FAFO Coalition and Future Election Preparation

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Sparation of Church and State. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move toward the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Those most caught in the crossfire are federal workers specifically. A multi faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of Church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution Our friends at Americans United for Sparation of Church and State received emails from multiple USDA employees. A handful of employees reached out saying the proselytizing Easter email sent by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins to more than one hundred thousand USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates the separation of Church and state promised in the First Amendment They are absolutely right Not only is it in the First Amendment, it's in the first sentence of the First Amendment No law respecting and establishment of religion, and no means no, as in no proselytizing government employees The hits just keep on coming from this administration, and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism. If you want to help, head to aU dot org slash crooked to learn more about their work and how you can get involved Queen Carvania stood haloed by the morning sun. An army hung on her every word. My champions, I have sold my chariot on Carvana. 'Twas a lovely SUV, an inexplicably queenly offer. They're even coming to the castle to collect it. Tonight We feast An offer you can feast on. seell your car today on Carmana. Pick up fees, manly. Chief Justice, may please the court It's an old joke, but when a argued man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet. or far next Hello and welcome back to strrict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We are your host today. I'm Kate Shaw And I'm Leia Lin This is alas, another Just the To of Us episode. We are withithout Melissa Murray today. But fear not, the Department of Justice may have becclowned themselves just enough that we think we have some gags even without Melissa jokes and humor So today we're going to be covering the opinions that the Supreme Court managed to release, sppoiler, not that many So most of it is going to be a schchmorgs boort of news that includes judges going wild as in Ferl The Department of Justice is doing a lot of Oopsies And the White House signaling that it basically views all of anti discrimination law as unconstitutional More precisely, it appears to think that conventional anti discrimination law is unconstitutional because anti discrimination law is itself discrimination As always, it will make a lot of sense, and we will explain it Two things. O, when you said it is just the two of us, the rhythm of your voice saying just the sounded like you say this is just the tip episode. And I just want I was honestly thinking of the just the two of a song as I was saying it like in that rhythm. Okay, well, why not both? And yes, as Lah said The DOJ has been very busy this week, We will explain, but does it sort of feel to you like there's this little bit of a gap because the Supreme Court is taking its sweet time and issuing like the horror show of decisions to come? And so DOJ has seized the opportunity to kind of step into the breach. Anyway, elaborate And because we will spend a fair bit of time talking about Department of Justice, including what prosecutors should not be doing, We're going to end this episode with a segment about what they should be doing. And that is a segment with a first time strict scrutiny guest that we cannot wait to share with you. If you are wondering what can be done to check federal law enforcement and their overreach and protect our democracy in the lead up to the election Please tune in for that last segment and now to Supreme Court opinions. So We got three opinions last Thursday None of the big ones. This means there are now twenty opinions left in argued cases and potentially just two weeks left of the term. That's going to make for a completely bananas next two weeks and possibly more if they go into the week of june twenty ninth It seems like they are likely to start adding opinion days. so brace yourselves for that and possible bonus episodes to go along with those good times. I just want to say like What is taking them so long? because I wrote An updated version of Lawless, while you guys were doing shit and it's actually out tomorrow. So if you are looking for something to read and it's in the absence of Supreme Court opinions You can get the paperback version of Lawless out tomorrow, just an FII. It is an antidote both to the Supreme Court's bad decisions and also to the absence of their bad decisions. It will cure all your ailments. Why not both? The paperback and its new material and newly lighter format, you know for easy shoving in your you know, shoulder bag on your bicycle, wherever you're going C beautiful, the flawless version of Lawis, exactly. But just in terms of the kind of opinion pace issue, so you know people who've been following this for a long time will I think know, but maybe sort of newer listeners don't realize like it is the end of the Supreme Court term is always insane They are really concentrating so many huge cases in the last two weeks of the term. like Hd your loins hydrate and rest it's going to be a wild stretch. And as Leah said, it could be the next two weeks and they're just going to get a ton of the dump tons of them on us in like three or four opinion days, or they could go into the week that ends on july fourth, which they typically really try to avoid doing, but I don't know if they can get everything out before then. so we will either or possibly three more weeks of this anyway. So I guess marathon, not a spprint is the TLDR. Okay. ono the three opinions that we did get last week. The first Abuuomo versus United States is a case in which the court unanimously held that a defendant who was charged with knowingly falsifying a document with intent to obstruct a federal investigation had to be charged in the district where the alleged falsification occurred rather than where the federal investigation was located So here the defendant, who was a former Twitter employee, allegedly took a bribe from the Saudi government in exchange for giving them information about Saudi dissidents and their activity on the platform and then made a false invoice to support his claim that the payment was just like for consulting services. He made this false invoice in Seattles. So He was actually being questioned by federal officials said it was just payment. They said, know, do you have any supporting material? And he like went upstairs and printed out a allegedly fake invoice. So all that happened in Seattle but he was charged in California where the investigation was based. And here, the court, in a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, said that this California Charging was improper, he had to be charged in Washington It is possible that this case might affect DOJ's ability to continue to persecute a Rhode Island hospital for providing gender affirming care. Recall that DOJ is using a Texas district court to issue subpoenas to the Rhode Island hospital, maybe saying it's investigating this from Texas, and the Texas district judge went along with it, issuing an anti suit injunction that purports to forbid the Rhode Island Hospital or patients from filing to challenge this conduct anywhere other than the Texas District Court or Fifth Circuit At a minimum, the Supreme Court's decision suggests that any prosecution resulting from this, perhaps none, right? The investigation hopefully might be the point. But any prosecution would have to be in Rhode Island Hopefully there's no crimal prosecution. And I gather there are statutory venue issues that are distinct from the kind of general constitutional venue issues at issue in the case we just talked about. the kind highigh level observation that there's something troubling about DOJ like in one place seeking to target conduct that happens somewhere totally different, does seem, you know at least to have echoes of the Rhode Island situation where this Texas district judge and DOJ together are trying to affect activities in Rhode Island Next case, Keithlely versus Buddy Airrs Construction Inc is a case involving this situation where a debtor who files for bankruptcy might lose their ability to pursue a potential tort claim because they didn't list that tort claim as part of the bankruptcy estate. So the bankruptcy code has a lot of parts of it. One of them requires debtors to list as part of an estate Qote, claims against third parties, whether or not the debtor has filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment Here the debtor filed for bankruptcy, then was in an accident, then filed a personal injury lawsuit growing out of that accident, and informed bankruptcy counsel that he was doing so, but the bankruptcy court was never informed The defendant in the tort suit filed to dismiss the debtor slash tort plaintiff's suit on the ground that the debtor hadn't disclosed it to the bankruptcy court eighteen months into the litigation. And the Supreme Court said that the right inquiry in case, which wasn't the inquiry that the lower court had used, is to ask whether the totality of the circumstances suggests that this omission was inadvertent or mistaken We also got a very interesting federal courts opinion, and by interesting, I mean another opinion that makes a mck of federal courts private rights of action and statutory interpretation. Only brights side here was a dissent by Justice Jackson defending consideration of legislative history and trying to reorient the enterprise of statutory interpretation So in this case, FS Credit Opportunities versus Sava Capital, the court held that the Investment Company Act does not provide a private right of action, which is the legal authorization for an individual or entity to bring suit for private litigants to challenge contracts that allegedly violate the act The opinion by Justice Barrett leands heavily on an opinion by the great man himself, Anton Scalia, that narrowed the availability of private rights of action, which he had said must be created by Congress. And because Scalia's and now the courts' method of interpreting what Congress has done is a wooden form of textualism that asks, did Congress use the words private right of action They concluded there was no private right of action here. Now that's a little bit of an exaggeration. They didn't actually require Congress say the magic words private right of action, but close to it, there has to be rights creating language that focuses on a particular class of people. And if Congress explicitly created another remedy, as it did here by giving the Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement authority then the court infers there's no private right of action So Leah said the opinion leans on the great man, Justice Scalia. It definitely does that. It also leans on him not just as jurist, but also author of Treatises, there's this Treatise by Scalian Garner read Omnipresence and the sky Authority on H things. Yes, it uses him in all those ways Also Judge Easterbrooks's statutes Domain, another sort of foundational text in textualism It feels to me like these are some pretty dated citations here, Justice Barrett. L these very tired critiques of a caricatured version of legislative history. It's improper, it's undemocratic for us to read things that committees of Congress wrote or that were said in the course of considering statutes or amendments, These are critiques that have been around for decades. I feel like there are actually more interesting recent sort of discussions in statutory interpretation that don't really go mentioned at all. But there's also one thing that's a little bit of like a kind of in the weeds observation, but if you'll indulge me, I want to quickly make it The opinion uses statutory history like amendments to a statute and reads significance into those amendments. Here's what Congress was trying to do with amending the statute is actually trying to defivine legislative intent, which is also what legislative history is supposed to speak to. And I'm not sure Justice Barrett quQite realizes that she's not really doing anything very different when she is assigning meaning to Congress's, again, changing or retaining statutory language You know, that doesn't feel very different from doing legislative history. I was thinking about this because Anita Krishnau Kumar has a forthcoming book about textualism and has, I think, a really convincing argument that much of the time when the court uses this statutory history, it's not really very different from the way the court uses legislative history. But of course, the great man would say statutory history was okay and legislative history was not and so she is just protting those canards out Um In any event, I find it a pretty maddening opinion. The three Democratic appointees agreed, although two different degrees. The principal dissent, the one that found the majority opinion, the most maddening is by Justice Jackson who, after concluding that text, structure, and statutory history support a private right of action also explains that properly contextualized legislative history does too, and as Leah already alluded to, gives this really forceful defense of considering that legislative history Justice Kagan didn't join those portions of the Jackson dissent, wrote a very short separate dissent basically saying her views on legislative history fall somewhere between the majority and the dissent's views, but that she generally agrees with the dissenters that even without legislative history, other material makes clear that there is a private right of action here The observation that the majority opinion is relying on these old sources of textualism is interesting because to me, it just kind of reinforces a sense in which At this point, this is just dogma, right? Like you have to believe a particular thing. It doesn't matter how that debate has evolved. You just cite the foundational texts and then you're in the club and you're doing the right thing. And it's just so silly. And you throw in Do legislative history is like picking your friends out of a crowd. L we need to update this at the very least if this is if this is a little bit interesting. I know. Speaking of interesting, though, Justice Jackson's dissent, we can't read the entirety of it, but you should. Ideally with Doja Kats boss bitch playing in the background, just a few lines to highlight, quote, The reports, as in the legislative history reports, say what they say She adds, Unable to explain this compelling evidence of Congress's intent, the majority pivots to arguing that I ignore the most relevant portions of the legislative history. Parenthesis, I welcome the majority's close reading of the reports. Yes, girl. She also describes analyzing legislative history as a quote worthy and necessary effort because it prevents the preferences of judges from supplanting the will of the people ever the pro democracy justice. And then she asked what I just think is the most devastating question, which is quote, what interest does it really serve to blind ourselves to the congressional record when we interpret Congress's handiwork? Who benefits from that? There's no flattering or straightforward answer to such questions I just love that she has this fight in her. Yeah Yeah, this was like, I mean I can't tell if it's because we're sort of steeped in these debates that we sort of see just like how spicy the exchange, I mean on both sides is But it's not a friendly disagreement, I would say, between Barrett and Jackson here And she's also like I just think now I don't know. I think Kagan just actually does feel differently about legislative history and statutory interpretation in general. but I just feel like it could be tempting if you were Justice Jackson to just say, like, The legislative history fight is not one that we're going to win in my lifetime. And so like let's, I don't know, pick other battles. And I actually think that she is principled and right, not in saying some committee report should decide definitively what a statute means, but in just saying it is crazy and dogmatic as you said Lia to just refuse to put on these blinders as this article of faith. Like, we won't look at that stuff. And so she is just not willing to Let this one go and I too really appreciate it Strict scrutiny is brought you by Cozy Earth. I'm a baby when it comes to clothes. I don't like regular clothes. I like soft comfy clothes. You know the kind of clothes that feel like PJs and actually feel good. And Czy Earth makes the case that what you wear at home matters just as much as what you wear out of it, maybe more What's the outfit I actually live in? Duh, it's my brushed bamboo jogger set. Seriously,'m wearing the pants right now, brushed bamboo joggers. Seriously, every day is a rotating cast among my brushed bamboo jogger pants, whether it's in black, navy or like a cool blue slate. They're the comfiest pants that have the best fabric that's both soft and cool, as end like not too hot This fabric is also fluid, so the jogerette moves with you through the whole day. The viscous from bamboo means it's breathable and soft in a way that actually holds up. So wash after wash, it just gets better also been using the Lake House Cogs as my going out shoes, the shoes I use when I'm taking Stavy out for a little walk around the block, or the shoes I pop on when I'm walking down to my local coffee shop and farm stop. Why does Czy Earth stand out It's the details, the fit, the fabric, the way the pieces are made to last. This isn't fast fashioned for the house, it's something you'll still be reaching for years from now. You can try Czy Earth risk free. Really, try it for yourself. Czy Earth backs everything with a thirty day return policy because they're confident you'll feel the difference. And if you don't, returning it is simple and they offer a lifetime warranty These are made to last. A lifetime warranty on your homewear isn't something you see often. It's the kind of commitment that tells you something about how they're made. This spring, give yourself the kind of comfort that lives with you all day, not just the moment you get home. Head to cozyearth. com and use my code strict for an exclusive twenty percent off That's code strict for an exclusive twenty percent off. And if you see a post purchase survey, mention that you heard about Czy Earth right here. Comfort lives here Strict Srutiny is brought you by Quints. Here's this season's take on why I'm Quintince Pilled. Summer always changes, how I get dressed. I want pieces that feel lighter and more breathable. Things that are easy but still put together. That's why I keep coming back to Quints. They focus on high quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton while made basics, but without the luxury markup. It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless Quince's European linen pants and shortts are the perfect warm weather upgrade to add to your rotation, starting at just thirty four dollars. They're cute and breathable and make me feel like I'm back on my Mediterranean vacation. Everything at Quintince is priced fiftycent to eighty percent less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you're paying for quality, not brand markupps Quint goes way beyond clothing, custom upholstered sofa, ceramic cookwear, premium bedding. It's the kind of brand you end up recommending to everyone for everything Quint European linen is the go to summer work outfit. Like when I need to be presentable to people but also don't want it to be like business casual or during the academic year, the fabric is breathable and forgiving, but also professional Business in the front in the back, but also party in the front and the back Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince dot com slash strict for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty five day returns. Now available in Canada too Qu INcE dot com slash strict for free shipping and three hundred and sixty five day returns. quQince d. com slash strict So while we are on the topic of Scota's opinions, let's continue on with some judicial crimes that was my attempt to doing a Melissa Maresque segue. I'm not sure how well it worked, but, you know We press on Okay, and here we're talking about literal actual crimes. notot using the sort of hyperbole that we sometimes are prone to when discussing what the court does. These are literal actual crimes. And if you somehow missed this story, let us bring you up to speed Last week, Judge Ryan Nelson on the U S. Court of Appeals, this is a Ct of Appeals judge was charged with misdemeanor battery He was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump during the first Trump administration. He's on the Ninth circuit, and he was actually on the panel that stayed the district court's injunction that had blocked the president's federalization and deployment of the National Guard against Remember this Portland Chicken Portland Frog The National Guard was not explicitly deployed against those adversaries, but they did have to face the guard when the guard was deployed in Portland So The majority had, so there was a panel that he sat on, that panel had blocked the injunction because that the lower court had issued, because the panel concluded that the president had a colorable basis for deploying the National Guard given the very serious crisis that the Portland Frog presented. That's not what they said, just the crisis in general. But Judge Nelson concurred to go like way way further and basically to say the president's decision to deploy the National Guard was not reviewable by judges, full stop The president could just terrorize the country at whim and judges were powerless to do anything about it Speaking of terrorizing people at their whims, let's watch the video of the events that led to Ryan Nelson being charged with misdemeanor battery. It's going be kind of hard to hear slash make out what's happening, but you can see the video linked in the notes and on our YouTube channel if you watch the episode there, and we're also going to try to narrate it for you So at least what I gleaned from the video is first, Ryan Nelson can't park for shit, right? He's like basically very angled into another spot parking l. That's true. And another truck pulls up like in a spot that's like adjacent to one of the spots that Ryan Nelson's truck is kind of occupying And it sounds or looks like the person who pulled up was like, can you park or something And the judge's response to this was to grab the glasses off the guy's face and hurl them into the air From what I can tell, there's also like some seeming to like kind of stalking following around the area surrounding the parking spaces. So we should say There's no audio. We don't know what words, if any, were exchanged like after this like parking. It's not as though the cars came inwhere close to actually like coming into physical contact. Whatever the predicate was was like not that that would justify like a federal judge knocking glasses off of someone's face if that someone had like sideswiped him. But that definitely did not happen at least as far as the video seems to reveal. So free speech they'll yankking glasses off your face when you say things they don't like. It seems Again, from what you can see in this video, San's audio, Absolutely unhinged reaction by a sitting federal judge who has now been criminally charged with misdemeanor, I think it's both battery and maybe destruction of property So You know, I think that judges behaving badly all kind in very different ways has been a theme of the last couple of weeks on this podcast So in addition to judges wilding out, the last week, the Department of Justice and the White House were also on one. So what we're about to talk about actually happened at the end of the previous week, but the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard oral argument in the case challenging the president's destruction of the East wing slash construction of a monster energy drink branded UFC cage I cannot believe that is a sentence that is now utterable. if people haven't seen it, it's not you have to look at it. It is it looms over the entirety of the White House. It is so indescribably massive and hideous and gaudy and like there's this like just trashy like weird, almost disco lighting sounds fun. It's not disco lighting. What is it? It's like menacing flashing lights that travel up and down, this like enormous dome of a cage. So there's a lawsu Yeah And here's what the Department of Justice had to say about the federal court's ability to stop the executive branch from destroying stuff government deces very quickly and Blddoz the statue of Liberty and the people whom Ancestors. That was the first thing they saw comoming to this country that the government move too fast Nothing can be done. I think I think that's right, yes Again, kind of hard to make out, but basically, the federal government lawyer was taking the position that plaintiffs can only stop the executive branch from bulldozing things if plaintiffs get an injunction before any bulldozing happens. And to which, Judge Millette, judge on the DC Circuit, asked the federal government lawyer, So does that theory apply to this statute of liberty if the government starts to bulldoze a statute of liberty before anyone can file to stop them? There's nothing that can be done To which the federal government lawyer basically says, Yeah, I don't care, do you? No, It was just basically a yes, but same thing me ass pretty fitting that DOJ would take the position that actually, yes, they can destroy the statute of Liberty if they do it before anyone obtains an injunction to stop them She is a woman, after all. and when you're the president, they just let you do it And I have to say because Trump ruins everything good, you, I like the Statue of Liberty, so he probably wants to ruin that too. But you know He brought his very, very bad and destructive mojo to Madison Square Gardens last week clelearly causing the next to lose the third game of the NBA fininals. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't rule anything out, including him turning his sights on L Liberty he got very booe in MSG. and I don't think he liked it. And I think that he is plotting his revenge on New York. And so I don't know takeake the statue down completely codor in gold. like I wonder if that's on the table put some kind of pillow sponsored like water park on her or on Ellis Island. I mean, it's just like, The desecration of these important national like symbols and locations seems to sort of, no bottom. Anyway, that's what he has done to the White House with this monster drink branded cage on the South lawn. And I'm not sure what his sites will be set on next wee. I think this like just broke before we sat down to record, but have you seen the reports that there is algae blooming in the reflecting pool that he has also decided to take on as a pet project, again, Nature is trying to send us a message. Thus far, we have refused to hear it I really wonder might what sort of fungus could grow on Lawn slash cave. If this is the beginning of a last of Us style virus, You know, wouldn't be surprised this on ourselves.'t be surprised exactly. in other news that really bridges the divide between hilarious and horrifying, we were also treated to the release of the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings in the Broadview Six case This, of course, is the indictment of the protesters who were demonstrating outside of the Broadview Immigration detention Center during Operation Midway Blitz All of the charges were dismissed after the court indicated she would review the grand jury transcripts even after the government reduced the charges to misdemeanors rather than felonies. And the judge at the hearing dismissing the charges, indicated that what she saw in those transcripts was shocking. And listeners, she did not exaggerate There are three transcripts because as we now know, even though DOJ tried to conceal this fact from the judge, DOJ had to present this case to multiple grand juries before it could obtain an indictment Okay, so now we've actually seen the text. and the very first transcript starts off with one prosecutor saying the other prosecutor will vouch for her As we mentioned when the story first started to come out, vouching is one of the things that prosecutors categorically cannot do in front of the grand jury. There is a literal rule against vouching. So what does this prosecutor start off with by saying, quote Matt, that's the other prosecutor, will vouch for me. I said I want to go in front of the grand jury because I know you and I trust you and you know me and you trust me. And I would never ask you to charge somebody if I didn't think there was probable cause Textbook Trust me, I'm a prosecutor. I've got the evidence, so just indict honestly impressed that that vouching was done in such an explicit stringer bell kind of prohibited way. like no, you don't Take notes or say I'm vouching in the face of vouching before the grand jury. You could literally find this. If you're like, was there vouching and you control F the word vouch, you hear her saying it. So you know, it's like on law school exams where the person is named P plaintiff or D defendant. Here it is V for voucher So There were many highs and lows in these transcripts. For me, I think the best thing was The grand jurors making the Fifth Amendment great again. And Kate, I know Melissa isn't here I really want to do a reenactment. It's not going to be the same without her, but we will soldier on. So do you want to be grand juror or prosecutor? I will be prosecutor. How about you be grand juror. But yes, once again, Melissa, we will do our best to do you proud, but we just there's no way we can do it as well as you would have. But all right, onward, you begin as grand juror Okay grandeur Girl, are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side There wasn't the word girl in there. T editorial it was verbatim. Every other word but girl was in fact in the transcript. Prosecutor responds Okay, I'm feeling the skepticism already. Are you going to be able to listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth I no You have to go I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then. and I still think it is Okay, thank you for your opinion, everybody Do you have unlimited tries Do we have What did you ask? Unlimited tries. L you keep coming back as many times as you want Oh, I don't think we have to worry about that Okay, another now we have a second prosecutor. We have to I'll do the second prosecutor. I think the saying is the second time is the charm Just like reading the grand jury telling the proseyator, your case is a crock of shit. and why are you still at it? Why do you get coming back again and again? L where a legitimate question you know, in in shooting free throws, like you don't get unlimited tries until you make one. like you're, you know, iving a presentation at work, you're taking a law school exam. Like tyypically like you put up And then you shut up and that's kind of it. And I think it was a fair question, which is like why in this of all spaces does one side just get to keep going again and again Yeah So there is that. Then of course, we have the prosecutors identifying the grand jurors who wouldn't vote to indict the protesterors and dismissing them one by one until the prosecutors arrived at a grand jury with the minimum required number of grand jurors who would return an indictment prosecutor also talking about how he spoke with grand jurors outside of the grand jury room As I think we said in an earlier episode, like I think we all have a reasonable basis to think we need to see grand jury transcripts in the many other political prosecutions this administration is pursuing and there are a lot and other prosecutions as well. So just related to this two kind of pieces of news that are definitely tied up with the latest exposure of the Department of Justice's misdeeds. So there are now allegations of grand jury misconduct in other Chicago cases involving the same prosecutors. So in one, a judge has ordered an evidentiary hearing where the defense alleges that the prosecutor again engaged in vouching, disclosing off the record negotiations with the defendant and more And in what seemed like a bid to prevent said hearing into prosecutorial misconduct, the U. S. attorney moved to dismiss the charges. Note that this is what happened in the broad view six case where the prosecutor also tried to ward that off and yet those grand jury transcripts were still released. And it looks like there is still going to be an inquiry into this case. so the judge has ordered the hearing, right to continue or a hearing to continue even after the prosecution filed the notice of moving to dismiss the case. And this case involves allegations of fraud related to federal COVID funding And then there's an entirely separate case where a different judge agreed to review the grand jury transcripts in a case where the defendant plleed guilty because the judge said, quote, the front office has created, as you know, a credibility crisis. And that is a real problem, end quote Party of Lawn Order, ladies and gentlemen. Indeed. Genuinely wondering is this a good time or the best time or you know not a good time to be engaging in crimes? It seems like they have tied up DOJ with people who are not engaged in crimes and that the crime spree might be at the DOJ, the calls coming from inside the house. So this reminds me of that period where Trump This happened, I think in both Virginia and Jersey, but Alena Haba in Jersey, Halligan in Virginia, but trying to install these pretty unqualified people as U. S. attorneys. This was particularly true in Jersey It sort of seemed like actual federal law enforcement ground to a halt in the state of New Jersey. You know, which is a state where sometimes people like to do crimes. I mean, Illinois too. And I do wonder you literally had judges begging the prosecutor like come before me and please tell me you have sorted out who's leading this office because If you're wrong, this is going to invalidate all of the cases. Absolutely. That proceed under this invalid structure. Right. is different and more under the radar set of proble at least until now, set of problems it seems in the Northern District of Illinois So it's not, you know, this high profile person at the top, but it does seem as though like in the recesses of the grand jury room and who knows where else? Justice is not functioning as it normally does in that office Srject scrutiny is brought you by Smalls Let's play a game. False or fact. False or fact. first ingredients in most grocery store cat food is water and corn. That's a fact, most cat food is filled with water and fillers false or fact A bag of cat food labeled natural has zero legal definition behind it Natural is largely unregulated in the pet food industry. Things are different with Smalls. Smalls had one of their customers say this, quote from Christina Pet. The difference Smalls has made in my fifteen year old cat is amazing. lotots of exclamation marks. She eats it all up, has gained some weight, and is playing like a kitten again We had to put her sister to sleep a little over a year ago, and I honestly thought she was going to be soon to follow. This food has made a world of difference for her Next from Girt S, quote, It seemed like our cat Pepper, sixteen, was on her way out Her ribs were starting to show, her gait was no longer crisp, her appetite was off, and her coat was dull and beginning to get madted After two months of the small's diet, she is put on three plus pounds. You go girl, her coat is shiny, and she runs up and down the stairs in her house. She's not quite a kitten, but she no longer seems on death's doore Thank you for helping us bring her back. By the numbers, vet bills can rack up thousands of dollars, but the good thing is, smalls can help help offset some of those fet bells. Small's fresh cat food is protein packed The recipes are made with preservative free, one hundred percent human grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge, and it's delivered right to your door. Smalls works because Small's fresh, gently cooked food is made without preservatives, and a balanced diet leads to less shedding, fewer hairballs, and more silky shine The experts agree, kitty girls, it's a smalls world. Forbes ranks smallms as the best overall cat food, and Buzzfeed says quot, My cats went completely ballistic for this stuff Are you spooked by commit?, you can try smalls risk free. They'll refund you if your cat won't eat their food. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time because you are a strict scrutiny listener, get sixty percent off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life When you head to smalls d. com slash strict One last time, that's sixty percent off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life. When you head to smalls d. com slash stict This episode of strict scrutiny is brought to you by Alloy Health Let's be honest, aging can come with some unwelcome changes, Sleep disruptions, hot flashes, brain fog, it can all hit us hard Menopause is inevitable, but it's also treatable. Almost half of women go more than three years before seeking relief from menopause or perimenopausal symptoms Wh would we do that to ourselves? Well forty three percent of women reported that their doctors never even mentioned menopause hormone therapy. As an option for treatment, another forty percent didn't know where to go for a solution Alloy can help you feel and look your best through menopause and beyond, offering unlimited access to expert physicians and safe science backed treatments for your symptoms skin, hair And so many other things I' delivever to your door. Everything is done online from the comfort of your home or anywhere, no waiting for an appointment or in line at the pharmacy Alloy is fast, accessible, and their treatments actually work Here's how it works. First, complete your intake. Alloy solutions are available by prescription, so you'll need to complete an intake form and patient verification Next, receive a treatment plan from your doctor. You'll be matched with a menopause specialized physician who will create a personalized treatment plan tailored to your specific needs. Finally, get your three month supply. Once approved, Alloy ships your prescription directly to your door with automatic refills Sometimes getting into my primary care provider is a challenge. but Alloy Heelp provides resources without having to schedule an appointment six plus months in advance. And During that process, you also have to suffer. but alloy, you can see someone much more quickly I cannot recommend Alloy enough, join the ninety five percent of women who tried Alloy and saw relief in the first two weeks. Head to myalloy. com And use the code strict and tell them all about your symptoms, and you'll get a fully customized treatment plan and unlimited messaging with your doctor. Plus, you'll get twenty dollars off your first order today. Head to MY a l l OY. com and use code strrict to get twenty dollars off your first order To get your menopause treatment plan today, visit myalloy. com and use code strrict for twenty dollars off your first order. Aid gracefully So this is not a grand jury matter, but it is another politically vindictive prosecution that we wanted to mention. and that is one that flamed out when congressional candidate Brad Lander, herero of the Resistance, all aroundound Mench, full disclosure, my brother in law is working on his congressional campaign, was found not guilty on charges related to him allegedly obstructing an elevator while he was inspecting conditions at an immigration detention facility here in New York This was another utterly bizarre baseless charge. Lander had been and has continued to be a regular presence and voice in protesting the administration's egregious conduct during immigration enforcement In particular, it's practice of apprehending people showing up for regularly scheduled immigration court dates. And he has been trying to hold the federal government accountable. He had been previously even before the events that led to these charges been taken into custody at a federal courthouse when IC was conducting enforcement operations there. anyway acquitted in that case And those weren't the only big oopsies from DOJ or Trump lawyers last week. Last week, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, that would be the one led by Harmet UR hose Dylan, filed papers in the cases where they had indicted journalists who were documenting demonstrations at churches in Minnesota indicating that actually they may have made some false statements in their applications for those warrants. The application for a warrant refers to Georgeia Ford, an independent journalist who was indicted, as chanting while inside the church and using her camera as a weapon Here's what Civil Rights Division says about that now, quote. The statement about Fort Chanting was incorrect, but the error was due to simple inadvertence. The characterization of the camera as a weapon, though not ideal editing, is immaterial. Although the government regrets any error and does its best to avoid them Mistakes are inevitable This is like Bllshit apology. This is really Tonishing. You are saying criminally indicting people. you could not manage to dot your eyes cross your T's to determine whether the allegations were true alsoso just like it is not it sort of purports to be a mia culpa And it isn't even. like it's so defiant even in noting these I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt, apology.'t feeling S sorry if you't like the sorry. We willll see how that goes over. But I guess honestly, there is something to say for the filing in that case, which at least acknowledged error even if it didn't fully own it. but it was a filing. It stands in pretty stark contrast to Trump's personal lawyers in his case against the BBC. This if you've sort of lost track of which one this is, is one of the many Trump cases against media entities. It's also one of several that seeks ten billion dollars in damages. Not totally sure what's going on with that number, but it seems to pop up again and again. This suit alleges essentially that the BBC was mean to Trump in the way edited clips of his speech on january sixth, twenty twenty one, which is obviously like a multi billion dollar wrong, those editorial choices. And on Monday, the district court in that case filed an order to show cause as to why the plaintiff again, one Donald Trump had failed to file a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss the case The order noted that the plaintiff filed two eleventh hour procedural motions. didn't explain the delay or ask for the response deadline to be extended And the judge was like Do you oppose the motion to dismiss? and why shouldn't I sanction you for completely blowing that deadline to which, Donald Trump's lawyers basically said they didn't file a response because the court's protective rule order, like rules about what can and can't be unsealed and procedures for unsealing, We were too complicated for them to understand I will quote here The delay in filing the opposition memorandum on the docket was caused by plaintiff's good faith efforts to comply with the protective order entered in this case and the court's procedures governing sealed filings I tried not as hard. Your Honor. Therefore, you can't criticize me. I don't know exactly what that was. Maybe he should have made some DEI hires for attorneys instead of dipping into the Dick as ex husbands and incel lawyers DEI pool And the wild thing is something like this happened not once, but twice last week in the same case. So a separate docket entry noted that the plaintiff, again, one Donald Trump, had failed to submit a position regarding a judicial order setting the procedures for discovery. That's a stage of the case says,Qote, While counsel are free to disagree with the relief and basis on which the opposing party may seek said relief, they are not permitted to disregard the court's orders and procedures. and It's almost like actually Diligently pursuing this lawsuit in a federal court is not the purpose of filing this lawsuit. Are you beginning to get that sense? Yes, yes, I am. It doeses feel like it. Do you think they'll try to set up a slush one out of this one? I mean like we settled the case with the BBC and therefore, Donald Trump will be paying, I don't know, the proud boys a million dollars, right? Like no no let to try to intervene and actually set up a difference a media fairness slush fund. Oh my go, let's not give any ideas. Just BBC, please don't agree to yourself. Setting up a slush fund? I mean, we beg you I don't think they would, but I mean, a lot of people have capitulated these tactics are just so strong arm and and anyway it's really important not do, even if it seems like a small thing to reward this kind of behavior So let's pivot to the White House and Department of Justice outside of the courts and some of the internal executive branch activities. It basically seems like The Justice Department and in particular the Office of Legal Counsel or LLC, which is in some ways like a mini Spreme Court for the executive branch inside of the Department of Justice Basically, they seem to have decided that as the Supreme Court is taking its sweet time in issuing its decisions, they are going to get in on bad decisions slash bad lawyering season So, they at least initially have done so by releasing an opinion concluding that a big chunk of anti discrimination law And that is disparate impact liability is probably unconstitutional So disparate impact liability is, as Kate was saying, a species of anti discrimination law, among other places in Title VI on employment, the Fair Housing Act, and many other civil rights provisions. And what it does is it prohibits some policies that result in discriminatory effects, but aren't necessarily intentional discrimination And the Office of Legal couounsel in and all of its wisdom thinks that is the real discrimination. The top line summary of the memo read, quote EEOCs, that is the Equal Employment Oortunity Commission's Title VI guuidelines are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone without regard to an employer's likely intent and pressure employers to engage in race based decision making Okay, so basically, like Kalay said about the Voting Rights Act, the thinking on display here is that these regulations, because they direct employers to avoid business practices that disproportionately exclude or disadvantage racial minorities if those business practices aren't really necessary, that that is illegal because it requires employers to consider to think about whether they really should be excluding racial minorities And the horror, that is a constitutional problem So OLC, not surprisingly, invokes the appalling decision in the Alabama case that followed on the heels of KellA. That's a case where the court allowed Alabama to implement a set of maps that lower courts have concluded were racially discriminatory twice in part because Alabama refused to follow the Supreme Court's own decision, telling them that their maps violated the Voting R rights Act OLC, right? The Justice Department memo we were just talking about says, quote, corrections are necessary to resolve the tension between disparate impact claims under Title seII and our colorblind Constitution and cites this Allen vers. Milligan order And like KellA did, the opinion effectively nullifies an amendment that Congress made to Title seII when Congress expanded disparate impact liability after the Supreme Court had narrowed it in a decision known as Wards Code. Some more news. There are still several cases challenging the slush fund for insurrectionists. In one case, Judge Leon ruled from the bench denied citizens for Rponsibility and ethics in Washington, theirir request for a temporary restraining order against the slush fund, Judge Leon concluded that the case was moot after Carte Blanche, that is auditioning A attttorney General Todd Blanche and DOJ lawyers said the fund wouldn't go forward Judge Leon said at the end of his ruling, quote, I give the Department of Justice fair warning possum with this court end quote I'm sure that'll do In another case, Judge Frinkma in the Eastern District of Virginia concluded that the case was not moot and issued an injunction blocking the fund The judge gave the Department of Justice a week to get a sworn declaration saying that the fund is actually dead, dead, dead before the judge would agree to say the case is moot and there is no longer a live controversy I feel like Todd Lanch is gonna to vouch for the deadness of the fund. I ving for the fund being dead Your honor. Imure that will set the judge right at ease. Oh yeah, completely. Okay. So there is a big piece of news that we alluded to, but that we really need to now give its proper treatment. and that is Leia Lemon paperback release of Lawess. I am calling it Lawless Leah's version, not only because I unironically standan Taylor Swift. but also because I got to make updates to all the chapters and add a new section on the Unitary executive and how the court has enabled Trump. And I just feel like it's useful pre buding to all of the celebrations and plaots the court is going to get for invalidating the birthright citizenship order. It just tries to put that in a kind of bigger picture and trace the unitary executive to you know Richard Nixon thinking he was the victim of something and his people. But yeah, so I really enjoyed writing it and I hope people will check it out And as Leah was just saying, if you haven't gotten the book, you need to get the paperback. But even if you have gotten the book because this is because she's Leah has like basically like written kind of a new book, like some editions and then an entirely new chapter. So even if you already have a hardcover, a copy of the paper It includes the Dark Lord of the Third Circuit, Emil Beovee, among other characters. You don't want to there go So as we said, during this episode, we spent a lot of time talking about prosecutors doing fuck knows what. And I actually wanted to add one additional pretty terrifying example of this, and that is, MS now broke the story that FBI agents might be terrorizing pro democracy and voting rights organizations. So the FBI reportedly raided offices of the Ohio Organizing collollaborative, a pro democracy organization that helps register voters in the state. And agents, again, according to the story, reportedly showed up at the homes of people who worked for the organization, maybe also just some canvassers asking for information and electronic devices. some of them may have had subpoenas obbviously terrifying, and we should all be alarmed at what again, seems like another obvious attempt at election interference. You know, the executive order isn't going anywhere. so now they are just trying to intimidate people. So again, having spent so much time talking about what prosecutors shouldn't be doing or what law enforcement shouldn't be doing and how some of that subverts democracy Please stay tuned for our next conversation with a prosecutor who is actually doing the thing, working to protect our democracy with a great new organization FAFO. Yes, the acronym is FAF O, so be sure to stay tuned for that. Strict scrutiny brought you by B When I travel, it's basically one long adventure in search of the best food. breakfast pastries, but also, you know dinner. And so in that quest, I need to be able to say things like Which pastry has the highest sugar content or moreore garlic and spice, please. If you're traveling this summer and also in search of good food when you travel, here's a real travel hack. Don't wait until you land to start learning the language. Inead, try babble Even just ten minutes a day with BabBel can help you start having real conversations in as little as three weeks. Instead of memorizing random vocab, you're learning phrases you'd use ordering dinner, asking for directions or talking with locals. What I like about Babel is it's built for real life, not vocabulous, not verb charts, but real conversation practice Lessons are quick, practical, and built by more than two hundred language experts. They have interactive dialogue, personalized reviews, even podcasts all designed to get you speaking quickly and confidently And unlike cramming before a trip, babble fits into your actual schedule, coffee break, commute, or a few minutes before bed Beabel's Award winning app has sold over twenty five million subscriptions and is back by a fourteen day money back guaranteee If you've got summer travel coming up, now's the time to start so you can actually use what you learn on the trip Right now, Babel is offering listeners up to sixty percent off Go to Babble. com slash strict Babel B a bbl d. com slash strict for up to sixty percent off Rules and restrictions may apply And now I am delighted to be speaking with Mary Moriarty, Henniban County atttorney, also known as the district attorney in Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs and counties, and one of the founding participants of a great new organization known as FAFO. We'll explain more about that later. Mary, welcome to Stistrict scrutiny. Thank you so much So Mary, we've talked about your office on the show before, but haven't actually had the opportunity to talk to you. and we've been talking about your office because your office has been one where it actually has two cases involving state charges filed against federal officers. Can you remind us what those cases are about? Certainly, we filed a case on a what I would describe as kind of a road rage situation involving an ICE agent named Gregory Morgan We charged him. We had a nationwide warrant for his arrest. He did turn himself in several weeks ago and he has this week filed a motion to remove to federal court The other case that we charged is Christian Castro, who, we believe shot Julio Soososalis in the thigh. We also had a nationwide warrant there. He was arrested in Texas, and right now we are working our way through extradition proceedings . I think of the first case as a case of what I'm calling DWI driving while an insane Iice officer, given that this is a case where the Iice officer on the road was driving in an unmarked vehicle, pulled up and pointed a glock at you know these poor people's heads. and anyay, so just a berserk kind of set of facts. So you mentioned that the second case is right now the extradition proceedings and the first case, the defendant is trying to remove the case to federal court. Before you make the decision to charge these cases, there's an investigation. And when you're investigating someone who is part of a law enforcement body How is federal law enforcement or cooperation supposed to work in an ideal world The the way it's supposed to work and has historically worked here is that everybody works together In fact, in our political assassination case, where the defendant just pled guilty to the federal charges yesterday, we had a joint investigation with the FBI We were working with the U.S. attorney. We all got the investigation results. We charged and they charged. That's the way it has worked here and that's the way it should work And that case, just to remind our listeners involved the assassination of the Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman, as well as her husband and her dog Yes. Okay, so that's how it's supposed to work. How has federal cooperation been working either in the cases involving the federal immigration enforcement or the political assassination case you were just referring to Not well at all. In fact, when Renee Good was shot, I was on the phone with the FBI. Our state, local law enforcement agency is the BCA, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. So I was on the phone with them. I was on the phone with the U.S attorney. and everybody agreed this would once again be a joint investigation And then suddenly the BCA was kicked off the case. And so we realized then and there it was going to be a different situation. They took away Renee Good's car. It's shrink wrapped. It's still sitting in a warehouse somewhere. They won't share any evidence that they collected or got from any statements. And then when Julio Soice Ealis was shot, we also thought we had a joint investigation. The BCA did show up at the scene And what happened was at some point, the FBI said, we're no longer allowed to work with you. But the good news about that particular case was the crowd got really angry. There was a large crowd of community members and kind of got ed to leave. And so the BCA was able to collect evidence in that case But then when Alex Pretty was shot, it was on a Saturday morning, and we were prepared for non cooperation, but it was pretty remarkable When you saw the video, it was federal agents with their backs to the crime scene with batons actually physically keeping the BCA from entering that scene to investigate, which is what the BCA is trained to do. In any law enforcement involves shootings, involving a Minnesota police officer, they are the people that are directed to show up So we were prepared. We got a search warrant on a Saturday from a judge. so a judicially signed warrant, unlike many that you see from ice, but we got a warrant and the federal government refused to honor that So we were also prepared which is funny because they don't think they need warrants. and I guess they don't think when other offices get warrants it matters, really really too for there. Yes. And we had been working with two law firms from Washington, DC, the Washington Litigation Group and ICAP, and they've been working with us for free and they've been tremendously helpful. But we were prepared. We filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for a temporary restraining order that they collect the evidence that they preserve it and that they not alter it in any way. That was actually granted by a federal judge on Saturday. So we could see the progression of non cooperation here despite continued efforts. And I'll actually say the people on the ground or the lying people really would like to cooperate and have reached out. We've had many conversations, and every time it goes to the administration, it gets stopped cold. So this sounds like a just silly question to ask, but just for clarity's sake. What are some of the issues with this lack of cooperation? Like what does it do you know in practice? is a great question because normally when prosecutors get cases, at least in Minnesota, we don't have our own investigators by and large. So they have been investigated by law enforcement. So we know everything that we have and that we don't have. For instance, if there's a shooting, we know if there's video. If there's a law enforcement shooting, we know whether the officer gave a statement or other officers there. And I will say we also know who they are And I think that would surprise most people to know that we don't even know for sure who the agents were who shot Alex Preredty. That has never been verified. Pro publica published a report on it. But you have to think about this from a prosecutor's perspective. We have to be able to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt and that usually doesn't have to include identifying the name of the agents who were involved in it. So it is making us approach it from a what do we actually have from our own investigation with the BCA? And what don't we have? And also, what would they say? You know For instance, in the Pry case, we were told by the media, I guess They were all wearing body cam. We don't know that. we don't have that. We have to sit here and wonder, well, what would the agents say? And that creates barriers because you don't know what you don't know. You can just guess at that So you mentioned that there's a lack of cooperation, but I'd have to imagine that in addition to a lack of cooperation, there's also fears about less of a defensive posture than an offensive one, where there might be a concern that if let's say, BCA or state or local law enforcement tries to conduct an investigation, that the federal government or at least some in the federal government would retaliate against them. You know, Has that also kind of impeded the ability to just carry out, you know, normal police power stuff That was very apparent as Operation Metros Surge was going on. And we have something like thirty six different law enforcement entities here in Henniben County, which is Minneapolis and its suburbs, as you said And what we were hearing from community, what you were hearing, what you were seeing in videos too, is community members saying, hey, we're being occupied by our own federal government. Wh is here to help us? Who is here to protect us And I had conversations with local law enforcement chiefs, and it was very interesting because they said they didn't have jurisdiction And I said, whyy do you think that Yes, if anybody from the federal government comes into your community and you believe that they may have committed a crime, yes, you have jurisdiction to investigate and try to collect as much evidence as you can. In fact, we would like you to go to the scene and collect evidence and video that may have been taped over. But here was something that was really telling. You, ultimately, they said, our officers are afraid of being arrested or something worse And you know my position on that was, yes, this is unprecedented. It's unprecedented for all of us. And I totally get that. And yes, they could be arrested and yes, maybe worse. However, you signed up to protect and serve your community and your community is out there with whistles. And so you need to kind of have a hard look in the mirror and figure out you really signed up to protect and serve. So that was a big issue and I think it remains a big issue. And something that, as part of FAFO, when I've talked to other DAs, I can say the things I wish I would have known before this hit us. and one of those things would be to have conversations with local law enforcement to try to bring them along and have conversations about, hey, you, in a perfect world, you would get there, you might intervene, you are wearing body cam. You are collecting the names of witnesses and contact information so there can be an investigation after the fact Those as I discovered, those conversations need to happen before something like this, before they are in that situation So you've already kind of begun to gestter at this, but I do want to spell it out because I think many people are wondering, you what can I do? what should we be doing now in order to address ongoing federal overreach and potential additional federal overreach in the lead up to potentially the election. And so you mentioned that one thing that has been useful is the fact that people on the ground for example, suggested to IC,, you actually need to allow local law enforcement in to investigate, and that there were actually photographs taken of federal law enforcement actively not investigating you know Alex Pretty's murder, and that all of that was useful, know to allowing state officers to do their jobs Are there other pieces of advice you know you would offer either to members of the public or as you were just saying, to other district attorneys who are thinking about, you know My area, my state, might be a target of some federal law enforcement searches, you know, whether now or in the lead up to the election, you know what should I be doing now in order to protect my community? I think that's a great question. And I you know, as you know, local prosecutors really don't have to deal much with federal law. And the administration started out by saying, and they still continue to say in some respects that federal agents have absolute immunity. And you heard people saying, no one can touch you. You can do whatever you want. kind of thing. Vice president said this. So, oh yeah, I heard it Yeah, and you have to think that that had an effect on IC agents who were being told that. And so I think being prepared to say, no, that is not the case. and educating the community, educating, frankly, the IC agents and everybody, police everybody to say there is no such thing as absolute immunity And you can't come in here and commit crimes that if it was anybody else, other than the federal government would be a crime, and that we are prepared to investigate. One of the big issues here, and I think Minneapolis, like many other cities, has a lot of camera surveillance. And it's taped over after two weeks. So we had opened up what we call our transparency and accountability proroject or TAP We started out investigating seventeen cases, including Bovino throwing green gas canisters at people in a park And what we discovered was that the video had been lost. And so you've got to be able to preserve that video. But I think is there's a deterrence value, and I don't think there's a deterrence value in a lot of things, especially with young people. But with this, I think being prepared and starting the messaging that if you come to our community And you commit a crime, we will do our best to investigate that and prosecute that. And I would say it's really important now with elections coming up So you mentioned, you know, working with other DAs, guidance with other DAs, and we've now alluded to FAFO or FAFO a few times. Do you want to share with our listeners what FAFO is since I've only been kind of, you know using the acronym for perhaps obvious reasons. Yes. And I'm pretty sure know it was Larry Krasner from Philly who came up. I'm sure he wanted that acronym and we just had to find words to fill it. It is the cooalition for the Fight Against Federal overreach. And it is a very we're very serious about banding together because right now, given what the federal government is doing, local prosecutors can be at least one lane of fighting back But it really requires us working together because I think if you're just in this by yourself, it can be really isolating. and you need help. Yes. For instance, we're very fortunate to have the help of the Washington Litigation Group in ICAP because you have to be able to understand even before you're thinking about prosecuting obviously, but okay, what happens if you do charge And we came to learn that the defendant can make a motion to remove to federal court. But I think none of us, I certainly can speak for myself, I had no idea that if it was removed to federal court, we remain the prosecutor And that state law applied on substantive law and procedural federal law applied. But a really important thing here is that the president cannot pardon a conviction because it's under state law. And so those are basic things that I think most local prosecutors just don't have to think about. And then what do you do when you have this motion to remove IC agent says that they should have supremacy clause immunity. What does that mean? And that is something that a judge has to decide. I think I mentioned Which means it's not absolute, by the way, right? the judge hasn't decide it, you think I'm glad you pointed that out because it's actually a potential defense that doesn't prevent us from prosecuting, but you want to know what that means because you do not want to bring a charge and then not be able to overcome the argument that they were acting within the scope of their duty and they did nothing above and beyond that. So you need to be prepared on topics that you never thought you had to think about since law school And so that's one thing that we are talking about in FAFO. What do we need to know? How do we get prepared if this should happen in our communities? And elections are something we're really talking about because I think it's really important to prepare for the worst and hope that nothing happens. But what do we do if IC agents show up at polling places What do election judges do if they're told or asked or demanded by IC, hand over your ballots or something like that? So we're doing a lot of preparation on that front here in Henniban County. And I know we're working on that in FAFO as well So that's all very encouraging. I mean, there's so much we can all do to help one another, whether it's resource sharing, you know, pooling of knowledge, or you know just making each other not feel alone. You know, when you see one person fighting, I think it's easier you know to be brave. And I like to think of your office as basically doing, you know what the Knicks did in their recent come from behind victory, right? They didn't give up, They stayed in the fight, and you know what? they pulled it off So may you bring those same vibes to not only Minnesota, but the rest of the country. Mary, I do want to ask you one last question, which is what's giving you hope, you know in the work you've been doing let's say last eighteen or so months One thing was the community response here to Metro Surge I don't think it's really possible to appreciate everything that community members did By driving neighbors kids to school, by bringing food, by paying rent. I mean, just people coming together was just remarkable. And it was actually the community members that ultimately drove IC out. They're still here in some respect, but it was the really negative publicity, if you want to put it that way, that I think made them leave. by the community The other thing and you talk about this, I'm a big fan of the podcast too, until you get to the Supreme Court, when when you fight back, you win You really do because a lot of the things that the Trump administration is doing are just illegal, but they're not entirely illegal until a court says they are And much of what they do is to s fear. this is what they were trying to do in Metrosurge too. And if you just comply because you're afraid of what might happen, that's what they want. And so when you push back either in court or in any other way that is in your lane, like our lane is accountability you usually win And so that gives me some hope, even though the Supreme Court is fairly tragic right now to say the least, but in the lower courts we're winning and they just don't want to fight much of the time.. I mean, we actually, as you know, we're It was announced. we found out via Twitter I did not know that that was how the Department of Justice announced its past pattern and practices investigations, but they announced one investigating our office for a policy that we had just put into place while at the same time pulling out of the federal Consent decree for pattern and practice. But anyway, we fought back on that and we won So I do want to say to people, I know it's scary. and this is, I think part of the reason we need to band together and talk about supporting each other because it is scary. And at the same time, when we push back, we generally win Well, I love that as an ending note. Mary Moriarti, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us on strict scrutiny. We're obviously going to be following all of the great things your office has been doing. Thank you so much Thanks again to Mary Mariarti for that great conversation. So favorite things, let's do it. Okaykay So two things I had wanted to highlight, actually two and a half. So one is Jamel Bouie had another terrific piece in the New York Times titled The Supreme Court doesnn't ownwn the Constitution. Definitely worth checking out. title and greatiece. I mean, everything Jamellele is doing these days, I mean, always is so good, but this piece is really exceptional toally agree. Second is the Supreme Court did something I will put in my favorite things, although I'm not going to give them credit So the Supreme Court declined to stay a lower court ruling that had blocked The state of Alabama from using an execution protocol that gased people to death after the court found the protocol constituted cruel and unusual punishment This, of course, is a huge victory, getting the Supreme Court not to issue a stay that green lights an execution. So the district court had issued this decision after a full trial, and I really do think that The court's decision not to stay it reflected the great lawyering in the case from among others, the plaintiff's lawyers who are at Arnold and Porter, as well as lawyering from our friend Steve Vladdk, who was on an amicus brief, who again explained the kind of particular procedural posture of the case and why the court shouldn't intervene because of it My half favorite thing would be I've been listening to the new Olivia Rodrigo album So it's not my favorite. There are a few songs on there that are growing on me. So I loved the cure is definitely a highlight but that had been released in advance of the album. I like expectations Out of my wayay and Maggots for Brains, those are also, I think, high points on the album for me I have not listened yet. Okay, so that's a good weekend familyamily undertakings were driving. And I wonder so underscore what you said about the courts sort of unexpectedly correct order in denying this stay application that I'm sure the state thought they had a good chance of winning at Scotis. I also wonder in terms of like You know, I think excellent lawyering Slotic And also the court did allow a nitrogen gas execution to go forward. And Sotomayor wrote an incredibly powerful disent. And I wonder whether The fear of drawing another dissent like that was also a factor in the court doing the right thing here. It seems at least possible Okay, so I will just mention a couple of favorite things. I just finished the novel The Hill by Harriet Clark, which is like kind of a memoir because it is like kind of about her life I think But it's written as a novel. and it took it was a little bit of like a slow wind up for me. I was not super into it at the beginning It's pretty amazing. So I would say if you're thinking about it, I would stick with it. it's just Really beautiful and very moving and weird, and just really, really good. Okay, so that's my recent fiction recommendation I missed last week's episode because I was in Zurich where I hadd never been for this conference on Global Threats to the rule of law. and it was just amazing to hear from these scholars and jurists from all kinds of places and I just learned a ton and I'm grateful to the organizers. and I want to shout out Rrenada Whiatz and Elizabeth Holz Sleitner, who were both awesome scholars who were at the conference and who listened to the pod. and it's like always a trip to You know, you're London, you're in Austria, like you're listening to our podcast. And they were anyway, it was great to meet you both. Finally, I mean, I cannot claim that I am a like long standing real fan of the New York Kicks. As I've said before in this podcast, I am actually mostly a W NBA fan. There's a great story about. my husband took the kids and not me because I was somewhere else to a Nicks game. N Nicks and Bulls were playing were like mostly a Bulls family actually, in terms of the NBA. And my youngest daughter is like not a huge sports fan And so he took our three kids, my older two, were like we' super excited. And they got to MSG players came out onto the court and my youngest kid was like Wait, this is men hand was like, whereere's Ey? Asketbere's Yeah it's okay. they can play. like they're actually pretty good at it. But I just like love that the orientation in my family is like so at least for some of us, my husband actually loves NBA. But anywways,'s very WMBA focused. That said the justust like the city and the energy around this like the whole like postseason, the Kicks and this, you know, NBA finals has been just glorious and kind of reminds me of the best things about New York City which are just really important in this moment in which like the worst things about the federal government seem to be like on display constantly. Anyway, It just feels like an antidote sometimes. Anyway, so go nexts. I can even feel the immmaculate v here in Michigan through the screens and whatnot. It's really incredible. I took my dog for I wouldn't even talk about like Game four was so insane, but I took my dog for a walk in the last five mines I was like too stressed I just needed to shake it off. They were like coming back, but I didn't think they could come back fast enough. So like shadow needs to go. wed go for a walk And I just like hearing people screaming through their windows on my Brooklyn block. And slightly in like these like one or two second delays because like everyone's wiFi and like whatever cable news they're listening to is like a little bit different. So it was just like this chorus of shouts that was just so euphoric. anyyway. so already be posted Saturday byy the time you hear this episode, we'll see what happens, but I am excited for in five So speaking of immaculate vibes, Pride Month is here, and it's time to dress like it. This season, the Crooked Store is dropping gayer than ever in two brand new designs and bringing back an old favorite, the gay for Democracy shirt. Plus classics like Dreamboat Willie return in a new colorway alongside the ever reliable Join or die tea Whether you're celebrating with your community, showing up to protest, or guilting your straight friends into buying you crooked merch in the name of gay rights, there's something here to match your Pide mononth style And let's be honest, pride doesn't end, so you'll be wearing these items long after June. Head to crricut d. com slash store to shop. And we will be back in your ear holes next Monday unless the Supreme Court decides to give us some big opinions between now and then, and we'll have bonus episodes comeing your way if that happens.