Affirmative Action for Mediocre Men

Surveying the Wreckage of This Supreme Court Term

Jul 6, 20261h 32mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts Leah Littman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw offer a sobering recap of a pivotal Supreme Court term. Moving beyond a standard review of individual opinions, the hosts survey the broader wreckage left in the wake of the Court’s recent decisions. They analyze the Court’s sustained assault on the democratic process, focusing on how recent rulings have empowered the executive branch, eroded the Voting Rights Act, and facilitated the influence of massive wealth in politics through deregulatory moves. A significant portion of the discussion centers on the Court’s five-to-four decision regarding birthright citizenship, which the hosts describe as a terrifying wake-up call. They warn that the Court is actively working to dismantle the post-Civil War constitutional order, drawing alarming parallels to the eras preceding and following landmark cases like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. By highlighting how fringe theories regarding citizenship have been rapidly legitimized, the hosts argue that the Court is actively shrinking the window for protected rights. The episode serves as a critical, if grim, examination of a judiciary that the hosts contend is fundamentally broken and intent on reshaping American democracy.

SCOTUS Just Barely Preserves Birthright Citizenship

Jun 30, 202659 minSummary

In this emergency episode of Strict Scrutiny, the hosts delve into a recent Supreme Court decision that narrowly preserved birthright citizenship. While many media outlets framed the 5-4 ruling as a definitive victory for the rule of law, the hosts argue that the outcome is far more precarious than headlines suggest. They express alarm that the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, established post-Civil War, was upheld by only a single vote, signaling that the current Court is dangerously close to undermining foundational constitutional protections. The discussion highlights the alarming shift in the Overton window, noting that legal theories once relegated to the fringes—such as the denial of birthright citizenship—are now gaining traction among the justices. The hosts particularly criticize Justice Kavanaugh for a separate opinion that suggests Congress could unilaterally repeal birthright citizenship via legislation, effectively inviting future challenges. Furthermore, the episode addresses the Court’s broader recent activity, including regressive rulings on campaign finance and trans rights, while emphasizing the intense ideological divide within the Court. By contrasting the perspectives of the justices and highlighting the ongoing threat to democratic norms, the hosts urge listeners to move beyond relief and recognize the ongoing institutional crisis facing the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS Kills Independent Agencies, Expands Presidential Power

Jun 29, 202653 minSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, the hosts analyze two major Supreme Court decisions, Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which significantly alter the landscape of the federal administrative state. The hosts argue that these rulings represent a massive, and concerning, redistribution of power toward the presidency. Specifically, they discuss how the Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter effectively ends the existence of independent agencies by granting the president the authority to remove their heads at will, thereby overturning nearly a century of precedent established in Humphrey's Executor. The hosts delve into the legal reasoning behind Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion, criticizing it as a triumph of the unitary executive theory—a concept they suggest is rooted in questionable historical scholarship. They express particular alarm at the opinion’s reliance on controversial historical figures and its dismissive treatment of Congress’s constitutional authority. By framing these agencies as inherently under the president's control, the Court has invited further litigation that could eventually threaten the job security of career civil servants. The hosts conclude by highlighting the ideological implications of these rulings, positioning them as a victory for the conservative legal movement's long-standing goals to consolidate executive power.

SCOTUS Keeps Rewriting Gun History

Jun 29, 20261h 20mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts Melissa Murray, Leah Litman, and Kate Shaw navigate a particularly challenging week of Supreme Court opinions. The hosts focus their analysis on the Court’s recent handling of immigration and Second Amendment cases, highlighting what they describe as a pattern of judicial inconsistency and historical revisionism by the conservative majority. A significant portion of the discussion centers on recent immigration decisions, specifically the Court’s ruling on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and asylum procedures. The hosts express profound concern over the practical impact these decisions will have on hundreds of thousands of immigrants, criticizing the Court for enabling policies they characterize as xenophobic. The episode also features an in-depth breakdown of Wolford v. Lopez, a Second Amendment case regarding firearm regulations on private property. The hosts scrutinize Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion, arguing that the Court is engaging in "cherry-picked" history to justify its rulings. They contrast the Court’s willingness to disregard historical laws tainted by racism in the context of gun rights with its reliance on similarly problematic 19th-century laws to support the overturning of abortion rights in Dobbs. The hosts conclude that the Court’s evolving, and at times contradictory, application of the "history and tradition" test suggests a subjective, outcome-oriented approach to constitutional law.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Greenlights Trump’s Cruel Immigration Policies

Jun 25, 202637 minSummary

In this emergency episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts Melissa Murray, Kate Shaw, and Leah Litman analyze two significant 6-3 Supreme Court decisions that grant the Trump administration broad latitude in implementing harsh immigration policies. The hosts focus on opinions authored by Justice Samuel Alito, which they argue provide the executive branch with a functional get-out-of-law-free card. The discussion covers two primary cases: the asylum procedure case, which addresses the interpretation of arriving in the United States, and the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) case regarding the rescission of programs for Haiti and Syria. The hosts criticize the Court’s majority for employing tortured statutory analysis to circumvent human rights protections and effectively insulate the administration from judicial oversight. A central part of the conversation involves the bench exchange between Justice Alito and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The hosts highlight the unprecedented nature of Alito’s rebuttal to Sotomayor’s dissent, which they view as a manifestation of the Court’s growing hostility toward dissent and its refusal to be held accountable. Ultimately, the episode argues that these rulings represent a troubling trend of the Court systematically severing rights from legal remedies and emboldening executive overreach under the guise of the rule of law.

Why is SCOTUS Hoarding Opinions?

Jun 22, 20261h 26mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray, and Leah Littman host a live show in New York, channeling their frustration over the Supreme Court’s end-of-term pacing. With only days until July, the court has yet to release seventeen pending opinions, including major cases regarding birthright citizenship, trans athletes, and the power of independent agencies. The hosts humorously theorize that the justices are engaging in a form of judicial quiet quitting, while guest Elie Mystal joins the conversation to speculate on whether the delay is a strategic attempt to control the media narrative surrounding the Fourth of July holiday or a coward's exit strategy before controversial rulings. Beyond the scheduling gridlock, the hosts discuss the court's recent ruling in United States v. Rahimi, noting that while the outcome regarding firearm possession for drug users was favorable, the reasoning behind the unanimous decision remains concerningly focused on the justices' expansive Second Amendment ideology. Throughout the episode, the hosts maintain a sharp, critical eye on the current legal landscape, blending substantive analysis of the court's institutional failures with commentary on the ongoing threats posed by the administration's disregard for constitutional norms.

The Malicious Incompetence of Trump's DOJ

Jun 15, 20261h 18mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts Kate Shaw and Leah Litman navigate a chaotic landscape of judicial developments and federal government misconduct. With the Supreme Court nearing the end of its term and leaving a backlog of high-stakes cases to be decided, the hosts examine several recent opinions. They discuss a unanimous decision in Abouomo v. United States regarding venue requirements and a bankruptcy case involving tort claims, while highlighting a sharp, fiery dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in FS Credit Opportunities v. Sava Capital. The hosts use this as a jumping-off point to critique the Court’s rigid, dogmatic approach to statutory interpretation. The conversation then pivots to a series of concerning incidents involving federal actors. This includes an analysis of a viral video showing a Ninth Circuit judge charged with misdemeanor battery, as well as the Department of Justice’s extreme arguments in court regarding executive power and the destruction of federal property. The episode concludes with a deep dive into the grand jury transcripts from the Broadview Six case, exposing egregious instances of prosecutorial misconduct, specifically the forbidden practice of vouching, which ultimately led to the dismissal of charges.

Ballrooms, ‘Bama and (Very) Bad Behavior

Jun 1, 20261h 37mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts Kate Shaw, Leah Litman, and Melissa Murray navigate a dense week of legal developments, ranging from lower court defiance to controversial Supreme Court rulings. The hosts begin with the ongoing voting rights saga in Alabama, where a three-judge panel resisted Supreme Court pressure to accept racially gerrymandered maps, effectively pushing back against the high court’s recent, often opaque, interventionist strategies. The discussion shifts to a per curiam opinion involving immigration judges, which underscores a growing friction regarding judicial realism. The hosts analyze how the Supreme Court criticized a lower court for acknowledging the functional reality of executive branch agencies, highlighting a shift toward hyper-formalism that leaves little room for current operational facts. Furthermore, the episode addresses the court's restrictive approach to compassionate release under the First Step Act, where the majority further limited the factors courts can consider when revisiting sentences. Finally, the team touches on a rare unanimous arbitration win for workers, while providing critical commentary on Justice Thomas’s recent dissent regarding state-level disputes, which they characterize as utilizing unhinged rhetoric to push a broader ideological agenda.

Trump's Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Grift

May 25, 20261h 34mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, the hosts dive into a controversial legal development they characterize as a massive government grift: the creation of a nearly two-billion-dollar fund by the Department of Justice. The hosts argue that this initiative, framed as a settlement in litigation between Donald Trump and the IRS, is fundamentally illegitimate because it features the same party on both sides of the legal dispute. They describe the fund as a slush fund for insurrectionists, designed to provide taxpayer-funded payouts to those who claim to be victims of lawfare. The discussion highlights the lack of transparency and oversight, noting that the fund is overseen by appointees who serve at the pleasure of the administration and lack clear, objective criteria for distributing money. Beyond the immediate fiscal implications, the hosts analyze the broader, dangerous precedent this sets for executive power and the separation of powers. They explore potential legal violations, including constitutional concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment, and argue that the agreement serves as a permission structure for future lawlessness. Ultimately, the episode critiques the hypocrisy of the administration’s actions and the potential for long-term damage to democratic institutions.

How SCOTUS is Waging Electoral Warfare

May 18, 20261h 44mSummary

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, the hosts explore the increasingly aggressive judicial landscape and the Supreme Court’s role in what they describe as electoral warfare. The discussion centers on the Court's recent handling of mifepristone access, where, despite ultimately granting a stay to maintain the drug’s availability, the process was marked by chaotic delays and unhinged dissents from Justices Thomas and Alito. The hosts analyze how these opinions signal a willingness to bypass established legal standards—including the potential revival of the 19th-century Comstock Act—to advance an anti-abortion agenda nationwide. Beyond medication abortion, the episode covers the Supreme Court’s alarming intervention in a Texas capital case, where the majority blocked a brief delay intended to verify a defendant’s intellectual disability. The hosts also examine a scathing opinion from a Rhode Island district court that rebuked the Department of Justice for misleading the court and forum shopping in an investigation regarding gender-affirming care. Ultimately, the episode serves as a sobering examination of how judicial power and executive actions are being leveraged to challenge fundamental rights and erode democratic norms.