a litigant can receive relief from a judgment order. 60C1 specifies that a motion for relief must be made within a reasonable time. And Coney Island Autoparts didn't file its Rule 60 motion to vacate a default judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction until six years after that default judgment was entered. The company argues that the summons notifying it of the judgment was improperly addressed and so it was defectively served, appoint the Sixth Circuit

acknowledged, even as it ruled against the company for failure to comply with the reasonable time requirement. So Siv Pro Mavens will love this case. Actually, Siv Pro Mavens are going to love all of the cases that are being heard on Tuesday because Tuesday is Siv Pro Day at SCOTUS because that's the day that the court also hears Hain's Celestial Group versus PalmQuest. And this is a case that considers state court removal, a final judgment, and diversity jurisdiction. So if you are into civil procedure, you should be tingling right now. And I know that you are. The facts are very interesting. Sarah and Grant Palmquist, residents of Texas sued Whole Foods and Hayne, the makers of Earth's best baby food, which is sold at Whole Food stores, in a Texas state court alleging that

heavy metals in the product caused their son's autism. Citing diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to take up cases involving parties from different states, Hain, which is based in Delaware and New York, removed the case to federal court. In doing so, Hayne argued that Whole Foods, which is based in Texas, was immunized from suit under a Texas law as a quote-unquote innocent seller of the product and therefore they never should have been included as a party to the suit. The Palmquist amended their complaint to add new claims against Whole Foods and tried to have the case remanded back to state court. A federal district court denied that request and dismissed whole foods from the case.

And two years later, after a trial, the district court entered a ruling in favor of the company. The Palmquist appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit, which concluded that the district court had improperly dismissed whole foods and lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the Palmquist's. The appellate court then sent the case back to state court with instructions to do the whole thing over. And Palmquist may be an opportunity for the court to side with corporations while also potentially benchlapping the fifth. circuit. To great tastes. Yeah. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Sony Pictures, Nuremberg. As the world grapples with the unveiled horrors of the Holocaust, the allies, led by

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, create an unprecedented international tribunal to hold the highest-ranking Nazi officials accountable. Among them, U.S. Army psychiatrist, Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Kelly, is assigned the extraordinary task of a the mental state of Hermann Goring, the notorious former Reichs Marshall and Hitler's second in command. During this trial of the century, Dr. Kelly becomes locked in a psychological duel that reveals a sobering truth. Ordinary men can commit extraordinary evil. Nuremberg, written and directed by James Vanderbilt starring Russell Crow, Rami Malick, Leo Woodall, and Michael Shannon, starts Friday and is only in theaters. Tickets are on sale now at Nuremberg-film.com.

That's N-U-R-E-M-B-E-R-G-F-F-Film.com. All right, so those cases are obviously interesting, at least for Fed Courts and SIV-PRO stands. But, of course, the main action in the first week of the November sitting is the case the court will hear on Wednesday, Learning Resources versus Trump, aka the Trump Tariff's case. The case is actually two consolidated cases, both challenging the president's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEPA. The court has fast-tracked these cases,

which, I don't know about you ladies, causes me to stare in Jack Smith, presidential immunity, and classified documents. But whatever. Yeah. So we are going to be covering the oral argument in the tariff cases. in much more detail at our live show at CrookedCon on November 7th. We will just note that there has been a ton of amicus activity in this case,

including amicus briefs from small businesses and states that are siding with the plaintiffs, challenging the president. Also, if you are going to be joining us at Crooked Con, we are going to have some, I think, pretty fun tariff-related games in store. None of which requires the costume. Leah won't be wearing a frog suit, to my knowledge, but the tariff games, I think, will be really funny. To my knowledge. You'll have to show up and see.

Surprise! Back to the tariffs case. So the case involves two different kinds of tariffs. So the first category is the trafficking tariffs. So these are ostensibly imposed on some products from China, Canada, and Mexico because those nations allegedly failed to do enough to stop the flow of fentanyl. It is just a quick editorial note, tough to keep track of everyone who is to blame for the flow of fentanyl. We are bombing Venezuelan, Colombian, and Ecuadorian fishing boats because they are responsible for fentanyl, but also tariffing all of these nations because it's also their fault. Anyway, so that's one category of tariffs.

The president has also been imposing worldwide or reciprocal tariffs on a bunch of countries because of trade deficits. So Aipa authorizes the president to take action to, quote, deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside. the U.S. to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, end quote. But the statute only authorizes such action if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat. And when there is a national emergency, the president under IEPA can, quote, regulate importation of property in which any foreign country or national thereof has any interest, end quote. So obviously a question here is whether a trade deficit constitutes a national emergency or merely a cyclical economic phenomenon that has been part of our country's economy

several decades. Another related question is whether the trafficking tariffs deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat or instead part of a long-term phenomenon that is just part of ordinary federal law enforcement. I predict a big part of the oral argument will focus on the question of whether the statutory language actually authorizes the imposition of the tariffs since the term tariff is not explicitly used in the statute. Instead, the statute speaks of the authority to, quote unquote, regulate, which prompts the question, is regulate a synonym for tariffs, the strange bedfellows coalition of Warren G., Miriam Webster, and textualism, would like to know. The case also presents the authority question of whether the major questions doctrine applies

with full force to Republican presidents, or is it just for Democrats? Asked and answered. Asked and answered. We do have some indications of that on the shableness. docket. But the major questions doctrine recall is the Republican appointees made up judicial doctrine that says statutes that authorize administrative agencies to adopt certain regulations have to be construed basically against the agency in cases of major economic and political significance, basically a carve out from the statutes and what powers they grant to agencies.

Again, at least when it's Democratic presidents, you know, who have appointed the heads of said agencies, but I do want to propose a possible reconceptualization of all Supreme Court case law on executive power. So the foundational executive power case is Youngstown. You know, Youngstown asks whether the president is acting in agreement or disagreement with Congress. If he's acting in agreement with Congress, you know, the president has more power. If in disagreement, he's acting less, you know, Youngstown, again, three zones. But I actually think there's like a Youngstown step zero, which is, is the president Republican? Is the president waving their hands and saying foreign affairs? Because we have some indication, you know, from the AIDS vaccine advocacy

coalition stay in the foreign aid funding case that when Republican presidents get up and say foreign affairs, all of a sudden the president gets to exercise Congress's powers, like the spending power or act in violation of congressional statutes, even in areas of congressional authority. But, you know, it's a little like hocus pocus. That's a deep cut for Halloween. It is. So another part of this case is the challengers are raising non-delegation doctrine, you know, as a way of challenging the tariffs. And that is really going to be a tough one for Neil Gorsuch because it will pit his fervent desire to make it 1939 again against the Trump agenda to make it 1839 again.

So which date to face those 100 years made. But which date to pick, we just don't know. It's true. Good time either way, though. We're dialing the clock back in some fashion. The question is just, yeah, like, where are we stopping the dial? So we're going to have much more to say about this case after the argument, and we will do it on stage at CricketCon and then in your earholes for our regular Monday episode. I'm going to say one more thing about the amicus involvement in the case.

Leah mentioned at the outset that you actually had a lot of small businesses on the side of challenging the tariffs. It's also like a kind of wild to look at how lopsided the amicus activity in this case is. So you have very few supporters of the federal government and just an enormous number on the other side, including the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce. Those are more often fellow travelers with the administration, but they are very much on the other side. You have conservative law professor Michael McConnell, who's part of the team challenging the tariffs. I, you know, still think they find a way to rule for the administration. but I don't think this is going to be an easy one for them to do that. So they're going to have to contort themselves, which they are all too willing to do.

The pretzel court. Exactly. Much more to come. And that is the news. Let us end, as always, with our favorite things this week. I will start. I have kind of a long list. So on the less substantive front, I've been watching TASC.

I know I'm a little late to this train. It's phenomenal. Would definitely recommend Mark Rufelow is just fantastic. Also listen to Lily Allen's new album, West End Girl. Listen to it once, not like 50 times. Do you not preempt me? Many, many, many times. Also recommend to our listeners.

Sorry, Melissa, did you want to... No, I have things to say. Okay, okay. Well, I'll leave that to you. Chris Geidner over at Lawdorke wrote a piece of the Kavanaugh stopped 50 days later, just surveying like all that has happened. You know, since Brett Kavanaugh declared

that ICE stops are no big deal. deal very much worth checking out. Steve Vladick has a new paper. The Supreme Court's self-defeating supremacy that is available on SSRN. Also would recommend that. ProPublica had a story, God's Chief Justice that is a long profile of the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. And given the importance of that court is well worth the read. So the chief justice is the one that spearheaded the North Carolina court immediately reversing course. Once the court flipped to a majority of Republican nominees, the court's recent pro-voting rights decision, so overruling the decision, invalidating the state's voter identification law, and overruling the decision, limiting the state's ability

to engage in a partisan gerrymander. The piece is just wild, so to give you a quick flavor, quote, when ProPublica emailed questions to the Chief Justice's daughter, the North Carolina Republican Party's communications director responded, writing that ProPublica was waging a, quote, jihad against North Carolina Republicans, which would not be met with dignifying any comments whatsoever. Quote, I'm sure you're aware of our connections with the Trump administration, and I'm sure they would be interested in this matter, the spokesperson said in an email. Anyways, the piece is really worth your time. It's an in-depth exploration of a man who seems to have just vastly transformed state institutions and law in North Carolina, and it is deeply alarming.

Two other things. So the organization People's Parity Project has organized a Lawyers March for democracy on November 15th from 1 to 3 p.m. That will be a protest that will start outside at the Supreme Court or be outside the Supreme Court. If you are in D.C., you're able to get to D.C. Definitely worth checking out. Again, it's Lawyers March for Democracy on November 15th, and there will be a note on the show notes, as always with our favorite things. One last favorite thing I don't actually have, but I know I would love. The Jody Cantor piece in the Times, which we were talking about, you know, the opening anecdote discusses a version a non-public version of Justice Kagan's dissent

in the student debt relief case. So apparently she deleted the most heated passages before signing off and releasing the dissent. So my favorite thing is the uncensored version of this dissent, which I really need in my life. Elena's version, please. Yeah, exactly. I mean, even the public one is pretty spicy.

When she got her master's back from John Roberts. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I can't wait for that. Okay. Okay. So I will start with my least favorite things, and one of my least favorite things is a hurricane. A hurricane that is named Melissa that hits your family home in Jamaica. Absolutely rude. First of all, I thought hurricanes were supposed to have out-of-circulation names, not names that are used by people who are still walking around, breathing, and being young, okay? You do not name a Hurricane Melissa. Melissa has young girl energy. She will mash up your coast.

You need to name your Hurricane Mildred, Mercy, Matilda. These were all there. These were all available. What about Millicent. Melicent. Also, I mean, like, FYI, Jamaica people have such a hard time pronouncing Melissa in the first place. All my Jamaican relatives cannot say my name. They're like, Melissa, Melisa.

It's just like, there's too much. And so it was wild to hear the reports from Kingston about Hurricane Melissa coming and having all kinds of negative effects on the coastline. Absolutely terrible. So this was horrible. Second, if you like me love this island, and I do, and you want to help the wonderful people who are right now really suffering in Jamaica because this storm, although it did not hit the capital Kingston, it did decimate Montego Bay, which is a huge site for tourism, which is a major industry in Jamaica, and will be very, we'll make it very challenging for the nation to to come back from all of this. If you want to help out, there are a number of great organizations

that are trying to get aid to the Beliegered Island. They include the Walk Good Jamaica Relief Fund, and their website is Biosite, S-I-T-E-Fort-S-E-Fort-S-Walk-Good Jamaica, all one word. The American Friends of Jamaica are also doing great work. You can look them up on the internet. Global Empowerment Mission, Mercy Corps, and Food for the Poor Jamaica are also doing relief efforts. So those are fantastic. please help out if you can. Jamaica is fantastic, not just for vacations, but just for being from there. It's awesome, and they deserve our help. In addition to helping out Jamaica, one of my favorite things is impermissible punishments, how prison became a problem for democracy by

Yale Law School's Judith Bresnick. Judith is one of the nation's foremost experts on prisons, on litigation related to prisons, and this is truly a tour de force on how the prison became. not just an American fixation, but a real problem for American democracy. And then finally, also another feminist icon, not unlike Judith Resnick, is Lily Allen and her amazing tour de force album, West End Girl. Such a fantastic album, great songs, like sort of toggles between a kind of retro vibe and an electronic vibe, but I loved relapse, Madeline, sleepwalking. Definitely second Madeline, also tennis.

Adeline is... Tennis is great. But I also love that she's so petty that she did it right before Stranger Things. And also the song, P-Palice takes the Stranger Things theme. Like, like, like, she's working on many different levels, but all of them are petty. Yes. It's also just the monomania, right? Like, it's just every single song is about him.

And it's so detailed. and, you know, there's obviously like lots of, you know, like sort of revenge tracks on albums, but not like the full every single word of every single song. No. It's pretty epic. Well, I think Lemonade was there. Some of the songs, sure, yeah. No, lemonade was, it was an arc.

She got to forgiveness. Lily never gets to forgiveness. And I love that for her. And it's amazing. Okay, so there's like, whatever, Becky with the good hair, there's like some explicit detail. But most of it is like, sorry, Kate. But it's metaphor. It's obviously suggestive.

Like, here is this. the stuff I found in the bag. Here's the bag it was in. Like, here's one. It's very granular. It's very, she's doing textualism. This is textualism. Textualism album. In the debate between airing public grievances and dirty laundry versus being diplomatic, we know which side Lily Allen came down. And we're here for it. The other thing, too, it has caused me to go back and look at all of their sort of public stuff that's on the internet, like their videos. Like, what an absolute jerk he was when she did the Olivier Award, she was nominated for an Olivier Award for this play that is, you know, what eventually starts off this album, West End Girl, he's such a dick.

Like, he cannot be happy for his wife's professional success, like such a dick. Anyway, so I love this. I hope the video for P. Palace will be a parody of their architectural digest tour of their Brooklyn Brownstone, where she's like, this is what I thought was a dojo, but it actually turned out to be the place where he cheated on me like a million times. times. I was also going to mention the lily album. But in that kind of regular detail. I think we've covered the topic. I will just mention two more things, which is I started. George Packer has a new book called The Emergency, which is a novel. And Michelle Goldberg actually features it in a recent column. And it's great. I will report back when I've read more of it. And then actually, brand new, Beck Ingber and Jessica Tebowdo have a piece in Just Security that was just released, I think, on Friday, that they think makes really crystal.

clear that as of November 3rd under a statute called the War Powers Act, the administration's use of force against the suspected drug cartels, which we have been talking about, including on today's episode, will be categorically illegal, no question. The only question is, is Congress going to do anything about it? And last, we had a terrible storm in New York that, you know, felt like a little bit like the after effects maybe of Melissa. Melissa. Yeah. In the city, in the streets of New York, I mean, a couple people died, like just a really shocking amount of water. And in my Brooklyn neighborhood, there were so many random New Yorkers, like getting their shoes and pants soaking wet, like digging with their hands or sticks leaves out of the drains

in various parts of the city and keeping, I think, the streets from even worse flooding. So, anyway, thanks for. So there will be a cholera epidemic in two weeks. Fellow citizens, maybe. Maybe that is the cause. But the basements were spared. All right. We also have some notices of stricties in the wild. So I was recently in Berkeley, California, for a former law student's investiture as a judge. And I ran into some strict. I know it was so nice. I'm very proud of her. And I ran into some stricties who are big fans of the shows. I wanted to shout out Kristen, Kristen slash Kiki and Anya, who are longtime listeners, but first time callers, at least to me. And we should also thank Maeve in Cambridge for writing in and telling us all of the things that she learned from the show that she's now applying in a class on the Supreme Court. So some housekeeping before we go, once again, CrookedCon, D.C. Stricties, have you gotten your CrookedCon tickets yet? This Friday, November 7th, we will be closing out the day with a live pod at the Ronald Reagan Center. Perfect place to discuss

tariffs. Head to crookedcon.com to get tickets before they are gone. And if you can't catch us there, Good news. We are heading to the West Coast for the first time ever. So you can join us at the Herbs Theater in San Francisco on March 6th, then at the Palace Theater in Los Angeles on March 7th. You can get your seats now at crooked.com slash events. 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 Seglan and Charlotte Landis, music by Eddie Cooper, production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt O'Grote is our head of production, and thanks to our digital team, Ben Heathcote, Joe Matoski, and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to strict scrutiny on YouTube 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.