Strict Scrutiny - We Need To Talk About Trump’s Maritime Murders

Episode Date: December 8, 2025

Kate, Melissa, and Leah are joined by Professor Rebecca Ingber of Cardozo Law to break down the blatant illegality of the administration’s murders of alleged “narcoterrorists” in the waters off South America. Then they dive into last week’s oral arguments, which featured cases involving “crisis pregnancy centers,” asylum claims, and whether internet providers are responsible for their users’ copyright violations.Favorite things:Kate: This wild deposition; Disappeared to a Foreign Prison, Sarah Stillman (New Yorker), Olivia Dean, Sabrina Carpenter’s White House slapdownLeah: Dunking on this nonsensical op-ed; Republican Anger Erupts at Johnson as Party Frets About Future, Annie Karni (NYT); Hands Off ChicagoMelissa: WaySoft Cashmere Beanie; Ziwe interviews Eric Adams; Prince Harry on Colbert; Troublemaker; The Fierce, Unruly Life of Jessica Mitford, Carla Kaplan; Victoria (Netflix) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. It's the holidays, which isn't exactly a stress-free time, but it is a time to start some new traditions, good ones. Therapy can give you the space to create new meaningful traditions, providing clarity amid the holiday chaos. And BetterHelp is a great place to go to find quality therapists. BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the United States. BetterHelp also does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. You just fill out a short Q&A to identify your needs and preferences, and they leverage their more than a decade of matching experiences and industry-leading match fulfillment rate to find you the right therapist. They

typically get it right the first time, but if you aren't 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 it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. This December started a new tradition by taking care of you. Our listeners get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash strict. That's betterhelp.com slash strict. Mr. Chief Justice, please support. It's an old joke. When I argue, man, targets 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. Hello and welcome back to strict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Leah Littman. I'm Melissa Murray. And I'm Kate Shaw. And we're halfway through the court's December sitting. So we've got some argument recaps for you. But we're going to start with some legal news. So news, then recaps, and we will end with some court culture. We are not going to cover last Thursday's outrageous Supreme Court shadow docket order. green lighting Texas's racially gerrymandered maps. We couldn't wait until Monday to ragecast that one. So we dropped an emergency episode last week. It's in your feed if you haven't

had a chance to listen just yet. Instead, we are going to start with another enormously important story. As you may know, listeners, Pete Hegseth, although we are now increasingly referring to the Secretary of War as Hague Seth, because he seems to have no idea how things work at the Hague. And we are going to be covering Hague Seth's murder strikes. And the story, of course, involves the increasingly urgent set of questions that have been raised by the administration's bombing campaign against boats in the Caribbean and now the Pacific. And we have discussed this issue before. But now we have new reporting that raises new legal questions about one specific event and underscores the serious legal questions that surround all of these boat strikes. And to help us break it down for you, we brought in an expert.

So we are joined by returning guest and friend of the show, Rebecca Ingber. Beck is a law professor at Cardozo Law School, a former State Department lawyer, and a real expert on all things international law and the law of war. Beck, welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me on. So, Beth, just to start us off, can you remind us of what we know about this bombing campaign and the legal questions that it raises before we plunge into this kind of latest round of Washington Post reporting about the September 2nd strikes? Yeah, so since September of this year, the Trump administration has been engaged in a campaign. of what are essentially summary executions of suspected drug traffickers at sea, this started in the Caribbean Sea and then spread beyond to the Pacific as well. And the administration announced

that the first strike on September 2nd killed 11 people on board that vessel. And at the time and many times since, the president said he was going to keep going. And in fact, he and members of his cabinet had joked that no one is going to want to go fishing anymore. So since that time, there have been, and I looked up the latest count before getting on the show, 87 people killed in 22 strikes. And you might wonder, what's the legal authority for all this? Can the president just kill people? He suspects of crimes at will. And if so, then what would be the point of our entire criminal justice system? And we can get into this in much greater detail. But the very brief answer is that this entire killing campaign is not only just unauthorized. Some people have

talked about it as unauthorized as if a congressional authorizes. to use military force would somehow solve all the issues. But it's actually quite specifically murder. So that's the state of play with basically all of the strikes. And then we got new reporting. Originally in the Washington Post, now matched elsewhere. And the new reporting suggests that during a September attack on a fishing boat, the initial strike did not kill everyone on board, but instead left two survivors in the water. And then a second strike killed the two individuals who survived the first strike. Subsequent reporting has suggested

these individuals were waving their hands. There was also apparently like a 40-minute gap between the first and second strike when they are deciding about what to do. Beck, what new legal questions does this new reporting raise? Yeah, these are really horrifying facts when you lay them out, aren't they?

Yeah. So this second strike that has been reported and this is the strike on the survivors clinging to the debris on that first boat after it had been blown up, This has been breaking through to the public and on the hill in a way that the rest of the killing spree somehow was not. And given that I just said the entire campaign is murder, you might wonder, well, okay, well, what's different about the second strike? Can you have anything worse than murder?

And so there's a risk that this focus, I think, on the second strike clouds the illegality of the rest of the strikes generally in the minds of the public. But one reason that it's breaking through, I think, is that even if, even if you accept every single one of the manufactured facts and legal characterizations for these killings, And to do that, you have to accept that the transporting of drugs is an armed attack in the United States. You have to assume that there are a bunch of organized armed groups out there that the administration won't even name, who are the equivalent of state military forces engaged in an armed conflict with the United States that we somehow didn't know about until now. And you'd have to accept that the men on these boats are somehow themselves actual fighters in those groups, either akin to combatants or directly participating in hostility somehow by transporting the drugs. Now, all of that is false and twisting beyond recognition, the laws governing the use of force and hostilities, but even if you assume all that, you still can't shoot them when they are what we call order to combat, which means they're incapacitated in some way. And sometimes it can be complicated to determine if someone is incapacitated, but shipwreck is actually a paradigmatic example. So if we are in an armed conflict, as the president claims, then this would be a classic war crime. It's not. It's murder because we're not in an armed conflict. But one reason that might

it might be breaking through is because it is so recognizably wrong. You know, we're not used to having to find language to talk about the president going on a killing spree, but the law of armed conflict, the military trains on this. These are classic examples. These could have been PowerPoints in an ops law course. And I think it's also built into the public subconscious. Beck, can we talk a little bit about what the actual law does say? Because this isn't just magical thinking. There is actual law on this issue. There is the uniform code of military justice, for example, which applies to individuals who are in the armed forces. What does it have to say about the prospect of military personnel following illegal order? So if this is, in fact, illegal and it

was ordered by the Secretary of War or someone who is an underling to him, what do enlisted people have an obligation to do under the UCMJ? So under the U.S. law governing the armed forces, soldiers have to. They must obey lawful orders, and they can be punished for disobeying lawful orders. But lawful is an important caveat there. And in fact, soldiers have a duty to disobey on lawful orders. And of course, they can be held accountable for crimes. They can be held accountable for war crimes. They can be held accountable for murder. I think I saw a video about that. Yeah. And it's not a defense to say, as I think we're all more than aware, having seen, you know, just one movie, that it's not a defense to say, I was just following orders.

So if it sounds like this can put soldiers in a pretty tough position, when they're given orders, questionable, I think that's right. And I think one of the horrors of all of this is the position that the administration has been putting soldiers and sailors in. And it's presumably for this exact reason that the rules for prosecuting soldiers for following unlawful orders, and this is U.S. domestic rules as well as international law, they tend to clarify that this applies to clearly unlawful orders or manifestly unlawful orders. Now, an order to, for example, give no quarter, an order to say that there shall be no survivors, that's an example of a manifestly unlawful order, and so too is an order to fire on the shipwrecked. And in fact, it is so textbook an

example that it's actually used in the DoD Law of War Manual as its example for a clearly illegal order. And for those who are interested in a deeper dive on this, I highly recommend an excellent explainer that happens to be on just security on this precise issue by my good friends, Tess Bridgman, Ryan Goodman, and Michael Schmidt. So I could go on about all of the horrors about this, but I just want to kind of acknowledge a few. One is that, that after reporting about the survivors, you know, being bombed and murdered, Secretary Heggseth retweeted a Turning Points USA spokesperson and indicated, your wish is our command, Andrew, that's a spokesperson, just sunk another narco boat,

as if they are doing these kind of like murders on demand. There's also been reporting that maybe Hegseth suggested the final call was made by another military officer. So he's like foisting blame on another officer. At the same time, he is posting images of Franklin the turtle murdering people. Justice for Franklin. He did not deserve this. Yeah, there's an element of, you know, I've got your back. And yet I've never heard of the guy with respect to people who are serving.

Like I'm a big tough man, but also it's all his fault. Exactly. In terms of additional developments, so the post initially broke the story, that reporting has been matched elsewhere. And last week, senators were both briefed and shown video of the strike or strikes. And the video evidently showed that after smoke from this original strike cleared, it revealed that there were two survivors in the water. They were clinging to wreckage, as the Times reporting just Friday suggested they were waving for help. And then the follow-up strike killed them. So, you know, some of these lawmakers were clearly deeply shaken by what they saw.

It led several senators, including at least one GOP senator, to actually call for public release. of the video. So that I think has not in any way, like, tamped down congressional interest in continuing to pursue this. But not every senator had the same reaction. Others like Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who was inexplicably engaging in what seemed to be Gen Z cosplay by wearing a quarter zip, he emerged to claim that the videos didn't capture anything illegal, but rather the conduct that was being targeted was quote unquote highly lawful and lethal. He's also clearly trying to test out some kind of legal justification for these strikes. He said the video showed two survivors trying to flip a boat that he said was, quote, loaded with drugs bound for the

United States. Question about all of this back. You have these two various versions on both sides of the aisle. What is it that Congress can do? What Congress should do? And what are the available avenues of accountability here? So Congress has a lot of control over the use of force over decisions to use force. And it has a lot of tools at its disposal if it is ready to start flexing its muscles, which sadly have been, I think, atrophying. I mean, it can hold hearings. It can subpoena documents. It can subpoena officials for interviews. It can pass legislation prohibiting force, which it also doesn't need to do because it's only lawful if it is authorized force in the first place. But nevertheless, it could set up a commission to

investigate crimes. They could even withhold money. And of course, They can impeach the Secretary of Defense. They could impeach the president. And individual members can keep using their platforms to keep talking about this. And some of them have started to do. And so I think that while there's a risk that this second strike obscures the illegality of the campaign as a whole, I think it's also an opportunity to start laying bare for the public, the absurdity of the administration's legal claims here,

that transporting drugs is somehow hostilities against the United States. And so, you know, in a way, drilling down. into it and actually showing people demonstrating what is out there, getting that video out there if they are able to do so is going to only further highlight the gross illegality of the entire campaign. And, you know, if they can get the video out, I, you know, I'm reminded of the political sea shift following the publication of photographs of American soldiers torturing prisoners in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison back in the early war on terror years. This, of course, states me a bit. And there, as here, the specific criminal acts that were taken by those soldiers weren't necessarily part of the approved official policy under the Bush administration's torture program. But they did grow out of quite clearly that permissive atmosphere where abusive detainees was being justified. And so, and in that case, those individuals were court-martialed. And perhaps more importantly, I think it fueled a political uproar that may well have spelled the beginning of the end for the administration's

torture program. All right. Well, I guess we can hope that some kind of similar public reckoning is at least beginning to be set in motion by these revelations. Beck Ingber, always great to have you with us. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you so much for having me. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Earth Justice. If you listen to our show, you probably know this already, but Earth Justice is a powerful legal force protecting the environment from Trump.

Earth Justice sued Trump 45 over 200 times, winning more than 80% of cases that had a final decision. and they're raising legal challenges to Trump 47 at an even more breakneck pace. Earth justices lawsuits are scaling up to match the moment in the scale of threats, more attorneys, more cases, more public landfights, and more climate enforcement. They're scaling up to protect our public lands and our climate. They represent clients free of charge so that everyone from communities, tribes, and conservation groups gets top-tier legal representation, even if they lack resources.

They have defended countless acres of the Arctic from fossil fuel projects and will continue to do so. And this work, their work, is important for all of us. Our climate can't afford massive new fossil fuel infrastructure. The consequences affect every one of us. Think about the wild places we love, species hovering at the edge of extinction, our climate. What we protect now will define what future generations inherit. And that's where you come in. Earth justice lawsuits are entirely donor funded, so they rely on people like us to support their work. We invite our listeners to help Earth justice take on the fights ahead. All gifts are tax deductible. and donations made through December 31st will be matched up to $25,000. Donate to Earth Justice to support their lawsuits and protect our planet. Every gift through December 31st will be matched to double your impact. Earthjustice.org slash strict. One more piece of news before we dive into those recaps. Last week, there was reporting that Pamela Joe Bondi's DOJ was making preparations to seek a

re-indictment of New York Attorney General Tish James, evidently by trying to bring in an assistant U.S. attorney from another district. This district apparently was Missouri. Well, guess what? The Show Me State showed her. MS. Now reported on Thursday that the grand jury refused to indict. This is both great news on its own. But if the administration keeps to, trying and manages to get an indictment, it will provide additional support for Tish James's already strong case that this is really a malicious and vindictive prosecution. So interesting turn of events, as it were, a bench slap, as it were, to Pamela Joe. So let's move on to argument recaps. The first case we're going to recap is First Choice versus Plattkin. This is the case

we previewed with New Jersey Attorney General Matt Plotkin. Okay, I'm going to sort of sound conspiratorial for a minute, but weirdly, I have to ask you guys something. The tin hats were right, we know. At least on this little point, and who knows, maybe on all of it. But basically, I could not get the document that is referred to as a day call on the court's website to load before the argument. So I actually didn't know who would be arguing. Usually, like a day or two before, you see exactly who's arguing in what position for what case. So I actually didn't know who'd be doing the first choice argument. And as it turned out, up first for first choice was one Aaron Hawley, who we have mentioned before, as the attorney who led the challenge to Miffa Pristone was a key member of the Dobbs team and is allegedly on the Trump administration shortlists for an appellate judgeship. So she argued for first choice. And we actually got a dispatch from inside the courtroom from Mark Walsh, who is the Supreme Court correspondent for the ABA. And he let us know that one senator, Josh Hawley, who is married to first choice's attorney Aaron Hawley, was also.

in the house. Mark shared with us. Did he run there from Capitol Hill? I didn't get any intel about his mode of transportation. But it's not far. So very possible. It could have jogged over. Probably could sprint. I could have sprinted. Wouldn't even necessarily have broken a sweat. But however he got there, he was in the courtroom. He stayed for the entire argument, which is pretty long. And interestingly, also, in addition to the Hollies in the courtroom for bar admissions, that is people who are sworn into the Supreme Court bar, typically before the oral arguments, was a group of trans lawyers who were part of the national trans. Bar Association. The group announced this admission ceremony on its website, noting that swearing in a new cohort of trans attorneys is a testament to the community's, quote, unwavering, presence and resilience. So it sounds like a great ceremony and really glad that Mark brought it to our attention. I love resisting in any way possible. Yes. And making John Roberts say a group of attorneys from the trans bar association, which John Roberts would have had to say to call them up, is honestly an act of resistance. Can you imagine if Sam Alito was saying it? He had that Arthur the Ardvar Fisk.

at the side just like clenched. That'd be even better. All right, let's break down this argument. As we discussed with Attorney General Placken, this is a case about a procedural question. When can the recipient of a state subpoena go to federal court to raise a First Amendment objection to that subpoena?

Recall that First Choice received a subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General's office and the Attorney General says that is because the office was engaging in routine enforcement of the state's consumer protection laws. First Choice clearly thinks that that's not the reason. Instead, they argue that the Attorney General is hostile to the fact that First Choice is a crisis pregnancy center, which is a pro-life organization that, among other things, seeks to dissuade women from seeking abortions. As we also noted in our conversation with General Platkin, the case is indirectly about access to reproductive care. But as we'll discuss, it wasn't really on the table until Justice Barrett raised the prospect of reproductive care, quite late in the argument. Although Aaron Hawley, in her remarks, did refer to pregnancy centers and suggest that the Attorney General had, quote, assembled a strike force against them, end quote.

I wonder if it was an elite legal strike force. Release the Cracken. Sidney Powell. That was, whoof, that was quite the poll. Only five years ago, folks. I know, I know. If we characterize this case as a procedural case, It's also on some level about abortion. Holly mostly wanted to characterize this as a major civil rights case about nonprofit donor privacy akin to cases such as NAACP versus Patterson, an important Supreme Court case that held that the NACP could not be compelled to release its donor lists in Alabama in the 1950s. Yes, the crisis pregnancy centers are likening themselves today to the NACP in the 1950s.

This is Aaron Hawley's contribution to critical race theory. Holly took a very broad position on how her client should be able to get into federal court to make its First Amendment argument about donor privacy. The lower courts have said, of course, you can raise First Amendment arguments, but right now all you have is a subpoena, which New Jersey represents, isn't even self-executing without additional state court action. So for now, you have to await further state court developments before you can go to federal court.

First Choice has two arguments for why they should be in federal court now, now, now. So the first one is that there is a credible threat of enforcement. And the second is that the subpoena itself violates the First Amendment and in particular the First Amendment right to associate because a reasonable donor would be chilled in, you know, giving and associating with the organization by the existence of a subpoena like this without any further action necessary. So there is an important question of New Jersey state law here. It's kind of an antecedent question. And that is whether the subpoena is self-executing. So despite New Jersey's representations about its own subpoenas, Holly kind of resisted that, including by repeatedly invoking the Latin meaning of subpoena as if that, like, somehow resolved the question. It's Latin folks.

Yeah, that means it's important. But despite my finding that pretty unconvincing, at least a couple of the justices seem to be kind of rearing to but actually this question of obviously state law. So here is one Neil Gorsuch on this. I don't know how to read that other than it's pretty self-executing to me, counsel. This is the new face of federalism. Blue states don't even know their own laws. And the attorney arguing for New Jersey, Cindy Beyer, conceded that if these subpoenas are, in fact, self-executing, then first choice can immediately go to federal court to challenge the subpoena. So if this court, in its infinite wisdom, decides that these are self-executing subpoenas, first choice, would win. But other justices like Justice Barrett seem to accept that these subpoenas are not

self-executing. Do you find that so demure and modest of her to like at least allow that a blue state can decide what his own damn laws mean? So mindful. Yeah. Well, again, do not be fooled. She will invalidate them, right? She does this. Based on their own understanding of their laws. This is how she lures you in, Kate. She lures you in with a reasonable prospect. Even the federal government here. Even the federal government here was like, no, Neil, this is. is not up to you. Jersey says they're self-executing. We should treat them that way. But to your point, Melissa, like, yeah, Amy may find another way to side with first choice. She's definitely going to find another way to side with first choice. There are billions of possibilities for

first choice as we will unveil. Yeah. So there weren't a lot of questions for Holly, which a little unclear how to read that. You know, often, at least sometimes that's because a side is doing well. And the justices did seem sympathetic, but I also got the feeling they were a little distracted, maybe totally consumed with Texas redistricting and maybe the National Guard case. But the questions or emotional support billionaires. Who is to say? Who is to say? The questions there were for Holly were pretty friendly. So Justice Kagan asked, how would you prefer to win type question? Justice She knows her call. Right, exactly.

We got a win. How would you like us to do that? Yeah. Justice Jackson was a little mixed. Justice Sotomayor seemed more skeptical. The federal government also argued here, of course, on the side of first choice. And it at least had the decency to note that there was some tension between first choice's chill theory and some of the court's standing jurisprudence, like Clapper, for example. And of course, the SB8 case, Whole Women's Health v. Jackson.

So it asked the court to side with first choice under the threat of enforcement theory. And arguing for New Jersey, as Melissa already mentioned, was Sundeefe Eyre, who I thought was really good in a way that was both understated and pointed. And it came out in a couple of places. So one, I thought, I'm sorry to harp on this, but I was so enraged by Gorsuch on this self-executing point. He had, I thought, a nice response to Gorsuch, contemplating, declaring himself the ultimate authority on New Jersey state law as well as everything else. So let's play that clip here. I will say that if, again, the question that this court has is about the meaning of state law, I think there are entirely appropriate ways to resolve those questions, for example, by remanding the case to the Third Circuit with instructions to certify the question to the New Jersey Supreme Court, as is consistent with typical practice. And the question is shorter, Iyer, sir, you are no Bruce Springsteen.

The stone pony would never accept you anyway. Iyer also made very deft use of Lyons and Clapper. These are two awful decisions in which the court denied standing to plaintiffs. It was not sympathetic to. Lyons is a case in which the court denied standing to an individual challenging the Los Angeles Police Department's policy of putting suspects in chokeholds. And the logic of the case was that even though Mr. Lyons, had been put in a chokehold already by the L.A. Police Department because he wasn't able to show

that he was going to be put in a chokehold again in the future imminently, he had no standing. And Clapper is a case where the court denied standing to lawyers and NGOs representing Guantanamo detainees because they had not established that it was sufficiently likely that the government would listen in on their conversations. So here's an exchange between Iyer and Justice Gorsuch talking about the prospect of donor declarations. Really? I mean, we're going to now pick over the tense of the verb that they chose. I mean, they're saying if we'd known that this was going to happen, we wouldn't have given. Perforce, if it's going to be disclosed, we won't give.

I mean, doesn't that just follow night from day? We don't think so for a couple of reasons. First, this court's decision in Lyons makes perfectly clear that a person, backward-facing allegation of harm. I understand that. So Iyer also, I thought made very clever use of the Whole Woman's Health decision, so let's play that clip here. For one thing, this court has always made clear that you don't bend the rules of Article

3 standing based on potential fears of preclusion. And in cases like Whole Women's Health, for instance, this court noted that there may not always be available a federal forum for a federal constitutional claim, challenging. So you're not saying they wouldn't be procured. And while we're going through, you know, the greatest hits of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson also referenced the ICE case, the immigration and customs enforcement case, the one that bless the Kavanaugh stops, Zabazquez-Prodomo, here. Isn't it interesting that we don't have credible threat in other areas?

I mean, I'm thinking about, for example, Perdomo and, you know, the situation, I'm looking for it in my notes, in which people are saying we're fearing that we're going to have these adverse interactions with ICE. We have evidence of this happening. And the court seems to say not enough. We don't employ some sort of a credible threat analysis in that context. Now, as we said, Holly didn't say much about pregnancy and nothing about abortion, mostly referring to first choice as just a nonprofit. But Justice Barrett definitely did in an exchange with Iyer that was a little bit spicy. I mean, you had this project strike on the pregnancy centers. You know, the Attorney General had essentially, you know, what your friends on the other side would say declared war on pregnancy

centers. So if it is true that the non-self-executing subpoena is enough if it's in the context of other government statements, why wouldn't that be satisfied here? My friends on the other side don't let the actual factual allegations get in the way of telling a story about hostility here. but I think that story is just not borne out by the record evidence that's been offered here. And Iyer did go on to say if there were a record of state hostility and targeting that might be enough to get into federal court, but here there just isn't that kind of record. But as in the Texas redistricting case, facts, we hardly knew ye. Well, it's not just the absence of facts.

It's that she, like this is sort of the Fox media orbit in which they're all existing. where anything that has to do with the Crisis Pregnancy Center is obviously going to be the target of some Blue State Sinister Plot. Like the NWACP and it's memberless in Alabama in the 1950s. I found that so insane.

I think it's the first sentence of Holly's brief. It's like it is all over the brief. It was the first sentence of her opening argument when she talked about the end of ACP. These right-leaning organizations have done this. You know, this was Americans for Prosperity versus Banda. Right?

Like they also, you know, invoked NACP cases from the 1950s when they were arguing you cannot compel us to release information to the state. I just want to point out that NWACP members in the 1950s were in danger of literally being lynched if their identities were known. Like these folks are just basically giving money to crisis pregnancy centers. Yeah. Yeah.

But you know, when you think about it, like there's no discrimination against transgender people today or ever, which is why the court can uphold, not by law, bans on gender affirming care, but there is massive discrimination against crisis pregnancy centers. Yeah. So, and it's not just Barrett who seemed receptive to this account. Roberts kind of seemed sympathetic

to this account of sort of targeting pregnancy centers, as Holly called them, in this clip. Counsel, you referred to the fact that you've addressed these subpoenas to car dealerships and things like, your friends on the other side don't represent a car dealership. This is not a car dealership, madam, right? This is something very, very different.

Very different. Justice Kavanaugh also asked about a brief he described as the brief of the ACLU citing with first choice. This was a bit of a misstatement. It was actually the brief from fire. That is the foundation for individual rights and expression. But the ACLU was on it, and it just seemed like a very kind of cynical move to suggest that there was some sort of broad cross-ideological consensus that first choice was being targeted and should win. Yeah. I did read the transcript to suggest that the justices are going to rule for the crisis pregnancy center, quite possibly likely, with some Democratic appointees joining them.

And it really made me wonder whether some of the justices, including specifically the Democratic appointees, might be influenced by, you know, the larger context in which this case is being decided, which includes very abusive targeting investigations of, for example, media matters by the Texas Attorney General and potentially abusive investigations by the Trump administration as well. And, you know, they wonder, like, well, should those entities be able to go to federal court immediately? And I don't think those concerns mean they have to rule for the petitioners, crisis pregnancy centers here in order to protect the interests of targets of investigations that are truly pretextual and abusive and baseless. But I did wonder if that was influencing their perspective. Yeah. I mean, is this an appeasement strategy. I mean, I don't mean appeasement in that sense, but like if the idea is to put on the book's law that would help those who are truly the targets of investigations that are pretextual and abusive, why wouldn't it you entertain the prospect that maybe your colleagues would just come up with a different line of reasoning to avoid all of that precedent when it truly was some blue state group. Yeah, this is, yeah, I mean, but there was, there's a lot of the kind of Vulo versus NRA energy, right? So that's the case in which the Democratic appointees all join the Republican colleagues. So DeMeyer even wrote the opinion, right, finding that the NRA was targeted by

blue state officials right here in New York. And that, there too, the ACLU was on the side of the NRA as was, you know, on the side of first choice. In this case, So, yeah, I think if we could be assured that the justices will neutrally and fairly treat future targets, like this is a strategy that makes a lot of sense. But obviously, that's – it's like being a question. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, yeah. Okay. I mean, one other one other observation that is, I think, similar to the one that Leah was just offering, but like a slightly different cut, is just kind of how thoroughly the politicization of law under the Trump administration has poisoned all of our assumptions about the enforcement of the law. Right. Like so just even the kind of discussion that we're having. suggest that the Democratic appointees might be nervous about red state targeting of unpopular left-leaning causes. And that is just like the world we live in. This is not-

Donald Trump literally announced that in an executive order. Right? Like he is going to be targeting like left-leaning NGOs and whatnot. Yeah. And that is just where we are. And so, yeah, maybe it would be better for nonprofits to be able to get to federal court to raise First Amendment challenges if law enforcement is going to proceed that way, like at the state as well as the federal level. strict scrutiny is brought to you by Zbiotics pre-alcohol. I have to tell you about this game-changing product I use before a night out with drinks. It's called pre-alcohol. From holiday parties to festive toast by the fire, the holidays are full of those moments where you're going to be

sharing a drink with friends and family. So whether you're celebrating a year's end wind or just relaxing after a busy day being ready for the next morning still matters. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. And here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. And it's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. When I was at CricketCon, I really

wanted to go out to celebrate the wonderful event. And there was an after-party with amazing drinks. And Melissa and I weasled our way up to Tommy, who was standing close to the bar so we could get some. And then before we raised our glasses, toasted and celebrated, we all had our zbiotics. No joke, we actually took our zbiotics pre-alcohols kind of like a shot. So we knew we could enjoy the evening and the day after. And I did. I had my drinks, had a great time. And then the next day, I was up super early to go pastry hunting, which is what I always do when I travel. Make the most of every toast this holiday season. Just don't forget to bring pre-alcohol along for the ride.

Go to zbiotics.com slash strict to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use strict at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15% off. We have some other recaps to get into. We will go shorter on some of these. The next case that we want to talk about is called Cox Communications versus Sony. This case is the latest to ask the justices to grapple with what sorts of upstream liability

might attach to the misconduct of internet users. So earlier cases on related questions have involved the liability of platforms like Twitter and Google for terrorist attacks. At issue here is a jury award against an internet service provider for user copyright infringement. The petitioner in this case, Cox Communications, is among other things, one of the country's largest internet service providers. And the respondents, Sony and other record labels and publishers, say that Cox users infringe their copyrights by doing things like file sharing, and that Cox is secondarily and vicariously libel for that copyright infringement. A jury cited with Sony awarding over $1 billion in damages, an award that was affirmed in part by the Fourth Circuit, though the Fourth Circuit did order a new trial on the question of damages. Cox says that letting the Fourth Circuit opinion stand would fundamentally change ISP's relationships to its users, requiring them to engage in massive evictions of alleged infringers and possibly result in service being pulled from entire universities, towns, and communities.

Sony says that Cox was told again and again about all of this copyright infringement, and yet the company took no action in response. So the case has a complicated procedural history, as Melissa was just alluding to. It also involves a number of intersecting bodies of law. So there's tort doctrine, including contributory and accessory liability, their substantive copyright law. You have the federal statute, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. folks who know both platform regulation and copyright law seemed pretty unimpressed with the performances in this case. And by that I mean both the justices and to a degree the attorneys in the case who are Supreme Court practitioners, but not really experts in either kind of platform governance or copyright. Right. So maybe the justices in this case, recognizing that they are not in the immortal words of Elena Kagan, the nine greatest experts on the internet, will try to go small in a similar way to their approach to kind of other cases on related topics like Twitter versus Tomna, like Gonzalez versus Google.

Yeah. It did seem as though they are likely to side with Cox and reverse. They seem troubled by the notion of this sort of broad imposition of life. here, in particular in the context of some of the consequences they were told would flow from letting the lower court opinions stand. You know, the idea that ISPs would be forced to cut off service to entire communities, universities, military bases in order to guard against the prospect of crushing liability like this. But they also seemed a little troubled by the just trust us attitude of both Joss Rosencrantz for Cox and Paul Clement for Sony. So it's not clear to me how they are going to get there. I think Brett Kavanaugh will like the way. Honestly, there was a lot, the invocation of like cutting off service to military bases was so obviously pandering to Brett Kavanaugh. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Be like, will you throw a temper tantrum for me too? Exactly. The court also heard oral argument in Yorius Oriana versus Pamela Joe Bondi. At issue in this case is the relationship of the federal appeals courts to the Board of Immigration Appeals. That is the agency tribunal that individual immigration judge's decisions get appealed to. And in this case, the question is about whether an individual who had requested asylum experienced persecution. Under federal law to obtain asylum, the non-citizen must establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. And the question here specifically is about how federal courts review a Board of Immigration Appeals determination that he said of undisputed facts does not rise to the level of persecution.

So the individual in this case, or actually an individual in his family, requested asylum on the basis that he and his family had been targeted by a hitman working for a drug lord in their home country of El Salvador. The immigration judge, and that ruling was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals or BIA, held that these events, which did occur, did not rise to the level of past persecution that would qualify these individuals for asylum. So federal immigration law structures judicial review differently for questions of law versus questions of fact. So the statutes require courts to defer on the BIA's findings of facts, but not on questions of law. So the question here is how a court should treat a determination that a set of undisputed facts doesn't rise to the level of persecution. Is that a legal determination that the federal court gets to review exercising its own independent judgment? Or is it a factual determination which requires courts to give significant deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals?

And in this case, the court seemed inclined to think that this kind of determination just had too much kind of factiness in it too much factual content for the federal courts to be second-guessing administrative judges determinations, which I have to say, yeah, I know. It's a little different after the court's decision, which we talked about in our emergency episode, to entirely second-guess the lower court's determination in the Texas redistricting case. It does feel to me like there's this like chasm opening between the rules. and the law sort of mattering in some places, like they will take seriously this question of what kind of review, yes. But it's like, so there's all these different ways that there is this chasm. So like between the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal courts, like the lower federal courts are still acting like the law and the Constitution matter. Supreme Court, not so much. And even on the Supreme Court across different categories of cases. So we're just going to jettison all of it if we want to give the Republicans a few extra seats in the House of Representatives.

And we're going to take very seriously these. questions about the exact relationship between the federal courts and an administrative agency on some questions versus other questions in a case like this. It is pretty hard to keep the faith, you guys. I can think of a unifying principle. Tell us. So when we're trying to deport people of color and the BIA said we should do it, we defer to their fact finding. When we want to disenfranchise people of color and the lower federal court said we can't do that, we don't defer to their fact finding. That's called colorblind

constitutionalism, right? Yeah. It all makes sense now. You see it. I see it. Yeah. Yeah. But back to this particular oral argument, you know, my read of the argument was similar to yours. It seemed like they're going to say this particular question at least, whether the facts give rise to a claim of persecution is subject

to substantial evidence review. Even though, as Justice Kagan, acknowledged, you, that is the government, quote, have some good arguments in this case, but honestly, none of them come from the text, end quote. Womp, womp, wamp. Okay.

The court also heard oral argument in Olivier v. Brandon. This is a case about a significant federal court's doctrine, sometimes called Pryzer Heck, which was set down in part in a case called Heck versus Humphrey. That case established the set of rules

for when you can raise certain kinds of challenges under Section 1983 rather than under habeas law. And this matters because it is much easier to proceed under Section 1983 than it is under habeas review. And the decision in Hec, which is a Scalia decision from 1994, makes clear that the court doesn't want Section 1983 to be used as an end run around limitations on habeas, which would invite what are essentially challenges to sentences using something that's not really supposed to be used for assessing challenges to sentences. So the petitioner here, Olivier, was arrested and fined for violating an ordinance

targeting protests outside a public amphitheater. He argues this limitation violates his religious freedom because he is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel. And so he filed this Section 1983 claim seeking an injunction against enforcement of the state law in the future. And the question is whether his prior conviction under the law precludes his Section 1983 suit because it is a challenge to a criminal process that belongs in Hageus. So his lawyer, Alison Ho, had to do a pretty delicate dance to try to represent her client and maintain that his claim was not barred by this heck decision while remaining appropriately deferential toward the great man himself because, as Melissa said, this was a Scalia opinion. So that was kind of a tightrope.

I will say, I am not sure I've ever heard Justice Thomas be friendlier to an advocate. I don't know if you felt the same way. So Ho is married to Judge Jim Ho, who we don't even talk about that much on this pod anymore because he has been so overtaken by some of his colleagues on the Fifth Circuit and some of the writings that they have issued. Just wait for birthright citizenship, the resuscitation of Jim Ho. Well, what else is he going to have to say about it? It's going to be at Scotis. No, but the logic of it.

And, like, he's going to get props, I think, for how people start thinking about it. That's entirely possible. In any event, I have no idea if she and Thomas know each other. I assume so because Judge Ho and Justice Thomas are very close. You sweet summer child. I just don't know. I don't make sure clerk for him. But he's not usually this friendly even toward his own former clerk.

when they are arguing there was one, you know, takeaway from this argument. All right. I'm going to let that drop. On the substance, this is a genuinely tricky case. The claim that Olivier is raising necessarily implicates the legality of his prior conviction, even if he is not technically trying to challenge or reopen it. And there will be other cases like Olivier's, where someone does remain under some sort of sentence of supervision. And so their claim really would seem to be more squarely barred.

by heck. A lot of the justices' questions in this case seem to circle around what the implications of ruling for Olivier would be for cases like that. Yeah. So my take on the argument was that a majority of justices understand intuitively that this particular challenge can't be barred and isn't barred. And a problem that they are running into is that Justice Scalia wrote some, in my view, pretty sloppy opinions in this area with way overly broad language. But, it seems like a majority of justices see some ways of limiting it and distinguishing the prior cases. Justice Alito might be a holdout, but who knows, he might say that at least this particular petitioner gets to challenge the prospective enforcement of a statute.

I actually thought they were more skeptical of him than I expected, given that he was a Christian plan of raising a religious liberty claim, even if that's not exactly what was before the court, because they are very cross-pressured, right? Like, they have to treat his gospel, everything that Justice Scalia wrote. Exactly. You can't question the great man. Right. But, you know, he wrote some stuff that I think might mean Olivier loses, and they don't want that either.

So I truly don't know which is their major preference and which is their minor preference. We will see how it shakes out. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Cook Unity. Okay. The holidays are here, which means you're probably doing a lot of cooking for a lot of people, for big occasions. but you still need those day-to-day meals too. And with all of the extra cooking you're doing, you might be looking for something of a break

without sacrificing delicious foods. So let Cook Unity chefs take healthy meal prep off your plate with festive yet nutritious dishes. Cook Unity is actually making festive holiday favorites available for a limited time, but only in select markets. So there's Maple Whip Sweet Potatoes and Candid Yam Cake. Yum.

Here's some of my recent favorites, including Art Smith's turkey chili with corn pudding. If you know Art Smith, you know he's full of joy and warmth, and he puts that into his cooking too. The meals are like comforting hugs, and the turkey chili with no exception. It's perfect for the season, especially now that it's getting cold here in the Midwest. All of Art's meals have flavor and joy and personality built in, and the ingredients are high quality and fresh.

I mean, how awesome is it knowing that Cook Unity's roster of all-star chefs includes Food Network Alums, James Beard Award winners, and acclaimed. restaurant tours who balance bold flavors and nutrition and small batch meals delivered fresh, not frozen. With Cook Unity, there's no cooking, no shopping, no thinking about how to get the nutrition and comfort meals you need every week because their meals are delivered fully cooked. You just heat them up in as little as five minutes. And there's a huge variety of options and fresh ingredients to choose from. You can choose from a rotating seasonal menu of over 300 meals. Or you can let their platform provide personalized recommendations like apple pie, bread,

You know I matched with that one. Menos are updated weekly, and new chefs are always joining the team, so meals will never be boring or repetitive. Taste comfort and craftsmanship in every bite from the award-winning chefs behind Cook Unity. Go to cookunity.com slash strict or enter code strict before checkout to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order by using code strict or going to cookunity.com slash strict. Let's move on to some court culture. First, we have a unanimous 11th Circuit opinion. This is now like a week and a half ago, but we recorded our Thanksgiving episode a bit early.

So we have some things to kind of catch you up on. This was an opinion authored by another noted liberal squish, Judge Pryor, upholding sanctions against Alina Haba and others. Pretty interesting. So in addition to that 11th Circuit opinion bench-slapping Alina Hobbes for frivolous lawsuits, we also got a third circuit opinion this time on Trump's efforts to install hacks as the temporary U.S. attorneys in various districts. And this one again involved Alina Haba, who had been appointed the interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey.

This opinion had a different rationale than the opinion bench-slapping Lindsay Halligan from the Fourth Circuit. Here, the court said that because Pamela Joe Bondi relied on other authority to appoint Haba, the appointment was unlawful. But nevertheless, the opinion strongly cast doubt on Halligan's appointment as well. And just a reminder that next week, going into all of this, it's going to be a big one at SCOTUS. We have lots of cases that are on the docket to be argued. And a lot of them relate to some of these opinions in that they are big. questions about the authority of the executive branch. In particular, about the future of the interaction between the executive branch and independent agencies and the administrative state.

Also, questions about the global economy are at stake in at least some of the cases tangentially. So we are flagging all of those because, again, what could go wrong? But we did get these glimmers of hope from the intermediate courts of appeal. In terms of the slaughter case that's going to be argued on Monday, if you're listening on Monday, it's like the arguments are too early in the day for drinking games, at least in most time zones. I do sort of feel like we should be coming up with slaughter argument drinking games. Right. So, okay, so here are my quick suggestion. What are you actually opening, Melissa?

Is it a seltzer? Is it something spicy here? It's a seltzer. All right. We are recording on a Friday afternoon. That would be fine if it was something stronger. Okay, so here are, if we were going to do a slaughtered drinking game, here are my ideas. One, we could just also do place over under bets, but like how many mentions of Scalia's dissent in Morrison are we likely to get?

How many mentions of the executive power, all of it, which they have like tried to redline into the Constitution, but is in fact not there, not an article two, not anywhere. Wonder about every derisive reference to bureaucrats, every tendentious comparison of Trump to FDR. those are if you adopted all of these you would honestly you'd be drunk you would be falling out of your chair in the liquor store bathroom by 10 30 in the morning yeah I think there are also going to be some references to Alexander Hamilton yeah for sure energy dispatch etc yeah the vigor of the supermanly presidency that is being held by the super old guy who falls asleep all the time and is being manipulated by some real psychopaths, but it's very unitary. So that's all how it works.

Some other court news, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the birthright citizenship case. So it will now decide whether the president's executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to some people born in the United States is legal. And a part of me thinks that Sam Alito is like. frantically preparing a list of people he thinks aren't actually American and should be deported, that he will include as an appendix to whatever he writes in the case. Did I just speak Jim Hoan to existence?

Yes, you did. Yeah, because when we started recording this episode, we did not yet have a grant in the birthright citizenship case. And because Leah monitors breaking news like a hawk during our recording sessions, we now have had a grant. I didn't even see it come across the transom, but there it is. I didn't mean to manifest that. Sorry. But you did that.

Yep. You know, another kind of piece of news that happened, the Chief Justice granted an administrative stay and another request for emergency relief brought by the Trump administration as against a lower court ruling. This is in a challenge to the limitations on what immigration judges are allowed to say publicly. So shadow docket season really seems to be heating up just in time for the holidays. Holidays. Just so I understand the nature of that case, clearly, the president who vowed to make the First Amendment great again and to allow people to express themselves freely and fully wants to crack down what immigration judges say publicly. Yes. This is not cancel culture or

censorship. This is some third thing. To be determined. Right, exactly. All right. Cool. All right. Since those are our least favorite things, let's turn to our real favorite things. Things that we did, saw, bought, or read in the last week that we really like and think that you might like to. So, Kate, why don't you get us started? All right. So this is, again, like a week or two old at this point. But I'm not sure how exactly these came into the public domain. But Chris Geidner posted a bunch of the transcripts from the depositions in the Chicago case challenging the use of force by CBP and other DHS officials, led right, my remember by Greg. Bovino. And the transcripts, I've just never read a deposition like this. Oh, yes, you read the Laura Loomer Arbys in her pants one. Okay, okay, there is no Arby's in, I this is okay, there's are hundreds of pages, and so I cannot guarantee there is no Arby's in the pants type. What a defamation of Arby's anywhere. But it was, if anything, substantively more insane. So, Bovino, the like sort of legendary Chicago civil rights lawyer, Locke Bowman, and this DOJ lawyer, um, it, Truly, somebody should just set it on the stage because it is that dramatic, a set of exchanges.

So that's all I'll say about that. That case, we should say, which we've now mentioned a bunch of times, was voluntarily dismissed. It had been pending on appeal in the Seventh Circuit. A couple of other things to mention. Sarah Stillman in The New Yorker has an incredibly difficult but really amazingly reported and horrifying piece about the third country removals, which we have talked about. My one critique of the piece is that there is not enough focus on the Supreme Court's culpability. in allowing this outrageous campaign of sending people to just unspeakable horrors in our name.

But she really did very difficult reporting to even get in touch with folks who kind of by design have been rendered almost unreachable. And many of these people who lived decades and raised families and held jobs in various parts of the United States have been sent to places that they have no relationship to, sometimes incarcerated. It's just like unbelievable horror show. So definitely recommend that. Later note, I have been listening to a lot of Olivia Dean. Maybe you guys knew Olivia Dean. I did not. She's amazing. And also, I guess, bridging those two, both music and, I don't know, immigration horrors, Sabrina Carpenter, whose politics I didn't really know delivering this just like furious slapped the administration when it tried to use one of her songs in a vile propaganda video depicting brutal ICE tactics really gave me a lot. of joy this week. Go Sabrina Carpenter. Didn't know she had politics. She has good politics. And I'm so happy. She's petty as fuck. Yeah. I really like so. So you think it's more of that than politics. It's more just like you took my song. No, I think it's both. It can be both. Do you remember that guy? What's that guy? Barry, what's his face? Yeah. Like she dated him and he cheated on her. She literally did a concert. He's Irish. So that's the backstory. He cheated on her. She did a concert where she had everyone dress up in the Union Jack. Like I was like, wow. That

That's some petty shit. Like, nothing Irish people love more than being reminded of the British Empire. Okay. My things are also probably in the Petty Register. So the dunks on Sarah Isger's New York Times op-ed in defense of the Supreme Court, I lived for those on Friday morning. Like the gist of this op-ed, which I don't think this is an exaggeration, is that the court's steady stream of decisions empowering the executive.

branch to be a dictator is actually a big master plan. If you squint enough and look closely enough to empower, wait for it. Wait for it. Congress. Real howler, got to hand it to her. You know, we do try to make this podcast lighthearted and inject some humor and levity into it. I just don't think I can come up with a funnier bit than that. Like, yes, the Supreme Court might be massively expanding executive power, but what if maybe they weren't? Yeah. Okay. So if it was all a ploy to make Congress great again. Right, exactly. Number two, seeing slash reading Republican women coming to the realization that the patriarchy is never going to be totally cool with them, enjoyed some of this. So here I'm talking about the reporting about Nancy Mace, Elise,

Elise Stefonic, and others being unhappy with Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. And I'm just going to read a quote from a New York Times story about this, quote, some of them, said privately that the speaker had failed to listen to them or engage in direct conversations on major political and policy issues, suggesting that doing so was a cultural challenge for Mr. Johnson, an evangelical Christian who has often voiced firm views about the distinct roles men and women should play in society, end quote. Ladies, it was in his name, his mama tried to tell you. Exactly. Exactly. So that's my number two. Number three,

I am wearing my hands-off Chicago T-shirt. You probably can't see it in the video, but I am wearing it. I was in Chicago for Thanksgiving. Absolutely loved it. You know, there were protests all over the holiday, which was very cold, you know, against ICE's presence in the city. A great way to spend the holiday. Also, in other Chicagoist news, this is unrelated. I scored a touchdown in Turkey Bowl, and it may or may not have involved me pushing over

a 13-year-old, but I still won. Okay. This is, I need to, I need to tell you, I need to tell you, so my son David takes the bus to middle school every day. And the one lesson that I have really imparted is, you know, you have to like really shove sometimes to get on the bus in New York City because it's crowded in the morning. And I'm like, you cannot step on anyone smaller than you. Like, that is the lesson.

You cannot do that. In my defense, it's unclear if I actually like cause this person to tip over, right? I did tag them and then they fell over. but, you know. All right. David also doesn't always heed me, so it's fine. Okay. I'm just going to note we are recording this on Friday.

Friday was the morning where the temperature in New York was unseasonably fucked up cold. 18 degrees when I got up this morning. And I typically don't wear a hat because I feel like hats mess up my hair, like it just like smushes it down. But my friend gave me this way soft cashmere beanie. was so fucking cold that I'm like, let me put this hat on. And I loved it because it was like big enough and oversized that it didn't actually smush my hair, but it kept me very warm. So I may be getting on the hat train. So there it is. But my other favorite things this week are something that you all can get into right now. So I am loving the mayor emeritus, outgoing

mayor, Eric Adams' lame duck interview with Zeeway. And this is absolutely, I don't know if it's performance art or what, but it's my favorite thing ever. She asks him a question about whether or not someone of his age should be out in the club. And his response is basically, let your haters be your waiters when you are seated at the club night of success. And I want someone for the holidays to gift me a lingua franca sweater that just says club night of success because that is where I am going to be in perpetuity for the rest of this administration. He also discusses being 64 years old and getting out of the shower and noting his glistening six packs, plural, so he has more than one of them. I don't know how that is physiologically possible, but respect, sir. It is absolutely hilarious.

And whoever did the editing on this clip, you, ma'am, are a top-tier editor. It's just excellent the way it ends. It's fantastic. Also on YouTube, Prince Harry on Colbert, A-plus content, loved it. And I am also very much enjoying the biography of Jessica Mitford. She is one of the famous Mittford sisters, the communist Jessica Mitford. It's called Troublemaker, the fierce, unruly life of Jessica Mitford by Christina Delane and Carla Kaplan, and it's fantastic. And again, because I'm an anglophile, I just got into all of the Victoria episode.

So it just dropped on Netflix. And this is a very good self for people who just cannot keep watching the crown over and over and over again, although I have been. So this is nice. I'm enjoying it. All right. Some housekeeping before we go. First from hysteria, holiday season is basically here, which means we are all one burnt appetizer away from calling in Ina Garten for help. Man, I wish I had her on speed dial.

That would be so helpful. But good news, Aaron and Alyssa actually did call her in. So they are talking with the Barefoot Contessa, no other, a host about everything, about her early days with her husband, her time in the White House, her secrets to hosting without spiraling. So new hysteria episode drops today. Subscribe so you never miss an episode. Have you followed Tom Hurd on Instagram? No. Tom Hurd is this amazing comedian.

And one of the things he does is he dresses up in a brown bob and a blue shirt as Ina Garten. and, like, has this, like, enormous cosmopolitan. He's like, hello, isn't that fabulous? Like, I called my friends Jeffrey and TJ, and the whole thing is, like, if you watch the barefoot contessa, it is supremely funny. So listen to hysteria and then go check out Tom Hurd on Instagram, and it'll be amazing. It's a good FYI. So one of the things, maybe the thing I am most excited about in the new year is we are heading

to the West Coast for the first time ever. So this is for you jurisprudence heads. This year, the courts aren't just shaping policy. They are throwing the Constitution into a blender and reshaping the entire future of the country. So we are bringing the full strict scrutiny treatment with us to California. The breakdowns, the historical context, the side eye, the feminist legal rage, the puns that might have some innuendo, all of it. So we are so excited. for years in Oakland, taught at Berkeley. Leah is, like, kind of home of her heart is really in California, if I'm not mistaken. She's teaching Irvine.

Yeah, but not for that long. But I just feel like her connections are, but I'm just saying I think of you as more deeply connected to California than just because of your time. Yes, no, that's totally fair. I think that is like your sole home. I'm going to bring the most special T-shirts to California. And she brings a lot everywhere, so get excited. So we will be on March 6th in San Francisco at the Herbst Theater.

On March 7th in Los Angeles at the Palace Theater, we are going to get into election law, executive power, reproductive rights, the case is keeping us up at night, and there are a lot. But, you know, we will do all of this in a fun way. So buy your tickets now because this West Coast jaunt is going to be so chaotic and so epic. You definitely, we are like, we are going across the country. I will be eating L.A. quality donuts. That sugar is unparalleled. Wow. So come for the legal analysis. Stay for the sugar-fueled roast of Wet Kavanaugh and Sam Alito.

You can grab your tickets right now at crooked.com for slash events before they sell out. Just going to say, I think this would make an amazing holiday gift for a strictie in your life. Like, be a hero. This is the way. This is the way. Just a tip. Strict scrutiny is a Crudy is a Cricket 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 Seglon and Charlotte Landis, music by Eddie Cooper, production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt O'Grote is our head of production team, Ben Heathcote, Joe Matoski, and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to Strictrudny 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.