Strict Scrutiny - Will SCOTUS Keep Trans Kids Out of Sports?

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

Melissa, Leah, and Kate kick off by discussing the functional suspension of the Constitution in Minneapolis and Trump’s targeting of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Then they dissect the arguments in a pair of cases that came before the Court last week about whether state laws barring trans girls and women from their schools’ sports teams violate the Constitution or Title IX. Finally, they break down new opinions from SCOTUS involving criminal law, the Fourth Amendment, and mail-in ballots.Favorite things:Kate: You’ve heard about who ICE is recruiting. The truth is far worse. I’m the proof., Laura Jedeed (Slate); Remarkably Bright Creatures, Shelby Van Pelt; God of the Woods, Liz Moore; Ulysses at the Public TheaterLeah: They Were Ordinary Germans. We Are Ordinary Americans., Shalom Auslander (NYT); What to know about the Insurrection Act, Steve Vladeck & Allison Gill (One First); Can Trump Actually Use the Insurrection Act? Steve Vladeck and Jennifer Rubin (The Contrarian)Melissa: Nuremberg; Ammel vs. Sinema; This guy 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.

Struck scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We're all legal nerds here, and we know that precedent set in any area of the law ripples out across our lives in so many ways. And our right to religious freedom is one of the most sacred areas of the law. It protects almost every aspect of our daily lives. Rights we all hold dear. Like LGBTQ plus rights, freedom to choose the type of health care you need, and ensuring a well-funded and inclusive public school system. Protecting the separation of church and state is in fact protecting the very foundation of our democracy. If you're looking for ways to more deeply understand the connection of and from religion to so many of the civil justice issues we see today,

you should check out the summit for religious freedom or surf, an annual conference held in D.C. and virtually, April 25th through 27th in 26. At surf, advocates, organizers, faith leaders, atheists, and everyone in between will come together to take on the growing threats of Christian nationalism and the efforts to impose one narrow religious belief on all of us. This is a movement for big change and collaboration across the entire spectrum of religious belief and non-belief. It strengthens our democracy. It will protect public schools and reproductive and LGBTQ plus rights and so much more.

So be a part of the movement that's pushing back and standing up for freedom. You can register to attend today at thesurf.org. That's t-h-esr-r-f.org. Mr. Chief Justice, may it please support. It's an old joke. 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. Welcome back to strict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Kate Shaw. I'm Leah Littman. And I'm Melissa Murray. And we are going to start today's episode with some breaking news. We'll then debrief last week's arguments at the court, in particular, the pair of challenges by transgender student athletes to state bans on their participation in school sports. And then we will wrap up with assorted legal news. Okay. On the breaking news front, we wanted to start by talking for a few minutes about the images and video that we are all seeing from Minneapolis, right now. And we are a, you know, Supreme Court and legal podcast. We talk a lot and think a lot about the Constitution. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the administration, the Trump administration, has functionally suspended the Constitution in the city of Minneapolis. ICE is entering homes without warrants. And it's not clear under the circumstances that any of the

exception to the warrant requirement apply. They are brutalizing people for constitutionally protected speech and protest. They are engaging in obvious racial profiling. And in a pretty kind of amazing way, the people of Minneapolis are refusing to accede to this effort to unilaterally rescind the protections of the Constitution. I'd say the people of Minnesota, because they are not just limiting themselves to Minneapolis. It's extending way beyond the city. And it just seems like the entire state is unwilling to let this happen. Very Minnesota nice or Minnesota noice, as I've been saying, like N-O-I-C-E. And for listeners who are newer and don't know, that is Leah does originally hail from Minnesota. So she knows whereof she speaks. Exactly. Okay. Related, it has been reported that six federal prosecutors resigned Tuesday over a refusal to open an investigation into Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who shot and killed Renee Good three times and the push to investigate.

Instead, Good's widow for ties to groups engaged in protests against the administration. Truly beyond ghoulish, the individuals who resigned including. Trump's hand-picked acting U.S. attorney who was heading the investigation into public benefits fraud. That is part of what instigated the whole embryo in Minnesota. And of course, after we finish recording, news broke that these goons are launching investigations into other people who also aren't the ICE officer who shot and killed a woman. The New York Times broke the story that Trump's Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota governor, Tim Walsh and Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, for allegedly interfering with the enforcement of

immigration law. How have they supposedly interfered with the enforcement of immigration law? Who the F knows? I just want to say three quick things about this before getting you back to our regularly recorded program. One, if the federal government's theory is the state is obstructing enforcement of immigration law because the state isn't actively assisting our efforts to enforce immigration law, that doesn't fly. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the federal government cannot require state executives like a governor or a mayor to enforce federal law. Now, state officers can't obstruct federal law enforcement, but merely declining to participate in federal law enforcement is something states can do. You know who wrote the opinion that said that? No one less than

the great man himself, Antonin Scalia, Prince versus United States. Two, that These guys are targeting the governor and mayor. Make it clear. This is about political retribution. It is essentially a vindictive, malicious prosecution and investigation directed at an entire state, a political entity that is part of our constitutional system, a state that chose to elect people that Trump doesn't like and who have stood up to the ice goons. It really seems like the federal government is essentially attempting to force a regime change in Minnesota. I hate to admit it. I kind of joked, not joked, but alluded to this possibility.

When I spoke to Beck Inber after the president's invasion of Venezuela, that is whether they might try to engage in regime change elsewhere, including domestically. Let's play that tape. At this point in the presser, he shifted to talking about D.C., Memphis, Chicago, New Orleans, leaving me wondering, like, given how quickly the goalposts are moving here, here, right? Hours ago, Mike Lee was saying we're in and out, now, no, we're going to be running Venezuela. Like, are they also thinking about regime change in D.C., Memphis, Chicago, New Orleans? Oof, did not mean to manifest that. Three, the idea that you are criminalizing your political opposition is, of course, a hallmark of authoritarian autocratic regimes. Because we are a Supreme Court podcast, I can't resist

pointing out that it was the Supreme Court's egregious decision in the immunity case that told the president, you have complete and total power over investigations and prosecutions. Does it matter if they're shams? Doesn't matter if they're for improper purposes. You can do them anyways. Go at it, Guy. And speaking of things, the Supreme Court is at fault for back to our regularly recorded episode. It is also because of the Supreme Court that federal officers think they are essentially beyond accountability in their tactics. The court has made it incredibly difficult to sue federal officials, even when they violate constitutional rights. I actually talk with Alex Wagner about this on Sundays, Pod Save America, and the court

bears a huge amount of responsibility for how this is playing out. And as all of this is playing out, the president of the United States decided to truth through it, his own version of the truth. He posted on truth social a threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, a possibility that we previously noted in our discussion of the National Guard case. It hasn't happened yet, but it's so rare that presidents invoke the Insurrection Act that there's so little case law on it and there's not much to say about the legal guardrails here. As Marty Lieberman noted in our last episode, existing DOJ memos say that the application of the Insurrection Act is appropriate if the federal courts can't function. That is not the case in Minnesota. Alternatively, it is appropriate. It is

appropriate in situations where, quote, those engaging in violence are either acting with the approval of state authorities or have, like the clan in the 1870s, taken over effective control of the area involved. Again, not clear that that's what's going on here either. I mean, it's definitely not what's going on here, right? Like, the predicates are not true. That was all an understatement. Jeez. We're just shouting it for those in the back who might not. in any violence, which is, by the way, is non-existent. And also the state and local authorities have this under control.

Sorry, I'm very triggered by this. Appropriately. Okay, this is a hot dish moment for sure. And if you want some more insight into this area of law, even though there is very little law here, Steve Vlottick, friend of the pod, Commander Steve Vloddick, did a great breakdown on Substack with Allison Gill, Mueller, she wrote, and we will post a link in the show notes. And of course, we will cover all of this if and when it comes to pass. The second piece of news we wanted to flag for you involves developments around the Federal Reserve. As we previewed

last week in the second week of the January sitting, that is this week, the court is going to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Cook. That's the case about whether the president has the power to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. And more broadly, it is a case about the future of Fed independence. Well, Well, independent schmendence. Last Sunday, the New York Times broke the news that the Department of Justice had decided to serve several grand jury subpoenas on the Fed and that the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office has opened an investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell based on Powell's Senate testimony

regarding renovations to the Fed building. Y'all, we know what's up here. It's pretty clear that the president has been looking to go after Powell for a while. Powell has refused to literally drop interest rates to sub-zero levels so that the housing market can rebound in fine form. And the president is taking that personally. He wants lower interest rates to make the economy look better. And he wants to get back at Jerome Powell, I will say, for making him look like an absolute schmuck in a hard hat photo after the tour of the renovations took place. Like, sir, it's not his fault. You put the hat on. You did that. You did that. But

again, vengeance, thy name is POTUS. And also doing this literally on the eve of the Supreme Court argument. Absolute recklessness. Reckless. Or performance art. Well, there's more to say about that, but it's either reckless or it just is clear evidence that he wants it known that he is going, that he knows no constraints. And he is not cowed by the possibility the Supreme Court might rub off his efforts. It can be reckless.

Yeah. Well, on that note, Kate, it's like doing it out in the open. Right? And so people then say, well, he has the power because he is acting like it and the court, you know, isn't doing anything about it anyways. Unlike so many of Trump's targets, Powell immediately fired back posting a video Sunday night, acknowledging that he's been told he is under investigation and saying in no uncertain terms what the T is. So we'll just play that clip here. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best. assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the president. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions

or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. I mean, that was a pretty extraordinary video, and I really do wonder whether and how it will color or maybe even come up during Wednesday's arguments in this case. Like you were just saying, Leah, it is so striking that Trump decides to go after Powell now, both like on the eve of the arguments and with Powell already scheduled to depart the chairmanship in May. Like, it's almost February. Like, now, you know, in terms of the pending argument, like, if the justices were inclined to say, we cannot probe the president's motives. If he says he's firing someone for mortgage fraud, we have to credit that. I do think that gets a lot harder. And this is the recklessness point in the face of Powell's.

just calling BS on the eve, essentially, of the argument. But I really do think that he had to realize that this could be potentially counterproductive to his legal chances before the court. And his having decided to do it anyway and to do it now just feels like a pretty extraordinary acknowledgement that his goal is sweeping away any and all constraints. And I just think this development very much ratchets up the already very high stakes and drama of the Cook argument this week. It's so weird that he thinks that this court would be receptive to completely unfettering him. You know, it's just weird. Where to get that idea?

I don't know. It's so weird. The one thing I will say about Jerome Powell did not know this guy had it in him. And I will just say this was his love actually Hugh Grant moment. You know that scene in love actually when Billy Bob Thornton as the president of the United States hits on the catering manager that Hugh Grant as the prime minister is kind of liking, crushing for? crushing. Crushing is better. It's a little more wholesome. Anyway, well, this is like when

Hugh Grant's like, you know, we are a small country, but we are a mighty one. We're the home of David Beckham's left foot and David Beckham's right foot. Like all of like, that was Jerome Powell. He's like, bring it. Like I'm Jerome Powell, bitch. Exactly. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Quince. Are you starting the year with a wardrobe refresh? I applaud that. Quince has you covered with luxe essentials that feel effortless and look polished. They're perfect for layering, mixing, and building a wardrobe that lasts and looks great. Their versatile styles make it easy for you to reach for them every single day, day after day. Quimps has all of your staples covered, from soft Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like

designer pieces but without the markup to 100% silk tops and skirts for easy dressing up. They also have perfectly cut denim for everyday wear, and their wardrobe essentials are crafted to last season after season. I told you on our favorite things episode that my new favorite Quince item is the Yack sweater. I know, Yack, Yack, doesn't sound like it'd be amazing and luxurious, but guess what? Quince has made it absolutely amazing and luxurious. It's soft, it's durable, and it looks fantastic with everything. Get on it. And of course, I've always been quince-pilled on the Mongolian cashmere, so nothing more needs to be said. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Don't wait. Go to quince.com slash strict for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. And guess what? My folks up north,

Quince is now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash strict to get free shipping and 365-day returns and a wardrobe that's going to stand the test of time. Quince.com slash strict. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Cozy Earth. How are you resetting your home for the new year? I think the best way to do a home reset is to refer to. refresh your sheets and towels to start the new year off right. If self-improvement and better sleep is on your list for New Year's resolution, then Cozy Earth is the first step in your New Year's plan. What does it mean for you to have a fresh start? I'll tell you. It's a new year and it means you should have fresh beginnings in your home. The idea here is that you can start every day

feeling great because you have the absolute best embedding from Cozy Earth. It's more than just a gift to yourself. It's a way that you're going to recharge and take on this new year, ready and rearing to go. I love resetting with cozy earth. I bought a bunch of new towels and new bedding, and they're absolutely fantastic. I love going to sleep anyway, but now I really love hopping into bed because I have my cozy earth sheets. I know their temperature regulating. I'm going to have a great night's sleep. And then when I wake up and I have a fantastic shower, I can towel off with these fabulous, luxurious, cozy earth towels. What could be better? What a way to start the day when all of this gestures wildly is happening in the world,

but you know that your home is an oasis. All of their products have a 100-night-sleep trial. Try them out. If you don't love them, return them hassle-free. And they have a 10-year warranty because once you feel this level of comfort, you will want it to last a decade. Start your new year off right and give your home the luxury it deserves and make home the best part of your life.

head to cozyearth.com and use the code strict for up to 20% off. That's cozyearth.com code strict. And if you get a post-purchase survey, be sure to mention that you heard about cozy earth right here on strict scrutiny. Refresh your routines with comfort that makes every day feel like a new year. So with that bit of news out of the way, we wanted to turn to last week's oral arguments. The first case we're going to discuss first group of cases is Little v. Hecox and West Virginia versus BPJ. This is a pair of cases about whether state laws barring trans girls and women from their school sports teams violate the Constitution or the Federal Title IX statute, which prohibits discrimination in institutions of education

and educational programs. Opening observations wanting to offer? So it's going to get grim, so I'm going to start with actually kind of a highlight, which is that I thought Kathleen Hartnett for Lindsay Hecox and Josh Block for BPJ. were both excellent, like truly excellent. And they made a strategic choice to make clear that the asks that they were making were pretty modest, right? Neither. They were very explicit that they were not challenging the existence of sex segregated sports teams writ large. They're not even in, we'll get to some clips that sort of, I think, explain this, but they're not even really suggesting that schools must respect identity and self-determination of students. They're just largely saying that for people like their clients who have transitioned, the arguments that states are.

offering about athletic advantage and unfairness are simply not powerful enough to justify a law that would prohibit these students from playing sports. Okay, so that's like, you know, starting like on a high note, I also thought making the opposite point, Hash Mupan, who represented the federal government in both of the cases, I thought made some of the most offensive statements I've ever heard from the Scotus lectern, and we will get into those. I agree with both of those observations, remarkable achievements on both sides. You know, Kathleen Hartnett and Josh Block maintaining poise and having answers to to all questions in the face of a hostile bench, and I think potentially making some headway and warding off some possible ways this opinion might go. And then on the other side,

Hachmupon, managing to be, I think, the most transphobic person in a courtroom where Sam Alito had the floor for almost four full hours. We have to salute it. It's really an accomplishment I did not think could be done. Yeah. So I will just note that as predicted last week, they went straight out of the gate with an effort to recast Title IX as requiring discrimination against trans people in order to secure equality for women. And that's the new sex equality. I think we have to sort of think about it in those terms. So we are undergoing a real shift in how we think about constitutional sex equality, statutory sex equality. And part of it, I think, requires the inequality of other groups in order to assert women's equality. And,

I'll say more about that in a minute. This is, I think, more of an observation about just the tenor of the argument and trying to draw connections with other kinds of fights that we've seen over the last couple of years. There are no new ideas. So the conservative legal movement has worked for years to undo the civil rights gains of the last half century. And affirmative action is sort of a perfect case in point. For years, they pressed and pressed this idea that affirmative action was really about reverse discrimination against white people. And the court resisted that, not mightily, not strenuously, but enough that it permitted the limited use of race and college admissions for about 50 years or so. But then the conservative legal movement got a better idea.

Don't focus on the harms to white people, find some third group, another minority group, and transform the fight into one that actually fractures the social justice coalition of minorities by creating a wedge. So in this case, affirmative action, Asian Americans become the third group and they are pitted against. Black and Brown people in the fight over race-conscious admissions that had originally been about white people getting discriminated against. So it becomes like a third way. The same kind of thing is happening here. They haven't been able to roll back the gains that the women's rights movement have made. And that's not surprising since the whole idea that men are being discriminated against when they literally control almost everything doesn't seem to really be a good argument. Does John Hawley notice? Not a persuasive one.

I mean, give it time, I guess. But instead, what they're doing is finding a third group to fracture the feminist coalition. And the group is trans people. I don't even know how to say this in a way that is entirely coherent. I hear all of the brickbats that have been fired against people who argue that, you know, these arguments about women's protection are really problematic. I got a ton of these mentions on social media last week. But if you think this is just about quote unquote protecting women and there are no costs to sex equality, like you're delusional.

When you start protecting women, like you are back in 1908 and Mueller versus Oregon. And there's just going to be a raft of laws all predicated on the idea that women have to be protected from everything, from work, from school, from having a job, everything. And that's not sex equality. And so if you think our fates are not intertwined here, you're really missing the boat. Yeah. No, it's totally coherent. And I think it's just like an incredibly compelling linked fates argument, right? Like it is the strategy is to fracture the coalition.

It is imperative for women's rights, trans rights, repro rights, communities to sort of knit our fates together because I do think that they are trying very hard to drive wedges between those groups and those like rights claims. Well, it's working. I'm like, it's working. Yeah. Okay, so I guess on that we should probably turn to the substance of the oral argument. And there are a bunch of themes that we wanted to highlight. The first is a little bit technical, but I do think it's important. So I'll just spend a couple of minutes on it, which is sort of what about as applied challenges? This is something that came up a lot if you listen to the oral argument.

So there was a good deal of discussion about like, what is the nature of the constitutional challenge that these students are bringing? Like, how should we conceptualize it? And what does that mean for the proper standard of review? so how courts should actually assess these state laws. The plaintiffs described the case as essentially an as-applied equal protection challenge. And as I said, kind of at the outset, right, everyone agreed that in general terms, the existence of sex segregated teams doesn't violate the equal protection clause. And, you know, separating girls and boys into separate teams does satisfy the intermediate scrutiny that applies to any sex classification. But the plaintiff's argument is that the reasons for keeping teams segregated by sex just cannot justify excluding individuals like the plaintiffs in these cases.

Maybe just a quick primer on as applied versus facial challenges. When you challenge a law on its face, you are saying the law can't be constitutionally applied to anyone. A statute that bars speech annoying the president can't constitutionally be applied to anyone because the standard it adopts is an invalid one. Whereas in an as applied challenge, you're saying the law could be constitutionally applied to some people but not others. You and others similarly situated. Just as an example, a lot of courts have entertained as applied second amendment challenges. to laws prohibiting firearm possession by people who are convicted of felonies. If you were convicted of a felony that doesn't make you dangerous in the court's eyes or a greater risk with a firearm, the law might not be constitutional as applied to you, courts have said. But if you are convicted of attempted murder with a firearm, then it's probably okay to prohibit you and people like you from possessing a firearm. And Leah describes the state of the law accurately. And actually like that explanation was I think actually very clear and accessible.

I will say sometimes the distinction is more slippery than that. And frankly, it does not ever make perfect sense to me. So if you find the distinction in general terms confusing, I'll just say you're definitely not alone. You're not alone. I will note, though, that I'm old enough to remember when the conservative majority was absolutely fine with as-applied challenges like, say, in 303 creative versus Alenis, when it framed the challenge in 303 creative as an as-applied challenge in order to insulate a website

designer from the force of Colorado's anti-discrimination law without actually having to say that in fact what they were doing was granting a broad license to everyone to discriminate against LGBTQ plus people. The dissent in 303 creative basically said this is not an as applied challenge. You're basically making a facial rule and facial determination, but the court was really into it on that particular ground. So again, they've been good on as applied challenges in the past. In any event, the state and the federal government in this case seemed to be making an argument that the plaintiffs could not bring a claim of this sort under the Equal Protection Clause, and there was a bunch of debate about how to understand some of the court's equal protection

cases. And even Justice Kagan at one point mused about this, describing the, quote, surprisingly unanswered in my mind, equal protection question about what an as-applied equal production challenge is and whether they exist. Although she also said it would be very wrong to craft some sort of bar as-to-as-applied challenges in the context of equal protection. But She definitely floated the idea that it was a little sort of tenuous that it could exist. Well, or that the court's cases just haven't been that clear about, like, what kind of they are, you know, spend most of their time talking about the substantive constitutional question. And when you sort of go back to them, you can make arguments like, we should understand this as an as applied or we should understand it as a facial challenge. I mean, Josh Block, who was BPJ's lawyer, suggested actually that this facial versus as applied distinction needed to be rethought in the wake of the CASA case, the one that dramatically limited.

the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. I'm not sure. Anyway, I don't know that needs to be totally rethought, but I do think that the question, the fact that there was as much airtime given to this sort of first order question of whether as applied equal protection challenges even exist was very concerning to me. Maybe they just exist for the First Amendment challenges against equal protection law. And men. Yeah.

The law as applied to me. Well, I mean, don't say that, though, because they do say overbred this is okay in the First Amendment context, but not elsewhere. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, I think it would be helpful. for courts to clarify, you know, what facial challenges mean in a post-Casa world. But the idea that they are going to say, you can't do as-applied challenges here or as-applied challenges are somehow disfavored and more limited than facial challenges is deranged, like a total about-face.

The law until now has been that facial challenges are disfavored because they result in the total invalidation of a law. And the idea that they're going to carve out an exception for equal protection claims on sex discrimination because they really think discrimination against trans people is, is okay is, I think, so damning. Like, just an additional note on the whole as-applied challenge thing, you know, the states of federal government and the plaintiffs seem to want to cohere around a principle along the lines of you can raise as-applied sex discrimination claims as long as you are doing

so on the basis of a sufficiently large group. That is, you can't say, this law is only unconstitutional as applied to me. You'd have to say, this law is unconstitutional as applied to this sufficiently large group I'm part of. Now, the plaintiffs obviously say trans women and trans girls are such a group, whereas the state and federal government say they are not. To which I say, how can it be that trans women and girls are such a big group that it's super unfair to cis women to allow them to play sports, but not so big that they can raise as applied equal protection challenges. Riddle me this. Also, like, the conceptual flaw they identify in as applied equal protection challenges applies to literally every area of the law because their beef is that sex discrimination claims are reviewed for,

intermediate scrutiny, which means the law doesn't have to be a perfect fit to absolutely everyone. It's only problematic if it doesn't fit with a sufficient number of people. You know what other challenges are reviewed under intermediate scrutiny? Some First Amendment challenges. Also, I didn't realize the wedding website designer in 303 Creative was part of this, like, vast group of people that, like, really don't want to design websites for like same-sex weddings. Or all the parents of Mahmoud versus Taylor who are just fine with the storybooks. Like, the list is so long.

And it's just very hard to see any other explanation. But the claims that they're sympathetic to get to go forward, the ones they're hostile to don't. It's like that actually, that's called law. Yes. Yeah. And because these guys like nothing more than slamming doors to possible constitutional claims they don't like, maybe they will say you can't bring these as applied equal protection claims at all. Again, all fates. Don't manifest.

Yes. Oh, I'm not manifesting that. They were making that clear. Well, don't encourage it. So another theme that was very evident at oral arguments is that the Democratic nominees know they're losing this case, and they were scrambling to contain the blast radius of whatever this decision is going to be. And they were very explicit about it, more so than usual, especially Justice Kagan. At one point, she asked the government's lawyers to help them think through what the limiting principles would be so that the athlete's loss in this case, would not reverberate more broadly than was necessary.

So here's a clip of that. So if we didn't want to prevent a different state from making a different choice from West Virginia, what should we not say or what should we say to prevent that from happening? And let's use that Kagan clip to take us to a closely related theme. And that theme is, what happens next here? If the states win, obviously, that's awful news for trans student. athletes and basic principles of equality. But what else does it mean in terms of real-world consequences? As Justice Sotomayor suggested, it would seem that by upholding these laws, the court would be

watering down the standard applicable to sex discrimination, essentially allowing states to engage in some sex discrimination that might strike the justices as reasonable or rooted in biology, or not so bad, as some of the justices in dissent had previously suggested. You can hear that here. You're asking the court to adopt views expressed by two minority dissenting judges in this case. We've been doing an awful lot of that lately, but you're smiling because it's true. So basically what this would mean is that constitutional scrutiny and sex discrimination cases would not change as a formal matter. It would remain nominally intermediate scrutiny. And the intermediate scrutiny standard requires that a sex-based,

classification can be upheld if it is substantially related to an important governmental interest. But the question would be, would courts accept justifications rooted in stereotypes or assumptions that claim to be rooted in biology? So that's kind of a complete reworking of the extant doctrine. And I think one that is very complementary to what the court did in Scrametti when it completely reframed what it means to have a sex-based discriminatory. or not. So this is all of a piece, and I think part of a bigger project and trajectory to completely unwind sex equality constitutionalism. Absolutely. And kind of on this sort of what comes next point, there is very much the possibility, in addition to the kind of this potential

doctrinal overhaul, but the specific kind of litigation possibility, which Melissa, you referenced on our last episode and at the beginning of the conversation today, that the lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court will be quickly faced with the argument. that Title IX and or the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution not only doesn't require, but actually forbids states from allowing trans girls and women to play girls and women's sports. This is something Kavanaugh asked about a lot. And, you know, actually not in the kind of let's hurry up and decide the kind of maximalist. Yes, Title IX requires exclusion in all cases spirit.

So let's play his question of the Idaho lawyer and then that lawyer's response. And those states who do allow it, are they, is your position that they are violating the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, rights of biological girls and women by allowing that, or do you say that's up to each state to decide and that the Constitution gives discretion to the state whether to allow it or not to allow it? I have not yet been persuaded by a constitutional theory that would let us. us use the Equal Protection Clause to impose our policy on other states in this matter. All right.

That was Idaho's lawyer. West Virginia's lawyer also gave a similar answer. Then the federal government's lawyer, Hash Mupan, made clear that they, in fact, already are seeking to bar states from allowing trans athletes to play. So let's roll that tape. Mr. Mupon, you talked about you are litigating this case the opposite way among states that do not prohibit. trans women and girls from participating in sports teams. Is that correct? Yes.

So note here that the lawyers for the states of Idaho and West Virginia are saying we are not taking a position that California has to bar trans athletes. But the federal government is signaling pretty clearly, hold my beer, folks. Once we win this case, we're coming for all of the 23 states that still allow these athletes to play. So that's one end game. It's called federalism. For real. Yes. The new federalism. Our federalism. No, there was this moment which was like, I wonder, I couldn't, I don't want to like too charitably read those state SG responses, but they actually did kind of seem to be channeling a little like genuine, not sarcastic, but real federalism to say like, but maybe that's me being too charitable. No, no. I think it's because like we're not going to tell. They're not in court every day for this administration arguing for the maximalist position. They're still in like real law land where you're trying to convince courts to like do something. modest and incremental.

Federal government, not so much. They don't litigate frequently enough before the Supreme Court to understand that the game has changed. Totally. That might be right. Yeah, those were surprisingly normal answers that both gave. And Hash Mupon was like, no. No, that's not what big. Let me show you. It's done now. Go bigger. YOLA. Yes. Okay. So also in the realm of the next case, not the next case out of California, but just kind of the next case in sort of more general terms, Justice Barrett had an interesting exchange with the West Virginia Solicitor General, which kind of reminded me of colloquy she had in both Bernovich, the Voting Rights Act case and 303 Creative, which we've already talked about, so much so

that I think this is actually now kind of a move of hers, although I think not deliberate, which is she gets an advocate on the side that she is likely to vote with to say some pretty crazy and unhelpful, I think unhelpful things. So here she is posing a question about sex-segregated math class, and Kagan then jumps in to bring in chess. So first let's play this kind of puzzling at least puzzling in the responses exchange. I just wanted to ask if on your understanding of Title IX, you could have separated by-sex classrooms in biology or a math based on some evidence that you have that say men are better at math and science.

What are the limits to your Title IX theory? So I think your instinct there in part arises from the fact that we're skeptical of any notion that there are inherent differences. I want to kind of acknowledge the real reality of this point. Well, your whole position in this case depends on there being inherent differences, Right? It does. Hmm. Okay. Maybe he just flipped what he meant to say. I'm not positive. Anyway, let's now play this clip, which was Kagan jumping into follow-up. How about chess club?

A chess distinction, I think, again, might fail because there's an actual lack of evidence of meaningful physiological differences that are reflected in the existence of the express regulations in the athletics context. I mean, I think a lot of people would say, you know, if you look at the ranks of chess grandmasters, there are not a whole lot of women there. and, you know, what does that mean? Well, I think, you know, I think that there's a sort of intuitive, I think there are a lot of chess grandmasters who would tell you that women just, like, for whatever reason, they're, you know, they're not very, they're not as good as this. I think chess is an interestingly closer question. Neil Gorsuch tried to step in and do damage control,

which deprived me of one of my few joys in listening to Supreme Court arguments, which is hearing Elena Kagan just absolutely flay some dumbass who's like, yeah, sex discrimination is cool, unclear if his damage control worked. So ladies, maybe pack up your chessboards, states might be telling you you're out of luck. Queen's Gambit was such good fiction back when it last day. Exactly. Speaking of Neil Gorsuch intervention. It's for your own good, ladies.

Yeah. More Neil Gorsuch interventions. he came back to one of his pet projects, the spending clause. So Gorsuch seemed to be interested in exploring whether the court could decide this case by finding that because Title IX is spending clause legislation, that is it's essentially a condition attached to money from the federal government, that a special clear statement rule applies and states would have to be on super clear notice that they couldn't bar trans girls and women, and that here Title IX doesn't give that sort of notice.

So last term in Planned Parenthood v. Medina, the court in an opinion, Neil Gorsuch, did some real work to make the spending clause great again, by which I mean, make it very difficult for plaintiffs to successfully challenge government action when spending clause legislation is in the mix and the basis for the plaintiff's claim. That was a case involving the Medicaid statute. The court seems poised to escalate that even further in a case that's pending this term, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, a case involving Arlupa, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. That's a federal law against spending clause legislation that governs, among other things, religious rights of institutionalized persons and states.

But kind of interestingly here, in part because the federal government really kind of tried to dissuade the court from going down that path, didn't seem likely that there was much interest in the spending clause theory. Possible, Gorsuch, writes separately about it, but I didn't think anybody else seemed particularly interested. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Armora Colostrum. Are you feeling sluggish, bloated, not like yourself? Guess what, folks? Life bombards us with silent threats. Process food, artificial light, modern stressors that disrupt your gut, drain your energy, and weaken your immune health.

Your body isn't broken, but it does need the right inputs. That's where Armoura Colostrum comes in. It's nature's original blueprint for health. Cholostrum is packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that fortify gut health. They fuel fitness recovery and they strengthen your immune system supporting your best performance every day. Not only that, keep your pixie in a plus form. Armra Colostrum is your secret for feeling strong, vibrant, and confident again because colostrum is packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level to ignite inside-out transformation

for whole body benefits. And that includes your skin, your hair, your gut, and so much more. What's not to love about all of this? Now's the time to get on the Armra bandwagon and try some Armra colostrum incorporated into your daily routine. And to help you start, we've worked out a special offer for the strict scrutiny audience. You can receive 30% off your first subscription order by going to armora.com forward slash strict and by entering strict to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's ARMRA.com slash strict for 30% off your first subscription order. Strictney is brought to you by dose. Do you know what's easier than fixing a problem, not having the problem in the first place. That's how I feel about this Supreme Court.

What if we didn't have this Supreme Court in the first place? Think about it. Your liver is one of those organs that you don't think about at all until you have to. That's why supporting it daily is one of those small things that you can do to make a huge difference in how you feel overall. And that's where dose for your liver comes in. Dose for your liver is a clinically back liver health supplement. But it isn't just another capsule or powder. It's a liquid supplement that's taken in a daily two-ounce shot that tastes like fresh squeezed orange juice. And I'm a Floridian raised on fresh-squeezed orange juice and this stuff tastes like the real thing. Dose cleanses the liver of unwanted stressors that's slowing your liver down. It promotes daily liver function so that your liver

can do its job optimally. What can you expect then when you're drinking dose daily for your liver? Well, you're going to notice that you have less sluggishness. You're going to get rid of those midday crashes, you're going to support your metabolism and even aid your daily digestion. And why can you trust dose? Well, because it achieves real results. With two double-blind placebo-controlled studies showing doses positive impact on liver enzyme levels. So are you ready in 26 to give your liver the support it deserves? Head to dosedaily.com forward slash strict or enter strict to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body does. us so much for you. Let's do something for your body. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y. Dot C-O-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-T-E-E-A-I-L-Y-L-S-E-O-S-E-O-R-E-L-R-E-L-A-L-L-L-O-L-L-O-L-L-O-B. And I'm going to say it was a tough

competition. Obviously, one contender was, friend of the pod, Sam Alito. Going in, I think the smart money was on him as the winner of this particular contest. I'm going to play one clip where he is serving up what I think he thinks is a gotcha question for Kathleen Hartnett about all the many boys who announce that they are trans purely to get on the girls' team, as one does. Let's roll it. All right, suppose this school that has a boys, let's say, track team and a girl's track team. The school has that. And a student who has the genes and the reproductive system of a male and had those at birth and has never taken puberty blockers, never,

taken female hormones, never had any gender altering or affirming. Surgery says, nevertheless, I am a woman. That's who I am. Can the school say, no, you cannot participate on the girls' team? Sorry, so you're just a birth, sex male who has all the advantages of birth, sex male hormones, and can the school borrow him from the woman's team? Yes, they can. But that person, is that person not a woman in your understanding?

The person says, I sincerely believe I a woman, I am in fact a woman. Is that person not a woman? And here's Hartnett's response. I would respect their self-identity in addressing the person, but in terms of the statute, I think the question is, does that person have a sex-based biological advantage that's going to make it unfair for that person to be part of the women's team? And that's the rationale for the regulation. And so that's the way we would be testing that high.

This is an example of the excellent advocacy. It reminded me of the moment where, or many moments, honestly, where he thought he had a gotcha for Biden's Solicitor General Elizabeth Preliger. Like when he asked her, you know, is a raw egg and a green pepper and some ham and omelet? And she was like, no, bitch, it's not because it could be other things. You know, she didn't actually say that. But anyways, Kathleen Hartnett's response, you know, sounded to me in the same register. Another possible contender for, so many. Yeah, many.

is Clarence Thomas, who also piped in with a hypothetical about the individual male who is not a good athlete, you know, maybe a lousy tennis player and doesn't make the team. And then he says, how is that different from what you're being required to do here? Another theme in all of this, I think it was like more subtle. And again, it reminded me of the way the court used to talk about same-sex marriage before Obergefell, this idea of kind of counterfeiting and fraud, which is really interesting in the way the administration is now talking about fraud in the context of DEI and civil rights, what is happening in Minnesota. But there was this real undercurrent in the oral argument that effectively everyone who is transgender is perpetrating a kind of gender identity fraud. And we are here to call them out on it.

And it was just like really striking and deeply concerning. Such a good point. And also it, there were a couple explicit moments, I think, when both Kathleen and Josh, like, said something along these lines. But it's all predicated on this idea that there's, like, the good teams and the bad teams. And the good teams are the boy teams. And if you can't get onto the boy teams, then maybe you take a, you know, run at getting onto the girl teams. And obviously, like, there are fraught questions about athletic advantage. But, like, that's also just not true with respect to every sport.

Like, there are different roles with respect to the sport. Like there's not, you know, a team for girls and boys in every sport. It was just like the predicate was also just wildly off and pretty offensive. But obviously, when does that stop them? Okay, but let's cut to the chase. In terms of the award, I think, as I said at the outset, it has to go to Mupin, who argued on behalf of the federal government. I, you know, lost track of how many times he used the phrase biological males. It felt like he was kind of dripping with contempt at a number of moments during the argument.

maybe the kind of real low light was his reference to gender affirming care as, quote, performance altering drugs, as in this clip. And yes, we don't think a man taking performance altering drugs is similarly situated to a woman. That's the whole counterfeiting thing. Yeah. No, the fraud point and connecting to all these other fraud narratives, I think is really profound. And also like- Who the fuck takes estrogen as a performance-enhancing drug? Right.

To play better tennis. Literally, as Melody said in a. Texted, we were all, as you was like, right, estrogen famously performance enhancing. These are people who are literally blocking testosterone and sometimes taking estrogen. That's the performance enhancer. On the logic of these guys, if testosterone is the thing that gives you this enormous advantage, like, how does this even cohere in their own minds? I could not tell you.

Maha. Make America back me again. Exactly. Exactly. Another moment that triggered my gag reflex was when Mupon decided to debate whether girls do develop faster than boys, as you can hear in these clips. What about the hypothetical I posed earlier that when it comes to high school performance, girls are sure a lot better than boys, and so we're only going to have remedial classes

for boys and girls aren't free to attend. So I don't think those differences are based on inherent to biological differences. I don't think the sort of pseudoscience you're suggesting has been baked. Well, it's not pseudo. It's good science. Is that pseudoscience to say Boy's brain development happens at a different stage than girls does? Well, with all respect, I don't think there's any science anywhere that is suggested that these sort of intellectual differences

are traceable to biological differences. I'm going to call someone out for the Herculean efforts that he made during this oral argument to not be in the pool of those considered the most transphobic person in the room. And that is our boy coach Cabinac, a father of daughters.

Not surprisingly, he did not want to be the most transphobic person in the room. And he did his part here to stay off that list by reminding us of his ardent love for sports and by making sure we knew, though although he's very definitely going to vote against trans athletes, he's very, very torn up about it. Let's roll the tape. I ask a question on the law on Title IX. I mean, I hate that a kid who wants to play sports might not be able to play sports. I hate that.

But it's kind of a zero-sum game for a lot of teams. And someone who tries out and makes it, who is a transgender girl, will bump from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team. from the All-League and those things matter to people big time will bump someone else. There's so much more along these lines. Like, this is really tough for me, guys. He hates it. It kills him.

But it's so tough quit, right? Like, come on. Stop whining. You're making me do this. Anyway, Josh Block had some great responses to this. So we're going to play two of them here. I completely understand that many parts of sports are zero-sum, but this law isn't limited to zero-sum opportunities. So BPJ played on the cross-country team where there were no cuts.

She came in near the back. I just want to say that there still are some areas where there win-win solutions. I think even being able to be on practices with a team consistent with your gender identity instead of your sex assigned-up birth can be enormously important. So I think some scenarios are zero-sum, but not everything having to do with sports is. And I do think that one of the vices of this law is that it sweeps so broadly that even win-win solutions are taken off the table. One other thing to flag in all of this is what did we make of Justice Gorsuch surfacing the argument that transgender individuals constitute a discreet and insular minority? so some sort of heightened scrutiny is appropriate here because obviously we didn't have visual of the courtroom.

We only heard audio. But don't you think that Sam Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were like, excuse me, we've already decided this? Like we did this in Scermetti. Like, where were you? Silent again? The Sea Witch had his tongue, as you are wont to say. So here's one theory, which is in the preceding clips with Mupon debating whether

girls do develop faster, that caused Neil Gorsuch to interject, that's not pseudoscience. And a part of me wondered if Mupon was so offensive, he was potentially like turning Neil Gorsuch, our literal stop clock, into like transitory moments of sanity. Well, let's play. No, but he was saying, he was saying in the opening with the Idaho lawyer, which was before Mupin's argument. So I'm sorry. I know. I don't I think that's excellent. Can I play the clip? Seriously, I have genuinely been noodling on this, because I thought the conservative black was all sewn up on this question. So here's Justice Gorset. There's another way to think about the case that your friends on the other side posit, and that is that transgender status should be conceived of as a discreet and insular class

subject to scrutiny, heightened scrutiny in and of itself, given the history of de juree discrimination against transgender individuals in this country over history in immigration and family law, cross-dressing statutes. They give a long laundry list, and I'd like you to respond to that. Did you hear that? I mean, it almost feels like it's like, let's rethink this whole suspect class thing. Or it's a, just tell me what to say, right? Like, I'm teeing you up a softball and you just tell me why, you know, this won't matter. I don't know. That's kind of how I'm. I honestly read it or heard it. And we don't have this, we're not going to play this clip, but, you know, there was a concession.

The idle lawyer, like, again, like these are tiny little, I suppose, slivers of sanity, but did concede that there is a history of discrimination against transgender people. So, I guess. And Amy Coney Barrett was like, was it by law? Was it by law? At Hartner was, you know, didn't address her directly on this, but definitely was like came to recites. Dejure or de facto? About actual immigration exclusions. state and local laws criminalizing cross-dressing.

I mean, she had the actual laws ready to cite to them. Closing thoughts. So it seems like at a minimum, they're going to say Title IX doesn't prohibit state laws that ban trans women and trans girls from sports because sports, you know, that will be their reasoning that Title IX allows sex differentiation in sports and restrooms under more lenient standards than elsewhere. I think there's a small, like maybe outside chance that the excellent lawyering and advocacy by Josh Block and Kathleen Hartnett, and the really strategic, in my view, interventions

by the Democratic appointees might, and again, might be wishcasting here, might lead the court to say, we're not going to address the Equal Protection Clause issue now and instead send it back down for more fact-finding, which is what the Fourth Circuit did in the non-Moot case, West Virginia versus BPJ. So there's unfortunately another Kavanaugh moment I wanted to flag. It's okay, Leah. This is your podcast. One last clip. And I think one of the themes of your arguments been the more people learn, the more they'll agree with you. At least I've detected that theme in your argument.

So why would we get involved at this point constitutionalize? He is basically saying to the plaintiffs, so it sounds like you think you're right. Why isn't that a reason you lose since people will be persuaded except us? I honestly, I'm listening to this argument and he's like, I didn't get a chance to dissent in Obergefell. And so this is my chance to really do it. Let's not give the rights because maybe at some point states might decide to do it. So the TLDR. Can I offer a hot take?

Yes. I think this might actually be even bigger. I think they may really go bigger with this case. I do. Part of it is like sort of the way, what he said and how he said it. But also, I mean, I think you can't understand. this case without also thinking about what is happening in tandem with the executive orders, like protecting and defending women and girls, the stuff about gender affirming care.

It just seems like the road is wide open and they are not going to be constrained by public opinion, whether it's with what the executive branch is doing or what might come out of the courts. And so they could genuinely go big here. All of those executive orders that have been issued, they've been challenged, but mostly on procedural grounds, not on the substance. Right. Not on the substance, like the sex equality questions. Like they're all inconsistent with what has been extant sex equality jurisprudence. And so I just think there is a wide open lane for them to really begin the project of dismantling sex equality. And this is a very good vehicle for doing that. And they think that sports is safer than other domains. Yeah. I think that there's. That could be. So I just wanted to tell. touch on a piece of news that underscores the anti-transferver we are living through, which is

right-winger seem to have preemptively ousted the recently announced dean-designate of the University of Arkansas Law School. So after announcing Professor Emily Susky as an ex-deen, the school announced that after receiving feedback from key external stakeholders, the university decided to go in a different direction. While the Arkansas Times reports that the disagreement arose from right-winger's opposition to Susky signing amicus briefs in support of trans athletes' sex discurs. Cremination claims. And an adjunct at the university said conservative elected officials had threatened to withhold funding if Susky became dean. Academic freedom. But those poor men, am I right? Freedom. Off R-E-E-D-U-M-B. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Fatty 15. Listeners, as you know, I'm an older person on this podcast, but I got to hang with these young people. And so I have to be.

an optimal form. I can't suffer from poor sleep. I can't have a lack of energy. I can't have stiff joints, abnormal blood work, or anything else. I really want to be and feel my best. That is why I'm excited to share with you C-15 from fatty 15. The first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered in more than 90 years. It is an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long-term health and wellness, and you guessed it, healthy aging. Based on over 100 studies, we know that C-15 strengthens our cells and is a key healthy aging nutrient, which helps to slow down biological aging at the cellular level. In fact, when our cells don't have enough C-15, they become fragile and age faster. And when our cells age, our bodies age

too. Thankfully, Faddy15 repairs age-related damage to cells. It protects them from future breakdown, and it activates pathways in the body that help regulate our sleep, cognitive health, and natural repair mechanisms to support overall health. Fadi 15 is a science-backed, award-winning, patented 100% pure C-15 supplement. It's vegan-friendly, free of flavors, allergens, or preservatives. By replenishing our cells with the crucial C-15 nutrient, fatty 15 effectively repairs cells, reverses aging at the cellular level, and restores our long-term health and wellness. Fatty-15 is on a mission to optimize your C-15 levels to help support your long-term health and wellness, especially as you age. And you can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription

starter kit by going to fatty15.com forward slash strict and using code strict at checkout. Okay, let's briefly mention the other two cases that the court heard from last week. They heard oral arguments in what was a pretty interesting interstate sovereign immunity case, Gillette versus New Jersey. This involved whether the New Jersey transit is an arm of the state of New Jersey, in which case it would be immune from suits in other states, or whether it is a corporation separate from the state and thus can be sued in other states' courts. This is actually two consolidated cases, both brought by individuals who were struck by New Jersey transit buses, one in Manhattan and another in Philadelphia.

The New York Court of Appeals, which is the Court of Last Resort in New York State, despite its name, it's not an intermediate court. It's actually New York's version of the High Court. And it allowed the case to go forward in New York on the grounds that New Jersey Transit is not an arm of the state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by contrast, went the other way and said it was an arm of the state. So it's a sort of a split between these two different state high courts. And the argument was quite interesting. The truth is there are a lot of threads supportive of each side in the court's cases.

And it's like a pretty complex, like, factor heavy test that, the earlier cases have announced. So I honestly don't know which way this case will come out, but I did want to play one short clip from Justice Kagan. So there was some debate about the relevance of a case that we have talked about a lot on this show, Biden v. Nebraska, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan, but only after finding that a group of red states had standing to challenge that plan. And the way they did that was by concluding that a Missouri loan processing agency called Moheila had standing. Anyway, Kagan wrote one of her fiercest dissents ever,

in that case, she accused the majority of violating the Constitution and then the Chief Justice basically accused her of bringing the court into public disrepute. And anyway, I thought all of that really was like important backstory for understanding this like little aside in an exchange about Biden versus Nebraska. So let's play it. I've been a bit surprised you haven't mentioned Biden v. Nebraska. Do you not think it helps you? The key question in the part of course of Biden v. Nebraska that had to deal with standing. the key question was whether Mahala was a part of Missouri. And I would have think it's pretty clearly on point there, right?

It's a soon-be-sued agency, which had exactly the same kind of insulation from liability as this does. And what the court looked to was intangible aspects of control and directive, you know, who appointed the Board of Directors, what kinds of functions. were they serving, all the kinds of things that you want us to look at, was what the court said. That was, of course, a dissent. What the court said was critical in understanding Mahela as a part of the state. So I just thought there was, of course, a dissent. Might need to be on T-shirts slash like might be, I don't know, an epigraph for this era. I hear what you are signaling, Kate.

She's picking up what you're putting down. Yeah. So finally, the court heard Chevron versus Placquamins Paris. Placomenis. Placominis. So we received feedback, and I am just reading an Instagram message to Instagram messages. I barely asked someone from Louisiana. Well, I'm just reporting.

There seems to be some differences of opinions. So today I'm going to send it to me because I was like, bitches I asked. Because you said, I don't want the feedback. Okay. Or it was the show, it was the show account, which Leah's the only one who checks. Yeah. I can't remember which one was. I literally asked like three people from Louisiana how to say this word.

Well, anyways, this, however you pronounce it, is a case brought by some Louisiana parishes against oil and gas companies. They say damage to the Louisiana coast many, many years ago during the production of crude oil during World War II. The argument is they didn't get proper permit. violated the terms and they engaged in other legal violations and the parishes want the companies on the hook to clean up the coast. Chevron, who is the petitioner here, wants the case to be heard in federal court. And it's arguing that it gets to be in federal court because its predecessor was a federal contractor. The federal

government agrees that the case should be in federal court. Louisiana, which is usually aligned with the federal government these days, however, is here on the other side of the case, because sometimes federalism is still a thing. Yeah, this was sort of a theme of the week. West Virginia, Louisiana, Idaho, sometimes breaking with the federal government. Anyway, there's some interesting debate in the case about different provisions of the federal officer removal statute, a few other federal laws. There were like waiver and forfeiture questions.

And there were some sort of interesting state dynamics regarding the division of authority between the parishes who initiated this litigation and then the state who was actually before the court arguing. And they were kind of like co-counsel below. So anyway, I do think Paul Clement for Chevron is likely to get a win here, but we'll keep our eyes peeled for the decision in that case. Okay, so let's now turn to opinions. We got three pretty unanimous opinions from the court. So even though, as we have mentioned, they bucked the tradition of starting the kind of opinion season with a unanimous opinion of some sort. They did get there with these three. So the first was Barrett v. United States. It's a mostly unanimous opinion by Justice Jackson,

siding with a criminal defendant who had been convicted and sentenced under two separate provisions. One is 924C1A, little I, which criminalizes using carrying or possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, and the second 924J contains different penalties if the violation of subsection C causes death. And the court agreed with the defendant that someone who commits a single act, that violates both the provisions may be convicted only under one, not both. The bottom line conclusion was unanimous, a short final portion of the opinion discussing legislative history, the horror, was joined only by Justice Sotomayor and Kagan and the chief, and Justice Gorsuch concurred in part to highlight some ambiguity or attention between the

court's cases and the double jeopardy clause things the court might end up having to address down the road. The second decision in which we got an opinion was Case v. Montana. That issue here is what standard applies to police officers when they make a decision to enter a home because they think someone inside is in need of emergency assistance. Though you would not know this from the things that ICE is doing in Minneapolis right now, as a general matter, the Fourth Amendment prevents officers from entering homes without warrants. And generally, to get a warrant, you must convince a judge that there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime and that evidence of that crime will be, found in the home. But there are, of course, exceptions to the warrant requirement. Among other things, the court has allowed warrantless entries of homes when officers have an objectively reasonable basis

for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury and is inside the house. So the question in this case is, in order to enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency aid, what showing do the officers have to make? At issue here was an entry into a home of an individual who was threatening suicide and who was known to police as someone who had a history of mental health issues and had threatened suicide before. So under those circumstances, the court concluded the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the occupant of the house was in serious danger, and that's really all the law requires. The opinion by Justice Kagan was unanimous. Justice Sotomayor wrote a

separate and I thought really thoughtful concurrence highlighting just how frequent police killings that involve suspects in some kind of mental health crisis are, and also to highlight considerations that law enforcement should bear in mind when they are assessing whether there is, in fact, an objectively reasonable basis to believe that a person experiencing a mental health crisis needs law enforcement to render emergency assistance they might not always. And the third opinion we got was in Bost versus Illinois State Board of Elections. This is a case primarily about standing. It has a potential for having significant consequences for the conduct of elections.

The question at issue is whether candidates for office, so here a member of Congress and two presidential electors, have standing to challenge a state law governing mail-in ballot. So these candidates claim that Illinois law, which, like many other states, allow the counting of mail-in ballots so long as they are postmarked by Election Day, violates federal law. But they can only make that argument if they have standing to do so. That is, they have to show they are injured by this requirement. And the court here, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, concludes that they do have standing. This law authorizing the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day injures them. We should also note that as we've discussed in prior episodes, this court is also, I think, doing a reassessment, a renegotiation of the entire rules around standing.

So we can include this decision in that broader uvra, if you will. I will just note that the Chief Justice essentially reduced the entire standing analysis to what some might call a throwaway line in a 1983 law review article written by Justice Scalia in the Suffolk University Law Review. essentially the Chief Justice quoted this line from the Scalia article. A plaintiff asserting an injury must, quote, in other words, be able to answer a basic question. What's it to you? And Chief Justice Roberts determined that what's it to the Illinois congressman who brought this suit? Well, quote, he has an obvious answer. He is a candidate for office and a candidate has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election, end quote.

I'm just going to say it's a pretty broad statement of how you get to standing. What's it to you is what is what you, one else. Just write that that is the end of your catalog. That's the law rule now. Yeah. What's it to you? Uh-huh. The great man said it. So that's long. Yeah, it has to be right. Just going to note, this is not something the court has really said before. Lujan had nothing to say about what's it to you. And it effectively opens up the possibility of candidates for office being able to challenge just about every aspect of election law going forward because what's it to you? I have a stake in this election. I'm a candidate. So in addition to just being this like throwaway line, not law, just so, I don't know, cavalier.

It was also just offensive to me to frame this as a standard for standing when the court has rejected standing for the parents of black children who challenge the IRS's support for segregated schools, a black man who have been placed in a chokehold by the LAPD, who sought to block the LAPD's reckless chokehold policy. Like, what's it to you? And I guess the court thinks the answer was nothing? Well, not everyone on the court. So you know who else found all of this offensive Leah? You weren't alone. Justice Jackson. So she spent a considerable amount of time on the facts of Lyons versus... Nothing but respect for my Chief Justice. Anyway, sorry, continue. In your heart. Lyons is the case that Leah was just alluding to Lyons versus the LAPD.

In that case, the court said that the plaintiff didn't have standing because there wasn't a sufficiently real and immediate threat of future harm. As Jackson explains, quote, it did not matter, for instance, that Lyons had almost died from an illegal chokehold only five months prior to his filing his complaint, nor did it matter that no less than 16 persons had died following the use of a chokehold by an LAPD police officer. officer in the preceding decade, end quote. All facts didn't matter at all. But back to the majority, in rhetoric that is, I guess, a little hard to square with the court's general disdain for, I don't know, democracy, but is also equally hard to square with its reluctance to recognize other injuries

it deems speculative in cases like Clapper. The court had this to say, quote, an unlawful election rule can injure a candidate in several ways. It might cause him to lose the election. It might require him to expend additional resources, or it might decrease his vote share and damage his reputation. Candidates also have an interest in fair process. Candidates are not common competitors in the economic marketplace. They seek to represent the people. And their interest in that prize cannot be severed from their interests in the electoral process, a process of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.

All of this, according to the chief, is more than enough to satisfy the requirements of Article 3. Justice Barrett concurred only in the judgment, joined by Justice Kagan. That means they agree with the conclusion, but not the reasoning. So they agree that the congressman has standing, but say the standing is grounded in a traditional pocketbook injury, that is, the specific law being challenged imposes concrete costs. Here, you know, the congressman says the state's allowance for late arriving ballots means his campaign has to spend time and resources after the election, monitoring the

arrival of ballots having poll watchers present for counting. And she accuses the majority rule of being unmoored from precedent as well as unnecessary. Okay. So, but let's get to the most important writing in this case, which Melissa already alluded to in her discussion of lions, the dissent by Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor. So she accuses the majority of crafting this bespoke standing rule for candidates for office alone among the population, parents of children excluded from genuinely integrated public education, individuals being wired. tapped by the federal authorities, individuals previously actually placed in chokeholds and almost killed by the police department. No, those people don't get special rules, but you know who does

candidates for office. And so she writes, quote, the court subtly shifts from our longstanding actual injury rule to a presumption that certain kinds of plaintiffs are sufficiently aggrieved to satisfy Article III standing, regardless of whether they will experience any particularized harm. In my view, this dubious departure from settled law disregards both the equal treatment of litigants and judicial restraint. She also accuses the court in pretty sharp terms of inverting basic principles of democracy and representation. So I know this is kind of long, but I do want to read it. I'm pretty obsessed with this dissent, actually. So she says, quote, the court insists that a candidate's interest is undeniably different from that of a voters because it is the candidate and not the voter who

competes in an election. That assessment gets the significance of the relative interests exactly backward. A public office is a public trust. And an election for that office is the ultimate expression of the will of the people, not a mere competition to be won or lost. In the court's telling, elections are a glorified national pastime. The competitor's success is the main objective. Voters are mere bystanders who simply lend their support. This depiction drastically devalues the role elections play in democratic society. Wow. Can I just say this is one way you might understand this is just sort of the difference in the way prosecutors and defenders often talk about their jobs. Not all prosecutors. I don't want to paint with a broad brush here. But I remember once

when I was at Berkeley, we had a local prosecutor come in and talk, and he talked about winning. And then he was debated by a public defender who was like, you know, I never think about my job as winning or losing. I'm here to ensure that justice prevails. Like that's like there, it's not, like, that's not my job. My job is to make sure that justice is done. And I think when she made this point about the elections. It's like, this isn't just an ordinary competition. It's like you're, you're trying to gain a position where you're working on behalf of the public. And that's the point. It's not just about winning or losing like in sports. It's not a gladiator thing where it's like, are you not entertained? Right. It's not a later thing, but also like back to Melissa's point

about their disdain for democracy elsewhere. It's just like, you're totally wrong actually about who the real actor party in interest is here. It's the voter. And like all you have done is completely denigrade the role of the voter in like meaningful access to participation and representation. And yet you pretend to glorify these representatives who actually just are vessels, not the actual sovereign actors. It was just a very profound meditation, I thought. And the other thing that I think is interesting is that if you pair this with her writing in Snyder, I think she's also shading her colleagues. Like a public office is a public trust. She still hasn't forgotten about the emotional support billionaires. Same girl. Me neither should we. And like I have to say the passage,

you know, you read Kate that long excerpt. So I gave the kind of underlying facts in this case to my Fed court students. And like she really put her finger on like what I suggested was the kind of key countervailing principle. Because I think justices Barrett and Kagan are right in the sense that these particular rules do generate expenses, right, because they potentially prolong the period in which campaigns might be active. But then there's still this question of is the plaintiff's injury legally cognizable? Like, you. is this something the law recognizes as an injury to this person or entity? And the idea that a candidate or elector is injured by rules that allow more people to vote and more votes to be counted

is antithetical to democracy. It's just anti-democratic. And it's like when we preview the case, I think I said, like, could Donald Trump argue that the due process clause injures him because it would be cheaper and faster for him just to summarily execute people he doesn't like? No. And I think we said not to give him any ideas when you said that last time. And I say it again today. back to Jackson. As we mentioned, she invokes Lions and says, quote, if only the Lions court had seen fit to create the sort of harm-free status-based standing rule that the majority adopts today, end quote, which is kind of a banger,

like F you guys. She ends by saying she's all for simplifying standing doctrine, but not this way, not by fashioning these quote-unquote status-based rules. And it seems clear that she means to include not only candidates for office, but the kind of corporate actors she referenced in her dissent and Diamond alternative energy blast her. I mean, again, she's- Also obsessed with that one. Yeah. Also, but I mean, she's making the point, like, this court is kind of in the bag for certain kinds of plaintiffs.

I thought it was really interesting the way the Chief Justice framed the Illinois congressman, like, you know, the injury to his dignity, to his reputation. Like, seriously, who gives a fuck? He decided to run for office. Like, let the votes be counted. Like, who cares if, like, it's, you know, your feelings are hurt because someone might think you lost because there were mail-in ballots. Like, who cares?

But this is a court that really cares about corporations and people's fee-fis. Not all people. Not all people, yeah. Yeah. Going a bit more on the Justice Jackson descent, she had another terrific footnote in this opinion in which she cites Brett Kavanaugh's opinion, justifying Kavanaugh stops. Right. Like, after he intended to walk in back.

I can do footnotes too, bitch. Right. Like, as evidence that the law of standing seems to favor some plaintiffs, but not others. The end of the footnote was, quote, Nome versus Vasquez Pardomo, Cavanajay concurring, concluding that under Lyons, Latino plaintiffs who were, quote, stopped for immigration questioning allegedly without reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence and, quote, lackstanding to seek an injunction. Don't let him off the hook for those Kavanaugh's Dobbs, girl. I love it. I love the energy. She's like, you can write all the footnotes in the world.

I just won't read them and I won't forget them. Right. Or I will just footnote back. And remind everyone. A footnote to a footnote. Exactly. Okay. So let's just briefly take through some assorted legal news before we go. I wanted to mention quickly that the court granted, vacated, and remanded GVR in a case called Zelensky v. United States involving the International Parenthood Act. So the rare piece of good news from the Supreme Court. So this case involved a woman who fled with her son to Mexico on her account because she believed her four-year-old son was being abused by her ex-husband.

They returned to the U.S. She was charged with international parental kidnapping in violation of a federal statute. The statute provides an affirmative defense if the defendant is fleeing domestic violence, but the lower courts concluded that this only applies if the parent is personally the victim of the domestic violence. She was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. She then filed a cert petition arguing that this was an error, and the federal government actually agreed that the lower courts were wrong to read the statute is only allowing this affirmative defense if you're the personal victim of the domestic violence.

Anyway, maybe in light of that concession, the court did grant and vacated remand, so she gets another shot below. It's like an incredibly tragic case, and I'm happy that she has another chance to prevail. Yeah, I wanted to quickly note that Democracy Forward won and got a favorable decision in their case on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was challenging, you know, the Department of Health and Human Services, you know, rescission of their federal funds, largely in retaliation for the American Academy of Pediatrics, questioning and criticizing HHS's. you know, pro-death anti-children policies. So wanted to note that decision since it was ongoing when I talked about it with Sky Pyriamon. Okay. We should also note that we got a decision in that California redistricting case. This is the challenge to Proposition 50. This was California's response to Texas's effort to engage in mid-cycle redistricting. In this case, which was heard before three judge panel of the Central District of California, we got a two-to-one decision. The Trump nominee,

on the panel was in dissent. The author of the opinion, Judge Josephine Staten, wrote as follows, quote, the evidence presented reflects that Proposition 50 was exactly what it was billed as, a political gerrymander designed to flip five Republican held seats to the Democrats. Judge Lee, who is of the Ninth Circuit, dissented in this case. But just to make it very clear, the California GOP and the Trump administration will likely make another last-ditch effort to get the Supreme Court to help them out on this particular case. So I think we ought to stay tuned to see what happens and whether or not this will be appealed. And just on the judge Lee dissent wanted to acknowledge a New York Times study, you know, on the breakdown in votes among Trump appointees versus other judges, you know,

they found looking at Trump's appeals court judges that they had voted for the administration in, you know, more than 100 cases and against them in less than 15, you know, basically voting for the administration in more than 90 percent of cases and that that skews. was significantly, you know, more skewed and disparate, you know, than the breakdown among judges appointed by Republican presidents or Democratic presidents. Okay. We also got a Third Circuit ruling in the case of Macboud Khalil, the Columbia graduate student who has arrested and detained for months

because of his advocacy for Palestinian rights. The opinion did not address the First Amendment argument, but ruled that the district court below lacked jurisdiction in the case. Khalil is represented by the ACLU, which has said, that it has yet to decide on next steps, but those next steps may include seeking on Bonk review. And while that consideration is ongoing, he does remain free and with his family. And finally, as we sat down to record, the Times reported another slew of just odious Trump pardons. I haven't had a chance to really dig into them.

I don't know if you guys have, but like... I just saw the double fraud. I mean, it's not crazy to think you can fraud again if you got pardoned for convicted for frauding. first time, and that is what one of the recipients of the pardons seems to have done. There was also a pardon for someone whose daughter gave millions to a Trump-backed Super PAC, a former governor of Puerto Rico, a former FBI agent who pleaded guilty to political corruption. Seems like a great list. Congrats to all. And let's end with things that we read and enjoyed in the last week. I've just got a couple. One, I'm sure you guys both saw, and I hope that our listeners

saw, and if not, please, please read this ASAP. Laura Jadid had a piece in Slate that was titled, You've heard about who ICE is recruiting. The truth is far worse. I am the proof. And I don't really want any spoilers. The headline does capture the tale that she unfolds, but it is incredibly well done and stunning and terrifying. Yeah. So, I just read, I didn't read it a few years ago when a lot of people did, but remarkably bright creatures, which is a very delightful quick read. Oh, Shelby Pelt. Yeah, did you read it?

No, I want to. Will I love it? I think you'll love it. I read it like so fast. And it was just like, yeah, it was, it was really delightful. So recommend that. And I'm reading now, God of the Woods, which I am enjoying. I love.

It's stressful. Anyway, so yeah. And last night, I was. I saw at the public theater Ulysses a staging of the James Joyce novel that I cannot recommend highly enough. It was completely deranged and like ecstatic in one of these theatrical experiences where you were like kind of vibrating the entire time. It was that insane and incredible. And I'm not even like a huge band of that book. I was.

I love portrait of the artist as a young man. I confess I actually have never finished Ulysses, although this made me want to give it another shot. but I truly loved it. It's running for maybe February through some time in March, not a hugely long run, but there are some tickets left for some of the later shows. So highly, highly encourage people to check it out. I would plus one, Laura Jadid's piece in Slate, you have to read it.

You know, in a different register, Shalom Auslander had a piece in the New York Times. They were ordinary Germans. We are ordinary Americans. It just very powerfully, you know, conveys the extent to which, like, people engaged in atrocities, like still carried on like normal-ish aspects of their lives, right, and the ease with which, like, they slipped into the Nazi regime. As we noted up top, you know, our friend, Professor Steve Vladick, has a few kind of interviews about the Insurrection Act. If you're looking to learn more about that now, would recommend, you know, his conversation

with Alison Gill, which we mentioned up top. He also did a conversation at the contrarian. So again, if you're looking to learn more, definitely check those out. Finally, whole other register. The alienation of affection complaint. Don't. This is mine. This was mine. I put it as my first. I listed it first.

This is family law. This is your domain, Melissa. This is my domain. This is my super bowl. But it involved a Taylor Swift concert. Okay. So I've actually been waiting to talk with you about this. I held my fire.

I did not text to you about this. So here are my favorite things for the week. I didn't read anything this week. In part because I was reviewing copy edits of a project that I will be willing to discuss with our listeners maybe in the next episode. So stay tuned. But my favorite things of the week were, one, running into John Slattery, aka Roger Sterling of Madden in the green room at MS Now. And like I literally have seen almost everybody at MS now at some point. I saw Hillary Clinton. I saw Zora Madani. I've never been tongue-tied. But like I literally walked out of makeup and like

ran into John Slattery and was like literally, I think I said, I was like literally, I think I said, said something like, I'm from Florida. Or something like insane. And he was like, it's great to meet you. And then I had to sit with them in the green room for 30 minutes. And he was so nice. He was there to promote his movie Nuremberg, which is out. And I actually have wanted to see Nuremberg.

It's this, it's based on a book about the psychiatrist who interviewed all of the Nuremberg. People just sort of figure out like, you know, how do people become genuinely evil like this? And Russell Crowe plays one of the Germans. I think he plays Gering. It's supposed to be fantastic. John Slattery plays a commandant in the prison that is holding the Germans who are being tried at Nuremberg. And Rami Malik is in it. It's supposed to be fantastic.

And it is now streaming on pay-per-view so you can see it at home. I think it had a very limited release in theaters, but I think it's now going for all kinds of awards consideration. And it's supposed to be fantastic. So I actually have it teed up to watch. I was absolutely gobsmacked, not because I saw this person, but because I read about Kristen Senema's alienation of affections lawsuit, not the one she filed, but the one that was filed against her. And this is my Super Bowl.

So many of you don't know about this, but there used to be a time when you literally could sue someone for being a thirst trap for your spouse, like just even enticing them. It's called alienation of affections or a bunch of these kind of heart. bomb torts. They've mostly receded. I think they're still in roughly five jurisdictions in the United States. North Carolina is one of them. They're mostly in a state of desistuit, but occasionally, a very aggrieved spouse will sue another spouse's paramour for enticing their former partner. And that is what has happened with Kristen Sinema. She apparently got friendly with another lady's husband. And I have to say, the things, her wiles are, her techniques are truly interesting.

How she does the entrapment. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So she wooed this man with Taylor Swift tickets. Suggesting he bring MDMA to work? Yes. She wanted him to have a psychedelic experience. She bought him some clothes. I mean, like basically, Leah, she's a third of the way to seducing you. No. Strong, strong, strong, strong, strong disagree. Strong disagree. Strong disagree. You wouldn't fall for it? That game won't play. You need more? Okay. But I just, I love that this came out. Literally. And then people were just like, another thing I have to hate Kristen Sinema for. And like, like, specific things that are like in the complaint are just incredible. Like,

it includes a detail. Like her former security chief quit. And on the way out said she's sleeping with a bunch of the security team, right? Like, okay, why is that in the complaint? I don't know, but I was glad it was. Just so many things like that. I'm actually just here for the family law. I'm so going to use this in my family law class next year. Like, I have the complaint. Get ready. It's going to be amazing. Finally, my last favorite thing of the week is something that I saw on social media in response to what is happening in Minnesota. And I know everyone is talking about Minnesota nice. My man in this video was not Minnesota nice, but he was nicely dressed. A gentleman, he is a Vietnam veteran, decided to tell Ice what he

thought of what they were doing. And he came dressed for the revolution. He is wearing a half-length fur, a hat that denominates him as a Vietnam veteran, and my favorite, a pair of lemon pepper stepper gaiters. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look them up. And he basically tells ice where they can go. So roll that tape. You're here to terrorize this city. A bunch of bitches, if I've ever seen a bunch. And I'm telling you to your face. And if you don't like it, fuck you. Couldn't have said it better myself. Sounds great. All right. So some housekeeping before we go, starting with Runaway Country this week. So since an ice-seeking, agent shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. President Trump and Maga have labeled her a domestic

terrorist. They have come up with one reason after another to justify her death. And on the latest episode of Runaway Country, Alex Wagner takes a look into how law enforcement is interpreting the event by interviewing Michael Moore, the former chief of police for the Los Angeles Police Department. Then Tim Miller joins to question the parallel realities Americans seem to be living in, despite ample video footage and even in cases of life and death. Tune into Runaway Country wherever you get your podcast or watch on YouTube. And guess what, folks, we're running away across the country because we're headed to the West Coast where we are going to be seeing all of our favorite West Coast stricties in beautiful Los Angeles on March 7th at the Palace Theater.

You can join us as we dissect the opinions and analyze the cases that have the potential to reshape our daily lives. We also are making a stop in San Francisco. We will be joined there by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The San Francisco show is sold out, but you can still. Still grab your tickets to the L.A. show before they're gone. You can get them at crooked.com forward slash events. Strict scrutiny is a crooked media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Lippman, Melissa Murray and me, Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Rowell. Michael Goldsmith

is our producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Music by Eddie Cooper, production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Thanks to our video team, Ben Hathcote and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. haven't already, be sure to subscribe to strict scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube at Strict scrutiny podcast, 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.