Strict Scrutiny - Why is SCOTUS Hoarding Opinions?

Episode Date: June 22, 2026

Leah, Melissa, Kate, and special guest Elie Mystal of The Nation speculate about why the Court is hoarding opinions this late into bad decision season before diving deep on the ruling in United States v. Hemani, which features drugs, the Second Amendment, and Amy Coney Barrett’s iconic Ambien jar. Plus: a new summer cocktail makes its debut, and no holds are barred, especially when it comes to Trump’s flop makeover of the Reflecting Pool. This episode was recorded live at the Gramercy Theatre in New York City.Favorite things: Leah:Barack Obama’s speech at the opening of his presidential center,  Kate:Michelle Obama’s speech; Obama and Mamdani Show How It’s Done, Jamelle Bouie (NYT)  Melissa: Becoming (Netflix); her award-winning audiobook Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa’s book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah’s book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationals rhetoric is only building as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Those most caught in the crossfire are federal workers, specifically a multi-faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and their religious freedom promised in our Constitution. Our friends at Americans United for separation of church and state received a emails from multiple USDA employees. A handful of employees reached out, saying the proselytizing

Easter email sent by Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke L. Rollins, to more than 100,000 USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates a separation of church and state promised in the First Amendment. They are absolutely right. We've tried to explain to these guys before. You can overrule lemon and call it abandon all you want. The first sentence of the First Amendment still says no establishment of religion. The hits just keep on coming from this administration, and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism. If you want to help, head to AU.org slash crooked to learn more about their work and how you can get involved. Every weekday, NPR's best political reporters come to you on the NPR Politics Podcast to make sense

of the biggest news from Washington and beyond. They don't just tell you what happened. They explain how decisions made in Washington could affect you, from gas prices and affordability to elect and other issues shaping your community. Listen every afternoon to the NPR Politics Podcast. Mr. Chief Justice, please support. It's an old joke, but when I argue, men, argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. My court captured.

My rights shattered. My democracy still alive? Nix in five. Happy Juneteenth to all who celebrate. Special Juneteenth to all who do not celebrate. I'm looking at you, Pete, Sam, Clarence, Marco. J.D. Mark Wayne, no spaces. Okay, okay. I'm going to stop you there, Melissa, because we cannot name the entire

cabinet and the entire Supreme Court. We celebrate Juneteenth, and we are strict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We are your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw. I'm Melissa Murray. And I'm Leah Littman. And we are delighted to be here and so appreciative of the big parade you threw for us two days ago. We hear a million people showed up, so thanks. Really, we are so excited to be here in New York for another live show. It's going to be a great one. No thanks to the Supreme Court.

Listeners, audience members, we had to work to ring a show out of the pittance that the Supreme Court gave us last week. Yes, that's right, folks. We are literally a week away from July, and this court still has 17. cases that it has not yet issued. And these are not little cases. These are big cases. The birthright citizenship case. The TPS case, the independent agency's cases, the ban on trans athletes cases, absentee ballots are so much more. These folks are literally quiet quitting. And they had the nerve to quiet quit the week that we had a live show in New York. The absolute audacity.

of them. I am going to float a theory as the eternal optimist in our trio. Is it possible that the court held off on dropping the biggest and the worst decisions of the term to allow all of us to experience just a few more days of unfettered, nix-induced joy? I think it's possible. No, Kate. No, Kate. Not possible. Wrong answer, Kate. Just asking. As the non-optimist, I will float another theory. Maybe issuing consequential, terrible, bad decisions within a week of a White House cage match

and an unconditional surrender and humiliation on the world state at Versailles, of all places, would be just a little too much. I'm going to go with, they are trying to starve us of content. That's what they're doing. And that's just one way to silence your critics. But you know what? We will not be silenced. It would take a lot more than that to silence us.

So, even though the court has yet to fully let its freak flag fly, whether right side up or upside down, preferred, we still have a lot to talk about. We are going to cover the opinions we did get. We will also be joined by a very special guest and not just any special guest. This is a repeat player who we can always count on to help us liven things up, even when the court is doing its level best to give us no material to work with for this live show. All right. So after we do that, we are going to begin with some of the legal news from last week. But before we get started with all of that, we have some real business to attend to.

We're recording this episode the day before the official start of summer, right? And you know what summer means at strict scrutiny. It would not be summer at strict scrutiny without the official summer cocktail. Yes. Yes, I'm going to need more than that. It's time to unveil the official cocktail of the strict scrutiny summer, all right? So let's recap what we've had on deck in years past. Okay, so, you know, we've been in this game for a minute.

We have had some epic summer cocktails in years past. There was the Ginny Tonic. OG listeners will recall, premium gin, lots of bitters. Very bitter. Possibly a fax machine unconfirmed. There was also the Martha Rita. Extra salty, not regular salt. This was road salt that you put on the room.

And whenever you had it, you were free to let your freak flag fly upside down, per usual. Yes. We did try a fall cocktail once. That was the secretary, Build a Bear, raw milk and whale juice cocktail. It never quite caught on, but we've got Jordan the intern working on it. This summer, the strict scrutiny mixology team, That's Jordan, the intern, decided that we were going to give you something very special. Not court-focused, but politics forward.

So this is something that we came up with for you as we speed into the midterm election cycle. So this is the cocktail for you when you're out canvassing for your favorite candidates, when you're getting out the vote. Take your strict scrutiny emergency relief flask and fill it. with Summer's signature cocktail, wait for it, the Susan Collins! You don't need a lot of persuading for this one, okay. A Susan Collins is a little like a Tom Collins.

It is a refreshing cocktail made with gin, lemon juice, sugar, and club soda served in a very tall glass, usually is garnished with a lemon wedge or a maraschino cherries, but I think to truly make this a Susan Collins, we're going to skip those traditional garnishes and instead garnish this drink with concerns and absolutely no regrets. Cheers. Delightful.

Very good. I can taste the concerns. Obviously, this summer cocktail is an homage to Maine Senator Susan Collins, who is, of course, up for re-election in November, and who wants all of us to know she has no regrets about her decision to put aside her concerns,

about Roe versus Wade and its future, and cast her vote for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. It's part of our villain origin story as a podcast, actually. But since we're talking midterm elections and elections generally, and we are in New York, reminder for everyone here tonight and listening on Monday morning that Tuesday is primary day in New York. Thank you, listeners.

There are a lot of contested primaries, so get out there. if you have not voted. You have to show up at every election, including this one, because the vibes right now in New York make clear that democracy can actually deliver joy. But it takes a lot of work and participation and committing to every single election. So let's drink to that, shall we? Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Smalls. Kitty girls, it's our world, but the world of cat food is pretty shocking.

For example, some cat foods contain so much carbohydrate filler that they're closer to a granola bar than a prey animal. Really, dry kibble can be 30 to 50% carbs despite cats having almost no dietary need for them. But Smalls is here to help. So Smalls had one of their customers say this. This is from Emmy. Quote, Smalls changed my cat's life. And I know she would no longer be here if it weren't refining you. She will be 20 in April.

Within two months of starting Smalls, she was like a kitten again. Another customer said, quote, their litter box now has no smell at all. It's crazy, and I feel good that I am feeding them quality ingredients that are good enough for humans. Look, vet bells can really rack up. They can get to thousands of dollars, but the thing is, Smalls may help offset some of those vet bills. Smalls fresh cat food is protein-packed recipes that are made with preservative-free 100% human-grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge, and it's delivered right to your door. Smalls works because most of the nutrients and Smalls food are digestible, so less junk comes out the other end. That means less stinky poops. Smalls cat food leads to high protein and improved hydration. That equals strong bones and toned muscles.

Experts, cat owners agree. After switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time because you are a strict scrutiny listener, get 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash strict. One last time, that's 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash strict. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Babbel. I actually used to speak Spanish pretty fluently. I even read books in Spanish. Then, like adults, I gave it up. But I plan to relearn it. And whether you're trying to learn a new language for the first time or trying to relearn one

you knew but then forgot, try Babel. Even just 10 minutes a day with Babel can help you start having real conversations in as little as three weeks. Instead of memorizing random vocabulary, you will be learning phrases you'd use ordering dinner, asking for directions, or talking with locals. What I like about Babel is, it's built for real life, not vocabulary lists, not verb charts, but real conversation practice. Lessons are quick, practical, and built by more than 200 language experts. They have interactive dialogue, personalized reviews, even podcasts, all designed to get you speaking quickly and confidently. And unlike cramming before a trip, Babel fits into your actual schedule, coffee break, commute, or a few minutes before bed. Babel's award-winning app has sold over

25 million subscriptions, and it's backed by a 14-day money-back guarantee. If you've got summer travel coming up, now is the time to start, so you can actually use what you learn on the trip. Right now, Babel is offering listeners up to 60% off. Go to babble.com slash strict. That's Babel, B-A-B-B-B-B-B-E-L-L-S-S-Rextrict for up to 60% off. Rules and restrictions may apply. All right, we're going to dig into the opinions the court did give us, such as they are. But before we do, we kind of want to talk a little bit about the court's workflow and pacing.

Or lack thereof. Correct. They're bad. It's bad. The pacing is bad. The workflow is not flowing, particularly. The work also sucks, but, you know. Right. We've noted previously that the court typically issues all of the opinions in argued cases by the end of June and before the week of the July 4th holiday.

Right now, as we've already said, we are still awaiting decisions in 17 cases, likely to produce 16 opinions, and that number includes several massively important cases. This is all to say that there is almost no freaking way that the court will release all 16 opinions in a single week. which means that this bad decision season and godforsaken term is going to be even longer than we thought. Which leads me to the question, why are these guys cockroaching us? Why do they refuse to go away? Just get it over with, release the opinions.

No one needs this insane ritual of frantically refreshing our web browsers to figure out what constitutional rights we still have. No need to dilly dally on completely reconstituting the entire constitutional order. Just get it over with for fuck's sake so we can start dragging you. Start dragging you? When did we stop dragging them? That's fair.

That's fair. I'm at a 10. I'm going to be up to like a 50. Maybe they're taking their time because their emotional support billionaires are not inviting them on the yacht the summer. I think it's time for a little rank speculation about, yeah, rank speculation. That would be a good drink, too, rank speculation. Let's put on our tin foil hats and do some conspiracy theorizing for a moment about why the court is doing all of this. And I want to focus on a particular set of opinions that we're waiting for, those TPS cases, right?

We are working under the theory that maybe last Thursday, the court actually, did have an additional set of opinions that it wanted to issue in the TPS cases, but they held off because of some blockbuster reporting that surfaced at the last minute. Are you intrigued? Okay, lean in closer. Are you intrigued? I thought so. Let's dish. Okay, let's go. All right. First, as a refresher, the TPS cases are about whether the administration can pull the rug out from under Haitian and Syrian nationals in the United States.

by canceling temporary protected status or TPS. Under the TPS regime, again, Haitian and Syrian nationals who underwent a rigorous vetting process, have been permitted to stay and work and build lives and have families and pay taxes and contribute to their communities in the United States because of conditions in their home countries. So here's a theory, and again, this is just rank speculation, but we're all squirrel friends here.

So maybe the court opted to pull the TPS opinions because of some new reporting that suggests, and you're not going to believe this, but hear me out, the administration may not have been completely transparent or honest in describing its decision-making process about whether to cancel TPS. I'm shocked, Leah. This is so shocking. Oh, my God, so shocking. Here's the quick and dirty.

The relevant statues here require the... Department of Homeland Security. It was then under the domain of one crispy gnome. Haven't heard that name in a while. But it requires DHS to consult with other agencies about whether to cancel TPS. And the plaintiffs in these cases say that this required consultation did not actually occur. And the government responded by saying, aha, it totally did occur. We totally consulted with everyone we needed to consult with. And anyway, it's totally not reviewable by a federal court whether or not we consulted. So it kind of doesn't matter anyway.

DHS out. That was sort of the TLDR of the administration's argument. Well, twist, or maybe entirely predictably, the New York Times now reports that new emails show that although DHS asked the State Department to weigh in, DHS then went ahead and canceled TPS for Haitian nationals without waiting to hear from the State Department or getting its input. Remember, the statute requires consultation. Is it consultation if you ask for the consult, but then don't wait for the consultation? The administration says yes, but that can't be right.

So this, I think, is the question. Will that complicate the court's consideration, right? As the Times put it, these newly obtained DHS emails make clear there was no such consultation. Now, compare that reporting to what Solicitor General John Sauer said during the oral argument. Quote, they initially said she, and the she is, you know, again, then-Secretary Crispin-Oam, didn't consult at all, but it turns out she did. There is an exchange with the Department of State. Interesting.

Well, it's not just interesting. This brings up for me the man with the butterfly meme. Is this perjury? Well, what is consultation, Melissa? It's probably not perjury. But it is proof positive that these people love to cut corners and make their paid lawyers look like absolute morons in court. Here's the question. There's all of this new additional evidence that the New York Times reporting has surfaced that this consultation did not actually occur.

Is this going to be a situation where John Roberts noted institutionalist decides that maybe we can't go forward and decide this case because the record below is kind of all jacked up? up now. I mean, so maybe they decide that they're not going to decide this and they just kick it back to the lower courts to actually build a record based on the new factual evidence that's surfaced. Possible? That is what the plaintiffs in the TPS case involving the Haitian nationals have asked for. And it is kind of giving me flavors of one of my previous favorite cases. I think we're thinking of the same case, which is Department of Commerce versus New York, another hometown case. Yeah, so listeners, here's a quick refresher of that case, if you have not been with the pod since the beginning. Back in Trump 1.0, the administration wanted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. And Wilbur Ross, then the Secretary of Commerce, justified this unorthodox change on the ground that it was necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act. Yes, that would be the same Voting Rights Act that the administration just encouraged the court to,

nullify. The rationale was obviously bullshit, as several civil rights groups noted, adding a citizenship question would likely suppress census participation in certain communities, and after some pretty masterful lawyering, by then ACLU attorney and now federal judge Dale Ho, a New York District Court, yeah, New York District Court agreed that the Voting Rights Act rationale was pretextual. And so then the administration ran directly to the Supreme Court and And oh, my God, a district court judge has totally had the nerve to calm me out for my completely nefarious and pretextual rationale. And so I just want to know, it's so weird to be talking about this, this thing that happened back in 2018, because then it seemed to us so novel and innovative. But now this is what they do every single day, right?

So they're always making stuff up. Courts are always shooting them down. Then they run to the Supreme Court and saying, I can't believe they did this. They don't believe my pretext. And here we are. Same circus, different clowns. Yeah. Anyway, we will see what the court does with this TPS case, especially in light of this new information.

It raises, I think, the question, how much egg is the court willing to have on its face because of this administration? There was a limit in the first Trump administration. That is what we saw in the census case. The court was not willing to go along with that pretextual justification. The vibes feel different now, and we will see how different. Well, as the immortal Katie Heron would say, the limit does not exist. I mean, Donald Trump does now say there are no limits on his powers, so this would track. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Jones Road Beauty.

I'm a makeup skeptic or just lazy, maybe both. I don't know. I just don't like faces that look super made up, and I also don't like taking the time in the morning to make up my face. I've got shit to do. But now, one of those things is dabbing some Jones. Road Beauty Miracle Balm on my mug. So here is the Miracle Balm. It's basically the dictionary definition entry for glow up. It doesn't mask your skin. It just gives it a sparkle, which means it offers a natural look and one that can replace a bunch of steps like highlighter bronzer and blush.

That also means it saves a lot of time. You can get that effortless, glowy look in under 60 seconds with just a little smear and dab. And when you're traveling, you don't have to cram whole makeup bags into your suitcase. Instead, just a few go-to products that do everything, which means more room to pack snacks for the return trip. Miracle balm goes on my skin after my morning swim as I head into work. Post-swim, post-shower, it's just that sun-kissed look. The best part of Jones Road beauty, all of their products are actually good for your skin. Every formula is packed with skin-loving ingredients. It nourishes your skin instead of clogging it or caking it. It looks and feels natural, like you're not even

wearing makeup at all. All Jones Road formulas are clean and high-performing. because clean beauty should just be the standard. And Jones Road has just launched a new product, their foundation stick. This skincare forward foundation delivers buildable, real coverage while feeling completely weightless on your skin. You'll love how it gives you medium to full coverage without ever looking cakey or heavy. It's dermatologist tested and packed with skin-loving ingredients like seramides, squalane, and sodium hyaluraneate to nourish while you wear it. And it's available in 30 shades to match a wide range of skin tones. Modern-day makeup that's clean, strategic, and multifunctional for effortless routines.

For a limited time, our listeners are getting a free, full-size mascara on their first purchase when they use code strict at checkout. Just head to jonesroadbeautcom and use code strict at checkout. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. This episode is presented by Planned Parenthood, Federation of America. If you listen to this show, you already know this administration, Congress, and the courts, has spent the past few years making it harder to get health care in this country.

And it's patients who are paying the price. Take the Supreme Court. It paved the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood health centers from state Medicaid programs in Medina versus Planned Parenthood. This undoubtedly violates patients' right to get care from quality providers that they choose. And last year, the Trump administration and Congress defunded Planned Parenthood, trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and block patients with low incomes from birth control, cancer screenings, SDI testing, and more.

That's why Planned Parenthood is fighting back. But fights like these take resources and supporters like you. No matter the size, your donation makes a real difference, helping Planned Parenthood meet this moment and protect patients' access to care when and where it matters most. If you believe all people should get health care, no matter their income, donate now at planparenthood.org slash defend. Enough rank speculation, though. It's time to dive headfirst into bad decisions season. We're about to drag them. Let's go.

And to help with the dragging, we are so delighted to welcome to the stage, one of our favorite friends of the pod, the one, the only, the Ellie Mistal. What's up, New York? Can I just quickly say? Because you mentioned primary day already. And I just want to remind everybody here and everybody listening to the show that in New York, there are candidates who care, about the Supreme Court. Okay? They are candidates. They are running in a primary on Tuesday. They are not named Chuck Schumer.

And you can vote for them. And if you do vote for them and you say that you're voting for them because they care about the Supreme Court, that is a huge way to start to turn the ship of state that is the Democratic Party towards the kinds of reforms that I think a lot of people here agree with.

All right. You just cut into your interest. intro. Sorry. Okay. This is my friend Ellie. I'm kidding. Ellie needs no introduction, but I'm going to give you some because it's Juneteenth.

All right, here we go. Ellie is the Justice Correspondent for the Nation, and he is also the author of two New York Times bestsellers. Allow Me to Retort and Bad Law, both of which we have covered extensively on this podcast. He joined us at our live show at the Tribeca Film Festival two years ago, and the energy was honestly so chaotic. He was filling in for Leah, who was recovering from her bike accident, but it was so chaotic that we were like, what would it be like if Leah and Ellie were on stage at the same time?

And so here we are. Welcome, Ellie. Thank you so much for having me. Yes. The principal at my kids' school says that I am an agent of chaos. There's that. So let the wild rumpus begin. This cocktail is, this cocktail is pretty good, but I can't help feeling a little, what's, I'm a little disappointed. Have some concerns? Have some concerns when I drink it. We are going to dive into the opinions, as we just mentioned. But before we do, Ellie, wondering if you have any theories, we floated a couple, about what

on earth is taking these guys so long and why they want to go into the holiday week as they seem to want to? Yeah, I think it comes down to two words, birthright citizenship. If we win, birthright. And when I say we, I mean we who agree in a multiracial, multi-ethnic democracy where bigotry is not part of the constitutional law, right? When I say them, I mean mouth-breathing racist who got their asses kicked to Gettysburg and haven't gotten over. Right? So that's not, that's the distinction, right?

If the we win birthright, what does that do to the media on the way out the door, right? So the court can put themselves in a position where they can. can win on birthright, uphold birthright citizenship, and then run out of town, and then he got three months of mainstream idiot media being like, oh, my God, the court is so impartial. They mean, sometimes you do Republican things, sometimes do the Democratic things, but really, they're just trying to do the law. Like, you get three months of that ridiculously bad narrative. Well, and it's three months, and they leave, and then it's the Fourth of July. And so that dominates the kind of coverage of the Fourth of July. I think that's a good theory.

John Roberts in his office stroking a hairless cat. I did it. I did it. In the alternative, if we lose birthright, one of the things you have to remember is that these people are cowards. And if you're going to take away a constitutional right, taking it away and then skedaddling out of town before anybody can... On a PJ. Right, and just going to, as you were calling them, their emotional support billionaires. and getting out of town before the reaction to that happens,

and then by the time they come back to work in October, people will be all into the election cycle. They'll kind of get away with it. So whether or not we win or lose birthright, I think dropping birthright and then leaving is their idea. Yeah. Okay, so let's go into the opinions we got. We got three last Thursday.

One was in the case that we actually focused on during our live shows in California. Yes, ladies and gentlemen and non-binary listeners, this is your Supreme Court, and this is your Supreme Court on drugs, because we got the opinion in United States versus Himani, where the court held that the Second Amendment does not allow the federal government to disarm people

just because they use drugs in violation of federal drug laws. The intro was something of a joke. The outcome here is pretty sane, and in my opinion, probably correct, but of course the court gave all of the wrong reasons for reaching said right result. So the result in the case was unanimous and Neil Gorsuch had the opinion for the court, which probably gives you a clue about how the opinion read, as Leah said, right outcome, wrong reasons. And importantly, the majority emphasized that it was a very narrow ruling.

All the court did was reject the Trump administration's view that the federal law could prohibit unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The court emphasized it wasn't addressing questions about firearm possession by people who are addicted to drugs or firearm possession by people who are presently intoxicated. Brett Kavanaugh. I will say that in rejecting the Trump administration's arguments here, the court made clear that yes, it is actually more ammosexual than the Trump administration, which is saying something. The Trump administration had argued that the government could ban unlawful, control, substances, users from having guns. And this wasn't the first time that the Supreme Court actually was more ammo forward than the Trump administration. This also happened a few terms ago in Garland v. Cargill.

That was the case where the Trump administration argued that federal gun laws allowed them to ban bump stocks. And the court said, nope, not at all, because ammosexuality. Right? Yes. Love wins. So because this is a Gorsuch opinion and a. Second Amendment case, the court applied its ridiculous history and tradition test from NYSERPA versus Bruin. Under Bruin, the court asks whether a federal law at issue in the case

is sufficiently similar to and consistent with the nation's historic tradition of firearms regulation. That's right. No matter how many times you say it or hear it, it just never makes any sense. Gun laws today have to look like ye oldy gun laws, no matter how different everything else looks today or the laws get struck down. That is the test. That's what the court applied here. The administration argued that historical laws that disarmed habitual drunkards and vagrants and the like were sufficiently similar to the federal law at issue in Hamani to satisfy the Bruin test. But the court said, no, these laws, those laws were all different, although the reason that the majority gave for why those analogs were not analoging were pretty unconvincing.

Okay, Ellie, how much credit does Neil Gorsuch get here, especially for Reject? a view that should have been rejected, but for using these wildly unconvincing reasons and a really damaging and destructive method to get there. Look, I fundamentally agree with Neil here. When you go back and look at Richard the Longshanks and whether or not he could have his sword arm, it's incredibly stupid, right? It's incredibly stupid that in the year 2026, we have to go back to habitual drunkenet laws around the founding to figure out

if somebody can have an oozy. That's just dumb. Now, the problem is that when you make that dumb argument, yes, Gorsuch is totally capable of ripping it to shreds as he should, right? Because there's no way that you can argue

realistically that the Americans at the founding were not completely sauced when they were like, hey, let's take on the British. We'll kick your ass. Like, that's not, That's not a sober decision, right? Nobody's stone cold sober being like,

this tea overboard, yeah, take that break. That's not, that doesn't make no sense, right? So, of course, of course, that people at the founding were drunk while armed. Like that, that's a thing that happened. And if you're going to say that because that's a thing that happened literally 250 years ago, then that's a thing that has to happen now,

Well, then you're done, right? And so I think Gorsuch was right to rip up the analogy. We're, I'll give him a little bit of extra credit, and I can't believe I'm saying this about the last justice of the Mohicans, but... I manifested this. But he didn't get tripped up on the difference between alcohol and weed, right? He didn't get tripped up on the difference between intoxication. He knew.

I don't know if he's had some Colorado candies in this past. I don't know. But like, he didn't let that stop his analysis. He went, he, he, he analogized correctly the modern use of marijuana to the historical use of alcohol and just kept ongoing. So I'll give him a little bit of credit for not having the hanger, like, lodged so far up his ass that he couldn't see that. So Ellie already gestured to the founding fathers being sauced, and it turns out Neil Gorsuch really agreed with that. So this, opinion is basically a callback to Neil Gorsuch's greatest hits from the oral argument in Hamani, which, if you recall, was basically giving what if Pete Tegsbroth were a Supreme

Court justice vibes. The founders were totally frat bros energy. So here is Chapter Social Chair, Neil Gorsuch, at the oral argument. Bichel Drunkard, the American Temperance Society back in the day, said eight shots of whiskey a day. Only made you an occasional drunker. We have to remember the founding era, if you want to invoke the founding era. To be a habitual drunkard, you had to do double that. John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day.

Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of a user of alcohol. He only had three or four glasses of wine a night. Neil Gorsuch was a theater kid, right? A hundred percent. Look, he's right, of course, but you notice how he doesn't finish the sentence, right? He wasn't the only one who's really bought into this, so Chief Justice John Roberts, noted institutionalist, allowed Neil Gorsuch to write this opinion and to memorialize this episode of drunk history in the annals of the United States reports.

And to be very clear, Gorsuch takes this opportunity to go on and on and on about this culture of copious drinking that existed at the founding, including all of these anecdotes about how Madison and Jefferson and Adams were just chugging and chugging and chugging, which happened to be a lot. It does prompt me to ask, though,

when this court is taking up the 14th Amendment, are they also willing to talk about how many people these folks, owned at the time because it was also a lot. Like, why won't we talk about that? No. It's actually illegal to talk about that, Melissa. Neil Gorsuch's personal episode of drunk history

was just focused on how the law protects America's history and tradition of getting hammered. Ellie, do you think Brett Kavanaugh had any qualms about joining this opinion that basically normalized being shit-faced? I do not.

Brett Kavanaugh likes to join opinions that justify his own behavior. There was the opinion earlier a couple terms ago where he legalized bribery because we believe that he's probably kind of into that as well. So I don't think Kavanaugh had a problem

with that. I think what the conservatives and the majority did that was really a disservice and you saw it even in that clip that you played is that they never finished the second half of the sentence. Yes, the founders were a sauce. They were also using rifled

muskets. I just, I I would love to take the Pepsi challenge with that. Like, bring me Snoop Dog, put him right here, give him a whole bong, and then let's see how long it takes him to reload a musket. Just, let's see. Right? And let's see how many, like, innocent people he can mow down

while he has to reload the musket one ball at a time every time before he takes another shot, right? Like, that's the other part of the sentence that these guys never got to. Yeah. Yes. No, absolutely. Yeah.

And also, you know, we're not going to relitigate now two decades of Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence, but they're not keeping guns at home for personal self-defense anyway, right? Like firearm possession was in conjunction with militia service or potential militia service at the founding anyway, but obviously all water under the bridge at this point. But I do think their disinterest in the difference in firearms between the founding era and today is conspicuous in all of these Second Amendment cases. Did James Madison have a bump stock? Yes.

Yes. You're not allowed to ask that, is the problem. So the history of these heavy drinking fratty founding fathers was not the only aspect of the oral argument in the case that then surfaced in the opinion. In fact, Justice Gorsuch included a number of callbacks to the oral argument. And just to refresh your memories, here's a snippet from one of the other memorable moments in the Hamani oral argument. Justice Sotomayor asked you about someone who takes Ambien to sleep. So let's assume that someone takes their spouse's ambian prescription. The spouse takes it too lawfully with the prescription, but then you take it unlawfully because you break into your spouse's ambient jar.

Yes, that is Amy Barrett asking a hypothetical about when a hypothetical spouse pilfer is from the other spouses, hypothetical jar of Ambien. Well, guess what? Although he hangs with the originalist, Neil Gorsuch is not very original. He he peted Amy Coney-Barritt and included an ambient hypothetical in the opinion. Sir, sir.

It's so oddly specific, right? It is. Also, Ambien doesn't come in a jar. So, contrary, jar of Ambien. If you have a jar of ambient. of Ambien, you've got bigger problems. Yeah. It was obviously an Amy Barrett Easter egg.

It did make me wonder, was it intended for us? Does he hate listen and does he know how much mileage we got out of that ambient hypothetical on the pod? Or is he also ambient maxing now? Maybe out of a jar. All right. There were also some concurrences in the Hamani case that were absolutely wild, and we really have to talk about them.

But before we get to them, we want to play a little game with you, the audience. Are you ready? Okay. So it's just like law school. We're going to ask the questions, and you're going to shout out answers. Okay, are you ready? This is a teaser to the longer game. We're going to play later.

To warm you up. These are warmups. Okay. All right. So Hamani's... And if you get it wrong, they'll make you cry. Sorry. Maybe that was just me in law school.

No, yeah. I think Elena Kagan is a tougher user of the Socratic method, at least than I am. Speak for yourself. Okay, right. I'm sure Melissa has made students cry in her day. I would not be surprised. Okay, question. Which justice used his concurrence in Hamani to normalize weed usage?

Shout it out. Yes, you guys read the concurrences. Justice Samuel Alito. Stay tuned. We are going to come back to this. which justice wrote about taking a mild gummy. It was Neil Gorsuch, or as we're now calling him, Neil Mild Gummy Gorsuch.

That was too easy because he actually discussed that at oral arguments. He talked about gummy bears. He said gummy, and then he quickly added bears, so it didn't sound like he was too comfortable with just references to gummies. In addition to the mild gummy reference, the opinion noted the proliferation of state laws, obviously decriminalizing marijuana and federal downgrading of some marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. It also observed correctly that millions of Americans regularly use marijuana and that all of those users are certainly not unusually dangerous.

Which prompts me again to reference the butterfly meme that Melissa already referred to and to ask is the kind of discussion of the millions of contemporary marijuana users, is this originalism? Is this history and tradition? No. I think the answer is no. Okay, back to the concurrences because it is time for an evergreen segment, which is, we need to talk about Clarence Thomas. I'll begin. So, in Hamani, Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence where, per usual, he said that he would go further.

And for context, four years, Justice Thomas has had a bee in his bonnet about the Commerce Clause. So the Commerce Clause is part of Article 1, Section 8. and it authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. And it has been a major head of congressional authority for enacting legislation, including major civil rights legislation. Now, obviously, Justice Thomas has a problem with the people's elected representatives enacting laws to protect the said people from rampant discrimination.

So for years, he has argued that the Commerce Clause should be limited. And in this concurrence, which nobody joined in Hamani, Justice Thomas decided to hard launch his view that the Commerce Clause does not allow or authorize Congress to enact federal gun legislation solely because it is not enough for guns to travel in interstate commerce. That's not enough to trigger the Commerce Clause. I will just say that if this theory is accepted, it would not only invalidate the law in question here, but maybe other federal gun laws, it likely would also invalidate other civil rights laws that are enacted under the Commerce Clause. So this is another one of those cases

where Justice Thomas decides to sow a few seeds for the future. Boo, boo his. I can't emphasize how insane his argument is. Again, as Professor Murray just explained, right, the Interstate Commerce Clause is not something that you need to go through three years of law school to understand, right? Right? If something is going from one state to another,

that means the government has the right to regulate that. And Thomas is saying, no, just because something is going from one state to another, that's not enough to regulate. Like, what the, is he talking about? It makes absolutely no sense. It's like the, I'm trying to think of an analogy for exactly how stupid this is,

and I'm falling short because it's the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. Like, you can't, how could you possibly say that being an interstate commerce does not trigger the interstate commerce clause? Right? It says, like, it's like saying being pregnant does not trigger you being pregnant. No, you are pregnant. It's there. We can all see it, right? And so, and so when you, so then what you have to start to think through is like, what kind of insane person writes this down?

Like, what kind of addled person, like, puts pen to paper to write this down and explain to the entire world how insane he is? And then you remember his billionaire support friends, right? And then you remember that Clarence's Thomas's entire, almost now 30-year history on the bench has been as the troll under the bridge. The poison pill, you know, I like to say, the shit in your ice cream, right? Like, you know, you can have the beautiful Sundays, just a little corner of shit, just right there. And you can't unsee it. You can't not know that it's there. And he's been incredibly effective because he will make the argument that is ridiculous in his time,

but that over the course of years or decades, the rest of the conservatives can rally around and push his insane idea forward, right? So the reason why this concurrence is here, insane though it may be, is that he's telling the Wayne LaPierres of the world, this is the next front. Like, the next front is to fight the government's ability to regulate guns at all. That's what he's giving out.

And he knows he's going to lose now, because it's stupid. But he has shown over the course of his career that just because he's stupid doesn't mean he doesn't win. So I think it's important to underscore this is the theory would invalidate all federal gun laws. And as Melissa alluded to, maybe all federal civil rights laws, because the Commerce Clause is the constitutional foundation for those laws, too. And maybe that actually is the long game that Clarence Thomas is playing.

Exactly. One other small detail about the concurrence that I just have to mention. At the end, Thomas says, hey, it's been 26 years since we struck down a law under the Commerce Clause. And I'm just jonesing for a little Commerce Clause action. That's an actual argument he kind of makes. He thinks the court is going through a Commerce Clause dry spell, and Clarence Thomas is horny as fuck for a Commerce Clause freak off. Here's my actual hot take.

The paper last week's opinions was that the girls are fighting. There were a ton of intro right-wing fights about what the right-wing dogma is. So in Hamani, there's this intro right-wing fight about the commerce clause should be used the commerce clause to take us back to the stone age Clarence Thomas says yes Sam Alito says no then there was another inter right-wing fight about whether the right cares about the second amendment or prosecutors more here you know justice Thomas is suggesting maybe let's take down all gun control law Sam Alito writes separately to say no I actually like

laws that prohibit felons from possessing firearms and that's gonna lead to a divide between him Thomas Gorsuch etc up. Can you guys explain to me why my former professor, Elena Kagan, join Alito's concurrence? Yeah, because she wants to capitalize on the intra-right-wing fights and basically ensure that the court doesn't

strike down felon in possession laws. And so my guess is she was encouraging Sam Alito along and thought, okay, I'll like sign on to this and kind of make him own it. Yeah, yeah, that's a ticket. Right. You're doing that smart. meaty Sam. You're doing amazing.

Such a big, strong man. Okay. All right. God. Susan Collins made me do it. No, I'm laughing because it's just... Zero regrets, Melissa. Zero regrets.

So many concerns. I'm laughing just because, like, it's embarrassing how easily it is to handle men, right? Like, that would work on me. That does work, right? Like, that does work on me. I was used car shopping with my wife yesterday, and she was literally just like, no, I was like, that car's too big. And she was like, no, honey, I think you can handle that kind of thing.

I was like, yes, I can, in fact, you're right. All right. There are two other concurrences that we should mention. The first concurrence was by Justice Jackson, who was joined by Justice Sotomayor. And per usual, Justice. Jackson continued her righteous crusade against the incredibly facocta and terrible Bruin history and tradition test. And she argued, the drunk history and tradition test. So she argued that the court should abandon Bruin's drunk history and tradition test and instead returned to the test that had been

in place before, which is basically a means and ends test where effectively those considering and reviewing firearms regulation have to think about why the law was passed in the first place and then consider whether the imposition on the Second Amendment right is justified given what the legislature is trying to achieve. Seems very normal and reasonable. Definitely not going to get five votes, right? Nope, nope. All right. Ellie, what did you think of KBJ's concurrent? You're vibrating, so I know you've got ideas. I love this concurrence. I love it on two. levels, right? One, it is Juneteenth. That's the blackest-ass concurrence you're going to see, right? Because it's a little bit of like she's saying, you know what, I do not truck

with Bruin as a staff label or motherfucking crew. Like she is going to object to Bruin for the rest of her fucking life and she's never going to let you forget it. And I just, I love that aspect of it to just object and object and object every single time. So that's really cool. But the other thing that the reason why that concurrence is great is that it gives you the other answer for how to reach this conclusion that everybody up here agrees was the right conclusion, right? And so one of the way the originalists sometimes try to get people, try to trick people is that, well, if we don't do originalism, what else can we do? There's no other way. No idiot, there's always another way. And Jackson lays it right out. As she says in her concurrence, we could have decided this case by asking familiar questions that we used to ask before we were. redid this dumbass brewing thing. And one of those questions, for in this case, it would have been really simple.

Does smoking weed make you a greater risk to misuse handguns? Does anybody think that it does? I mean, like, does anybody in their right mind think that smoking weed makes you more of a danger to have a gun? Okay, so I'm going to interject right here, because not only did KBJ say this,

it's also something that Alito said in his concurrence. So maybe the girls aren't all fighting, right? So Justice Alito also wrote a concurrence in which he was joined by Elena Kagan for the reasons that Leah has suggested. And basically in this concurrence, Justice Alito talked about how marijuana use has basically become normal. Lots of people smoke a doo-be, and sometimes a doobie is just a doobie, said Justice Alito. I'm paraphrasing, obviously. That shouldn't stop them from having good. guns, obviously?

I read this concurrence, and I seriously thought he was fucking with us. Like, I mean, this was wild to me. I just did not have Sam Alito writing a concurrence that rested on the normalization of pot on my October term 2025 bingo card. And yet he wrote, quote, marijuana consumption is increasingly common in this country. It is widespread and increasingly considered socially acceptable in many quarters. Is this the rapture, or is this just what working with Neil Gorsuch does? Wait a minute.

Imagine being so exercised, having a wife who is so exercised about the pride flag, but you're totally cool with marijuana. Also, everything is so personal with him, and it does feel like there just must be some people in his life who are recreational marijuana users. I don't think in his immediate household, like he and Murth Ann, although I guess you never know. but it felt like maybe that was it? See, I'm not going to give a leader. I'll give Gorsuch credit.

I'm not going to give a legal credit. And the reason why is because I think he writes that concurrence specifically because he still wants to put brothers in jail. Like, people need to remember what the law is actually used for. I saw a lot of the media saying this is the Hunter Biden statute. A little bit not quite, it's a little bit different. I don't want to get into the weeds with that. But the way this law is used most often, let's say, right,

is the cops stop something. They think that they're a drug dealer, they think they're a gangbanger, they think that they're a bad guy. But they don't got anything on them, right? They don't have any crime that that person committed. They stopped somebody for driving while black and the taillight was just out, right? But what they do find is a gun. All right, we're going to get you on a gun charge. Wait a way, wait a no, your gun is license. Damn. All right, well, you have a dime bag. We're going to get you on the drug charge.

Man, it's just a misdemeanor, you know, it's two ounces of pot. Oh, oh, but you got the pot and you have a pot and you have a gun charge. and you have the gun, now you can go away for 15 years. And the carceral state starts going, right? Because you've got a drug offense with the gun, even though it's a legal handgun. Now you can get the carceral state rolling in a person, right? And this opinion takes a big chunk out of that carceral state because weed is so ubiquitous. But there are other drugs that Alito is still trying to leave space to be like, all right,

We're going to let you off on the weed because it's habitual, because it's like alcohol, because of what? But the crackhead, nah, nah, your ass is still going to jail for 15 years, right? That's what he's trying to still leave space for with this concurrence. They still want to be able to stop people for minor infractions and then ratchet up that infraction to 15 years in jail, which starts an entire carcceral process. One other possible theory, which that all sounds very plausible, is that there were echoes, I thought, in the Alito concur. of this dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens in the case that is colloquially known as the bong hits for Jesus case, which some people might know. That was a banner that some high school students held up and then were punished for doing so, and they raised a First Amendment claim and the court ruled against them. But Stevens dissented and just wrote this amazing dissent that was like talked about his own childhood in prohibition because he had lived through it as a kid and basically said, essentially, you know, our war on marijuana now is a lot like our.

experiment with outlawing alcohol when I was a boy, and we're going to kind of come around. And anyway, my very charitable view of the Alito concurrence is that he's come around to the Stevens position. So it's at least possible. I think Ellie wrote a take, Ellie's take. Or just out. Or just out of vote. Who's with Ellie?

Okay. For those listening at home, the audience is with Ellie too. Who's here for Kate's Justice Stevens advocating for term limits? Thank you. I see a few hands in the crowd, real ones. Thank you. So we did get two other opinions, just going to quickly summarize them. This was kind of a Fed court's fest.

In one case, Hunter v. United States, the court said 8 to 1 that even though a plea deal with the government agrees that the defendant won't appeal their sentence, that doesn't prevent a defendant from appealing a claim that would result in a miscarriage of justice. This case involves some intra-right-wing fights between Justices Barrett and Thomas in particular, about supervisory power and procedural common law,

again, stuff that really matters to the right. Then the second opinion was the Rooker-Feldman opinion. I know you all wanted us to spend the entire episode on this. I apologize. This case, TM versus University of Maryland Medical System, the court held five to four that the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to state court trial and intermediate appellate decision.

So Rooker Feldman had said, you can't appeal or effectively ask a federal court to invalidate a state Supreme Court opinion. And TM said that applies to state trial and state intermediate appellate court decisions as well. This two involve the intra-right-wing fight between Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees, since Justice Thomas wanted to take the position. that Rooker Feldman is correct, which... That tracks, because everybody hates Rooker Feldman. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So the intro right-wing fights are this kind of theme that Leah has identified as linking the three cases we got last week we're talking about today.

There is also like a lower brow through line, which is these are all cases about drugs. Like different kinds. Okay, RFKate. It's like they all went to the White Castle. Hunter. Hunter is a case about the individual. wanted to appeal a condition of a sentence which involved taking medication he didn't want to take. And actually, the Rooker-Feldman case also had to do with involuntary confinement and the administration of antipsychotic medication. So that is another potential through line for three cases.

Potential. Yeah. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by first day. Feeling off day-to-day isn't always just Supreme Court-related stress. It's not even just stress. Whether it's low energy, mood swings, or just feeling off. run down, that can come from not getting the right nutrients consistently. And here's the thing I didn't realize when I was a wee young less. Sometimes just eating healthy isn't enough. You still might be

missing out on some nutrients and in need of a system to cover those gaps. And that system is a first day. It's a blend of 21 organic superfoods and key vitamins. There are no added sugars, no artificial dyes, and first day is really transparent about the ingredients. They actually make different formulas for toddlers, kids, teens, and adults, so it's all tailored to your stage of life. And I feel better knowing I'm covering my bases. All it takes is two gummies a day, so it's easy to stay consistent. Even Supreme Court justices can count that high. Over a million families use First Day. They also have a 45-day money-back guarantee. For a limited time only, our listeners are getting an insane deal. Use code strict to get up to 57% off at first day.com.

That's up to 57% off and a free gift with code strict at first day.com. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. So we have one more topic that we want to cover before we let Ellie off the hook for the rest of the night. And that is SCOTUS reform. Okay. So you all in the audience are here on a Saturday night to talk SCOTUS. I think because,

because Melissa Oh, thank you. We love you. We love you too! Thank you. But also, I think because you understand that something has gone very, very wrong at the Supreme Court and yet, although you all know this,

too many people still don't realize it. And there are definitely going to be a lot of end-of-term stories praising the court for slowing the pace of these insane pro-Trump decisions on the shadow docket, likely for rejecting the flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship executive order and the lawless attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. So it'll be great if those predictions just there come to pass,

but this court will still be an enormous problem in need of a solution, and you all can be key messengers in helping push for a solution and in helping to bring people about to understanding that this court is a genuine threat to a functioning democracy. May I allow you to retort? Obviously, obviously. I think court reform is the most important issue facing our country, and it's the most important issue in the 2026 election,

the 28 election, the 2030, it is the thing. And the reason why, and I'll take it back to Louisiana versus Calais, the decision that, as you've all talked about, killed the Voting Rights Act. The historical doppelganger for Louisiana versus Calais is Plessy B. Ferguson. right? It's the, that's the case that affirmed segregation, right? How do you get over Plessy, right? How do you overcome the segregation in Plessy? Well, you have to have the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you have to have the 1965 Voting Rights Act, you have to have the 1968 Fair Housing Act,

but none of that happens before you have the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Ed. You change the court first, and then you have the ability to pass all the legislation that you want to fix the problem. Changing the court doesn't fix the problem. It opens the door so the problem can be fixed. If you don't control the court, if you had in 1964 the same court that you had in 1896 when Plessy was decided, guess what happens to the Civil Rights Act? it gets ruled unconstitutional gets what happens to the Voting Rights Act it gets John Roberts

gets what happens to the fairer housing act it gets Clarence Thomas like you don't get these laws these pieces of legislation unless you change the court first and that is the message that I try to give to every person especially young people and I say this all the time I can go

to a bar in Texas I mean I don't like to go to Texas but like when I do I go to Austin but I can go and then and then like just fly out Like, I'm not trying to stay. But I can go to a random conservative person in Texas and talk to them about the Supreme Court, and they will tell me,

well, I don't know about no offense, but I know I got to get my guns. I'm going to keep my guns. I got to keep my court. They know that, right? You go to a Democrat. I can go to Brooklyn, and I can find the crunchiest hippie-hippiest burkenstock-wearing guy

at a beer garden. Throwing axes. Right? And he can be like, oh, my God, dude, are you using a plastic? straw. You know, that's so bad, man. Like, microplastics are terrible for the environment. I'm like, yeah, I know. We have to have like a green new deal. Yeah, so we have to do court reform,

right? Like, what, court, what? No, man, we just need a green new deal. Like, you don't get a green new deal if you don't reform the court first. Because if you don't do it first, then the Green New Deal gets overturned before breakfast by these people. Gorsuch and Alito fight over who gets to write the opinion, punting the Green New Deal into the sun. So, if you care about any of the brilliant, wonderful legislative fixes that you can think of to restore abortion rights, to restore the Voting Rights Act,

to do, to end Jerryman. None of that matters if you don't take control of the Supreme Court first. Preach. You preached a whole word. That was a whole word. Do you hear this? Tell your friends.

Tell your friends. Like seriously, remember that time? we went to the White House and we were like, are you guys going to talk about, Lee is having PTSD. Yeah, I just cannot. We were at the White House and we were like, are you guys going to talk about court reform in the upcoming election? This was after Dobbs. They're like, we don't think people can understand it. I'm like, you know what they can understand? Not having rights? Yeah, yeah. We have a ways to go in kind of getting people on the legal and political left to

understand how central the Supreme Court is. But I do think that Ellie is going to help make hot Supreme Court Reform Summer happen. And so can all of you. Nothing but respect for my Chief Justice. Ellie Mistall, that is the Supreme Court reform that we need. I mean, Ellie Mistal replacing Clarence Thomas. Manifest it. Manifest it. You heard it here, folks. Okay. All right, let's go very quickly through some legal news. We are going to start first with some legal news made possible by John Roberts and Co. So first of all, we're going to begin by laying the blame for the return of the insurrectionist slush fund right at the feet of John Roberts and Co. Hear us out, right? So in the immunity decision issued a few terms ago, the court told President Donald Trump that

he had unfettered plenary authority over investigations, prosecutions, and the DOJ. what could go wrong. The slash fund for January 6ers is how the president in tandem with his auditioning attorney general Todd Cart Blanche have wielded that power. Yeah, and then second, in a bunch of shadow docket orders,

the court turned its cheek to very substantial allegations that the Trump administration had defied lower court orders, even going so far as to grant the administration extraordinary and discretionary relief from orders it had very likely defied. So what did Todd Blanche do this week? He said, fuck you to the federal courts, just as Emil Beauvais, now the dark lord of the

Third Circuit, but previously a high-ranking official at DOJ, had allegedly encouraged the administration to do if and when courts tried to stop them. And in one of the cases challenging the slush fund, the Eastern District of Virginia concluded the case was not moot and enjoined the administration from moving forward with the slush fund unless Blanche submitted a declaration saying the slush fund was indeed dead. Well, guess what? Cart Blanche decided not to do to submit that declaration. Instead, the department submitted a filing stating that such a declaration was unnecessary. it was frankly rude for the court to even ask. Quote, literally from the pen of John Roberts in the immunity decision, quote,

such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the executive branch implicates serious separation of powers questions. Oh, really? These are the separation of powers questions here. I mean, this is giving a ton of Cherie Whitfield who gone check me boo vibes, right?

Yes, if you've been at this pod before, you know. And it does make you wonder, why would Todd Blanche not want to submit to a federal court in writing under penalty of perjury, a statement saying that the insurrectionist slush fund had been dropped off at a local fire station in a lockbox and was now abandoned? Why wouldn't he do that? Why would he be afraid to do so? Is it possible that maybe the insurrectionist slush fund is going to make a comeback like Jason in Friday the 13th? Is this possible? Yeah.

It also does make me wonder, though, why is he writing things in briefs that he won't swear to under penalty of perjury? Like, what are these legal briefs to you glorified blog posts? It's just bananas. Okay, a little bit more legal news to cover. And one is, I think, maybe complicated but mostly happy news, which is we did get the restoration of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Let's go. I mean, there was something quite profound about kind of getting to see the removal of Trump's name from the Kennedy Center.

This kind of ruling and then its implementation was honestly a concrete reminder that the courts, and in particular the lower courts, do matter. And it did feel like this kind of tiny taste of what it could be like post-Trump as we try to undo the damage, physical, structural, and constitutional that this administration has wrought. And also how hard they're going to fight to prevent that as evidenced by the fact that they put tarps up to cover the removal of the name. And it's still not entirely clear that all of the letters are gone because we haven't been able to confirm it with our own eyes. All right. There's so much news to cover. And we don't have all night in this theater. Let's just be honest.

We've got to let you guys go home at some point. But we could not let you leave without covering the fact that our president, the commander in chief, lost a big old war this week. You think I'm talking about the war with Iran. and the memorandum of understanding that basically gives Iran money to rebuild, allows them to continue operating the Strait of Hormuz, and maybe eventually charging fees for it, and maybe continuing to have nuclear capabilities, all things that we said we got into this war to stop.

I'm not talking about that war. I'm talking about the president's war with Mother Nature and possibly the color wheel. Yes, listeners, this is a reflection. pool sub-tweet. Yes. I mean, we cannot get enough of this story. Can you?

Like, it's just too good. So as we have obviously talked about it, I'm sure you're all aware, Donald Trump undertook a $14 million renovation slash defacing defilement of the reflecting pool this spring, only for said reflecting pool to me immediately overtaken with algae. Sometimes nature is healing. Yes.

But obviously the swamp story got even swampier this, past week when the Times reported that a contract to purify this algae-ridden reflecting pool was awarded outside of the competitive bid process that is standard for most National Park Services contracts to a company held in trust by a Trump friend and donor who also happens to be the president's neighbor at Mar-a-Lago. And because it always gets worse, said recipient of the million-dollar no-bid contract had previously been convicted for bribery. And the piece de resistance

is that the name of this company is, and I'm not making this up, Greenwater Services. They tried to tell you. All right. So to close out this segment, I think it's time to offer some unfiltered thoughts about the reflecting pool.

Leah, why don't you go first? I love this. This is the new MAGA make algae great again. I did wonder, did Greenwater services sign a memorandum of understanding with the algae in Versailles, right? Like, unconditional surrender to the algae. Just like the memorandum of understanding is a worse version of the deal. that Barack Obama made with Iran. This Greenwater Services is a worse version of a Green New Deal. This is their Green New Deal. Yeah.

That's all I've got. So in addition to turning the reflecting pool, Shrek Green, there's also the fact that Greenwater Services was also charged with refacing the pool. So they had to repaint it. And now it seems like the paint is peeling. Like, the reflecting pool was fine. There was nothing wrong with the reflecting pool, right?

I mean, this again is the president's edifice complex writ large. It's like, sir, we didn't need this. But if you're going to pick someone to do it, maybe pick someone who's good at his job. But you can say that about the whole cabinet, right? If you're going to do it, pick someone who's good at his job. And I mean, you know, just, you know, just a sort of prosaic observation, but I think an important one is that we do have,

you know, as like uninteresting or unsexy as it is, like we have processes in place for a good reason. Like there's a bid process to make sure that people who get these contracts know what they're doing. And if there is a silver lining here, I think that government processes and government workers can get a bad rap, I think, in a cross-ideological fashion. But like, maybe the complete hash that these unqualified, like, lackeys have made of the reflecting pool and owe the federal government writ large, we'll remind everyone before it is too late of the value of a federal government that is merit-based and it actually does the work of the laws and the people. So, again, Kate, that is my hope for the reflecting pool.

Kate, I honestly didn't think you could do it, but you have managed to ring a silver lining out of the reflecting pool. And I can I, and I applaud you. And then if we could all get a little piece of the blue paint peeling from the box. just as a souvenir, I think we'll be doing all right. This was a DEI contract, a true Dix, ex-husband's, imbeciles contract. Absolutely. And we are seeing the effects. Yes, and just to take it back to the Supreme Court for a second, you know, Kate, you

were talking about how government can and should be full of experts based on merit. When, not if the Supreme Court overrules or just limits Humphrey's executor and gives Donald Trump the power to control who heads all of these agencies, they are going to be making it possible for him to install people at these agencies who will engage in this kind of grift and make government just a spoils system rather than a meritocracy run by experts. I love the gilded age. The re-gilded age. Good news. It's coming back.

Yeah. Okay. So as we always do at the end of our episodes, we will offer. our favorite things, and then we will have one favor to ask of you. So I will start with the favorites. My favorite, one of my favorites, was Barack Obama's speech at the opening of the presidential center. Specifically, the part where he shouted out, quote, those ordinary people in the Twin Cities who braved frigid temperatures, risked their own safety, standing shoulder to shoulder to look out for their neighbors and sometimes for strangers because they knew that was the right thing to do.

We actually have some people in the audience tonight from Minnesota. So wanted to shout them out as well. One other just small thing, sappy note. So this past week, the three of us learned that an article that we have co-written that we've reference on the podcast but haven't actually released into the wild was a recipient of the American Constitution Society Kadehi Prize for regulatory and administrative law and in like a very rare against type silver lining positive message for me I just wanted to encourage everyone to find their own people like women working together is incredible professional networks of women, female friends are the best.

And I feel like one of the reasons why, you know, I wanted to, we wanted to start the podcast, I'll just speak for myself, is like this persistent feeling that women are just undervalued in the legal profession, the legal academy. And so creating this space where we could do our own thing and do it for ourselves was just, a wonderful opportunity and I am just very grateful for all of the things that have come from it.

Amen. Second everything Leah just said and she mentioned President Obama's speech. I'm at the opening of the presidential center. I will also mention Michelle Obama's speech there. And it was extraordinary. Watch it. You'll cry. I am sure. It'll get both joy and trauma that we have come so far from sort of what we saw on display in the opening of that center. And just on a quick personal note, so all the former administration staffers from the Obama administration were invited to go to the opening last week. And I was a lawyer in the administration, and I got an invitation, and I had all of these end-of-school year obligations with my kids, and I didn't think I could swing it, and so I didn't go. And so I've watched with a heavy dose of FOMO all of the incredible videos and images from the center. But I mean, I'm kind of glad I just got to experience it the way everybody else did.

And I have to say that in the same way, we started with the NICS, well end the show, with the NICS, but the victory. and the kind of ensuing joy felt like it restored some balance in the universe. It did feel like the opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago was like the real 250th anniversary. The country deserves. We have been better before. There's no guarantee, but we can be, again, it's going to take a lot of work, but I did feel a lot of optimism in the last week.

And even though I probably feel more than my co-host at times, It was much more than even I have felt in a long time, and I'm grateful to the Obamas and the folks who put all that work into making that center. Such an extraordinary place. Go see it if you haven't. That's all. Maybe one related piece I'll say since the end of our show is often a Jamel Bowie appreciation space. He had a recent column, Obama and Mamdani show how it's done,

which I think just sort of encapsulated a lot of the themes I just shared. So those are my favorite things. So going last means that you're pretty much plus-woning much of what, was said before. So I will plus one. I really enjoyed the Obama speeches at the opening of the Obama Presidential Center. I loved seeing Malia and Sasha all grown up. So cute. All of this, I thought, was an antidote to the nonsense that we saw on the White House lawn earlier this week. And I don't want to bring down the vibe, but it's Juneteen, so I'm going to call it out. I know a lot of people were really incensed about Josh Hokit's vile remarks

about Mrs. Obama. And I'm just going to implore you to let it go. That man has a painted on beard and looks like a thumb. He's got bigger problems. He got bigger problems. Forget him. If it really makes you mad, and again, this is not me doing Michelle Obama.

When they go low, we go high. Because I firmly believe when they go low, we go to hell. But it just shows how, you'll Obamas who are classy and elegant and brilliant, just live rent-free in these people's heads because they know they will never be like the Obama's. They will never be like the Obama's. And it kills them. And it kills them. So if you really want to get them where they live, instead of talking about what he said, go to Netflix, download Becoming, and put it on a perpetual loop for the whole weekend, which I may or may not have done.

and allow it to go to number one on the Netflix chart. Right? Because that listeners is how you clear a bitch. Okay? By being elegant, unbothered, successful, moisturized, and on top of the Netflix charts. And I just want to shout out some folks who worked with me recently. The audiobook, for my recent book, The U.S. Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader.

the audiobook was recently recognized by Kirkus Reviews and Audophile Magazine with an earphone award for outstanding contributions to the audiobook medium. And thank you. So I read the annotations, but I really want to shout out the great Dionne Graham who actually read the text of the Constitution was my co-narrator on the audiobook. And I especially want to thank Karen Perlman and the rest of the audiobook team. at Simon & Schuster who are here tonight for their outstanding work. I could not have done this without you.

You were fantastic. Thank you. And of course, New York, we couldn't have done all of this without you. So this is the greatest city in the world. Stricties are the greatest audience in the world. And we have one last favor. We have one last favor to ask. In addition to downloading us on all of your favorites, favorite podcast mediums. And giving us a five-star rating, because if you don't, we are going

to assume you are not a modern reader. And also the next live show. We got a shout out the next live show. And buying tickets for the next live show, which is going to be in November in Washington, D.C. at CrookedCon. It's going to be so fabulous. But before you do all of those things, can we take a selfie with you? Yeah. Yay. Okay. All right. Strict scrutiny is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Melody Raoul and Michael Goldsmith. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hathcote, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffat, Eric Schute, and our music is by Eddie Cooper. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.