SCOTUS Again Takes on the 2nd Amendment—What Could Go Wrong?

Kate is joined by Friend of the Pod Steve Vladeck (One First https://www.stevevladeck.com/) to break down last week’s legal news, including developments around noncompliance in the lower courts and SCOTUS ethics. Then, Leah and Melissa join to preview upcoming arguments before the Court where the Justices will consider important asylum and Second Amendment cases, among others. Finally, Kate speaks with Elliot Williams about his new book, Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive '80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation https://bookshop.org/p/books/five-bullets-the-story-of-bernie-goetz-new-york-s-explosive-80s-and-the-subway-vigilante-trial-that-divided-the-nation-elliot-williams/a25d28ae002a3ed7?ean=9780593833704&next=t&. Favorite things: KS: Grant https://bookshop.org/p/books/grant-ron-chernow/480af18f16051472?ean=9780143110637&next=t, Ron Chernow; The Last Dance https://www.netflix.com/title/80203144 LL: A Caribbean Heiress in Paris https://bookshop.org/p/books/a-caribbean-heiress-in-paris-a-historical-romance-adriana-herrera/ddd572d63de34da6?ean=9781335639844&next=t, Adriana Herrera; Wuthering Heights https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-2HG0C5jJQHG2d7NyXEzqcpHGRaMAE1U, Charli xcx Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026! 3/6/26 – San Francisco 3/7/26 – Los Angeles Learn more:http://crooked.com/eventsPreorder Melissa’s book, The U. S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-constitution-annotated-for-the-contemporary-reader-melissa-murray/8e7f0dfa472fc3ca?ean=9781668221938&next=t&Buy Leah's book,Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628Follow us onInstagram https://www.instagram.com/strictscrutinypodcast/?hl=en,Threads https://www.threads.net/@strictscrutinypodcast, andBluesky https://bsky.app/profile/strictscrutiny.bsky.social

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Crooked Con is coming up right after the election and we have just added a bunch more great names to the lineup. We got Governor JB Pritzker coming, Senator Chris Murphy, and then over from the House side, Ilhan Omar, Robert Garcia, Sarah Jacobs, Jamie Raskin, Sarah McBride. We also have Carlos Eduardo Espina, Simone Sanders Townsend, Eugene Daniels, David Pakman, Jessica Tarlov, Heather McGee, and then all the other people that we've announced on the website, plus more to come. Great list. Check out the full lineup and get tickets right now at crookedcon.com. We'd love to see you there. That's crookedcon.com.

• 0:31Speaker 01

  Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, has gone from a once controversial treatment to one of the biggest conversations in women's health.

• 0:39Speaker 02

  It's not just night sweats or aches and pains. The constellation of symptoms can be as varied as frozen shoulder to tinnitus to inexplicable rage to itchy mouth to, you know, there's so many different things. People go to their doctors and they want some relief. They're not able to sleep. Their, you know, marriages are falling apart, whatever's going on. They're not able to function at work in the same way because they don't know whether they're going to break out into a torrential sweat in the middle of a board meeting. Actually, there are things we can do. That's just a fact. So this isn't just my opinion. It's backed by science.

• 1:17Speaker 01

  So what does the science actually say about using hormones during menopause? Listen to the full episode of Health vs. Hype with the American Medical Association on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:31Speaker 03

  Long Play, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South, is back. Newsflash: The South is the new political epicenter of the country. Democrats are way on their heels in this region, but Republicans are going through their own reckoning in the South, too. We're in the final stretch of the midterms and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential flips. So we thought it was time to get back out on the road and take a closer look at what's actually happening on the ground. I'm Erin Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics. And I'm Jennifer Palmieri, former White House Communications Director. Tune in on Mondays to Long Play Series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 2:13Speaker 01

  Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, has gone from a once controversial treatment to one of the biggest conversations in women's health.

• 2:21Speaker 02

  It's not just night sweats or aches and pains. The constellation of symptoms can be as varied as frozen shoulder to tinnitus to inexplicable rage to itchy mouth to, you know, there's so many different things. People go to their doctors and they want some relief. They're not able to sleep. Their, you know, marriages are falling apart. Whatever's going on, they're not able to function at work in the same way because they don't know whether they're going to break out into a torrential sweat in the middle of a board meeting. Actually, there are things we can do. That's just a fact. So this isn't just my opinion. It's backed by science.

• 2:58Speaker 01

  So what does the science actually say about using hormones during menopause? Listen to the full episode of Health vs. Hype with the American Medical Association on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 3:13Speaker 04

  Mr. Chief Justice, may I please report? 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.

• 3:26Speaker 05

  She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, "I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks."

• 3:56Kate Shaw?

  Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. I'm Kate Shaw, your lone regular host for the first segment of today's show. But fear not, I am not totally alone because I am delighted to be joined by friend of the pod, Steve Vladeck, who is stepping in as guest host for this opening segment of today's show. Welcome back to the pod, Steve.

• 4:15Speaker 07

  Thanks, Kate. Great to be with you.

• 4:17Kate Shaw?

  Always such a pleasure to have you. So in this opening segment, we're going to focus on the legal news from the last week. We will then bring you a preview of the February sitting, which starts this week, and that one will include Leah and Melissa. And finally, stay tuned for a conversation that I recently had with author and commentator Elliot Williams about his excellent new book, Five Bullets. Okay, but first up, Steve, let's dive in to news from the last week. Obviously, the top line from the last week was the long-awaited ruling in the case challenging Trump's big, beautiful tariffs. And in that case, the court struck down those worldwide tariffs by a vote of six to three, although with some pretty sharp disagreements about just why the tariffs are illegal. We recorded an emergency episode that dropped on Friday, the day the opinion was released.

• 5:01Kate Shaw?

  So listeners, viewers, if you want a detailed rundown on our take on that opinion, fire up that episode if you haven't had a chance to listen to it. But Steve, since we have you, and there is definitely more to say about the 170 pages of opinions that the court gave us, trying to make the major questions doctrine, law, Gorsuch settling scores, the clear message that the only thing more important to John Roberts' then-executive power is the stock market, what are some of your big takeaways?

• 5:25Speaker 07

  Yeah, I mean, I wrote about this a bit on Friday in my newsletter. I guess I see Kate for takeaways, and you guys have probably already covered all of this in the emergency episode. So big takeaway number one is, you know, this was the first merits case of the second Trump administration. And, you know, for as much mischief as the court has caused on emergency applications with Trump, and I probably, you know, have written more than I care to say about how much mischief it's been, it's a pretty resounding loss for Trump on the case that the Justice Department chose as the first merits case. That's not for nothing. I mean, just optically, the fact that the court was willing to push back, even Kate, if it was for less altruistic reasons, I think is a big takeaway.

• 6:10Speaker 07

  Big takeaway number two is, you know, I think there's this continuing split between Justice Barrett and the other Republican appointees on whether the major questions doctrine really is a thing or not. And, you know, I at least read her concurrent opinion. Even though she's endorsing much of the Roberts plurality opinion on major questions, to be reinforcing her potentially idiosyncratic view that there's not much daylight between the major questions doctrine and other existing substantive canons of statutory interpretation, that could matter in future cases, especially future cases where maybe Brett Kavanaugh isn't gonna Brett Kavanaugh. So, you know, doesn't matter here, obviously, probably won't matter

• 6:52Speaker 07

  in other Trump cases, but at least in a longer term sense. Barrett's softness on the major questions doctrine could be a very big deal.

• 7:02Kate Shaw?

  And let's, we pause on that one for one second. So, this is this potentially enormously important doctrine that could be wielded in all kinds of directions, right, like can actually potentially be wielded to important effect if it's going to reign in overreach by this president. It also is a doctrine that could be wielded to potentially really troubling effect if we are ever in a position of having a future Democratic president, like this could be an incredible sort of obstacle to implementation of any kind of meaningful agenda by a Democratic president, assuming that Congress is just not going to do much, which I think is a fair assumption for the foreseeable future. Executive action is going to be how a future Democratic president operates, and this doctrine could give the court a veto

• 7:45Kate Shaw?

  over virtually everything ambitious a Democratic president does. So, I was obsessed, of course, like with what this means for the next case, and I do think it's important to focus on Barrett, but of course, you point out, like, you know, Barrett gets you to four if you think the major questions doctrine is not a thing, so you definitely still need to count to five. So, okay, so that's two big takeaways. What are your third and fourth?

• 8:06Speaker 07

  So, speaking of five, then there is the fact that it's six to three, and it's not the six to three you would expect if we told you it was six to three. You know, I walked out of the oral argument in November thinking that it was going to be seven to two. And of course, as ever, I was wrong about Justice Kavanaugh. You know, the fact that Kavanaugh is in the dissent here, I think, is the latest in a large and increasing body of evidence that he's just not likely to stand up to President Trump.

• 8:34Kate Shaw?

  Yeah.

• 8:35Speaker 07

  You know, if we Look at, Kate, every single publicly visible vote in a Trump case since last January. The chief and Barrett and Gorsuch have all voted against Trump more than Justice Kavanaugh has. I mean, obviously, Thomas and Alito are less, but, you know, I assume every Trump case starts with two votes in support of Trump.

• 8:55Kate Shaw?

  Yeah.

• 8:56Speaker 07

  It may be that now most of these cases are started with three votes in support of Trump, and I think that's a big deal, too, for just how much it reinforces how this is really the Roberts and Barrett court in the cases in which that's going to matter. There's lots more to say about that and why it's disappointing and why it's frustrating, but I think it's an increasingly undeniable reality.

• 9:16Kate Shaw?

  I think that's right. I mean, I guess it remains to be seen whether the Cook case bears that out, because he seemed pretty skeptical of kind of complete presidential control over the Fed, and so he could well vote against Trump there, but I don't think that would be an... But if he doesn't, then that is incredibly powerful evidence that he is as much of a lock for Trump as Thomas and Alito are. But I think you're right. Once upon a time, you know, six to 12 months ago, if you were going to say like a 6-3 case in which Trump loses, it would be Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh, who would be the third vote to join Thomas and Alito that you would predict, and I think that that is no longer... We all have to sort of update our priors about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Okay, so what's the last takeaway?

• 9:57Speaker 07

  The other dissenters. I mean, like, all three of the dissenters, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, all were in the majority in Biden versus Nebraska, where the court had absolutely no problem, right, using the major questions doctrine to strike down President Biden's student loan deficit in this program. What the heck is the explanation for how this is not that? I mean, right, and so, just the...

• 10:19Kate Shaw?

  You mean the non-purely partisan explanation? And like, you know, we're looking to find anything plausible and go on.

• 10:26Speaker 07

  And struggling. I mean, Kate, you and I have personally been attacked for being like the Pollyanna-ish, everything at the Supreme Court is principled people, even though we're not.

• 10:35Kate Shaw?

  No.

• 10:36Speaker 07

  But here is yet another example, I think, of the justices and the dissent doing absolutely nothing to disabuse people of the view that they're voting on their partisan policy preferences as opposed to being analytically consistent across different administrations.

• 10:49Kate Shaw?

  Yeah. Yeah, and for those of us who do care about law, it's just wildly disheartening. Not the kind of bottom line votes, but just the pure hackery that is on display.

• 11:02Speaker 07

  I mean, this should have been unanimous, not because I think the major questions doctrine is a good thing, but because if we're being consistent, this is not a hard case. And if we're not being consistent, what are we doing?

• 11:14Kate Shaw?

  Okay, so let me ask one final question, which is, do you have thoughts on the fact that the court just totally punts on the question of remedy? So there have been many, I'm not sure what the figure is now, but big numbers of unlawful tariffs paid under this presidential action, these executive orders, and the court seems entirely unconcerned with how to remedy that. So what do you make of that decision? And what happens next?

• 11:42Speaker 07

  So you say unconcerned, I say completely befuddled, which is that I don't think that the court's not concerned, I think they had no idea what to do. And the remedy question wasn't addressed in the lower courts, it was briefed but not really explored in detail. I think it got one question from Justice Barrett at the oral argument. And so I think two things are true. One, I think they just didn't feel prepared to address that question, and it already took them the better part of three and a half months to get this ruling out. But two, historically, it's not that unusual for the court to hand down a major ruling like this and assume that other actors would clean up the mess. My favorite example,

• 12:24Speaker 07

  and I just taught this in federal courts on Friday, my favorite example is Northern Pipeline in 1981, where the court strikes down the entire bankruptcy court system, stays its decision for 18 months, and says, hey, Congress, fix it. And so the problem here, I think, is not that the court didn't address remedies, because historically, I think that would have been very odd for the court to go that far, it's that we live in a moment in which it's not clear who will. And so I think for now, it punts it back to the Court of International Trade, where there will obviously be really messy litigation about this. But in a world in which we had a function and separation of powers... The question of how to operationalize the effects of this kind of Supreme Court ruling historically was a question that wouldn't be answered by the court, it would be answered by Congress.

• 13:09Kate Shaw?

  Congress, yeah.

• 13:10Speaker 07

  And I think it's the, it's that gap that is back on display in this case.

• 13:12Kate Shaw?

  I think it's that gap, and it's also, I think, that in a functioning, not just scheme of separated powers, but a functioning executive branch and Department of Justice, you could have the courts essentially shift the onus to the Department of Justice to come up with sort of good faith proposals for remedial schemes, or to kind of work in good faith on implementing the court's decision. And there's no reason to assume good faith on the part of this administration or Justice Department. And that, I think, is another potential long-term effect of this opinion, which is that, of course, this is an enormous loss in name and symbolically and legally for the Trump administration. But in terms of sort of brass tacks, what it means, like, it's in their hands what

• 13:53Kate Shaw?

  to do. And we have seen them defy lower courts again and again, and we haven't yet seen it at the Supreme Court level. But if it's the lower courts doing the implementation, like, I'm not sure, maybe you're back in sort of defiance land before.

• 14:05Speaker 07

  Or at least, or at least if we're not back in the Supreme Court in six months on the remedy question.

• 14:08Kate Shaw?

  Right.

• 14:09Speaker 07

  Just, and this is the very last thing I'll say about the dissent. So Justice Kavanaugh's dissent, which is joined in full by Thomas Nolito, spends a couple pages on how the built-in sunk costs would be reason enough to come out the other way. And I think that is so giving up the ghost that there's no principle animated in that, right? That is such a sort of pure, real politic, like, we should rule the other way because this is going to be a mess. That is not how we do law.

• 14:37Kate Shaw?

  It reminded me, actually, of Trump versus Anderson, the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment case, in which the court, like, pretty clearly is just saying it would just be too messy to implement the disqualification provision of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and so we're just not going to do it.

• 14:50Speaker 07

  It's, yeah, right. This court saying it's too hard, it doesn't really, I think, persuade anybody.

• 15:01Speaker 03

  Long Play, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South, is back. Newsflash: The South is the new political epicenter of the country. Democrats are way on their heels in this region, but Republicans are going through their own reckoning in the South, too. We're in the final stretch of the midterms, and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential flips. So we thought it was time to get back out on the road and take a closer look at what's actually happening on the ground. I'm Erin Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics. And I'm Jennifer Palmieri, former White House Communications Director. Tune in on Mondays to Long Play Series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 15:42Speaker 01

  Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, has gone from a once controversial treatment to one of the biggest conversations in women's health.

• 15:50Speaker 02

  It's not just night sweats or aches and pains. The constellation of symptoms can be as varied as frozen shoulder to tinnitus to inexplicable rage to itchy mouth to, you know, there's so many different things. People go to their doctors and they want some relief. They're not able to sleep. Their, you know, marriages are falling apart, whatever's going on. They're not able to function at work in the same way because they don't know whether they're going to break out into a torrential sweat in the middle of a board meeting. Actually, there are things we can do. That's just a fact. So this isn't just my opinion, that it's backed by science.

• 16:28Speaker 01

  So what does the science actually say about using hormones during menopause? Listen to the full episode of Health vs. Hype with the American Medical Association on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 16:46Kate Shaw?

  So let's leave it there. And kind of this implementation question and potential defiance question, I think, sort of is a good segue to developments in the lower courts in the last week. So we have seen additional evidence of noncompliance and defiance, and actually some maybe meaningful consequences coming from the lower court. So let's start with New Jersey, where last week, a district court, after finding that DOJ had violated one of its orders... Actually directed the department itself to produce a list of every instance in which the administration had failed to comply with a court order in that district since December 5th. In response, the Department of Justice produced a list of over 50 violations across 547 cases. The department was actually pretty contrite, at least in its rhetoric. It described these violations as accidental.

• 17:31Kate Shaw?

  It said, quote, "Adherence to court orders is a bedrock feature of our justice system." I'm not sure everyone in Trump's Justice Department feels that way, but that at least was the filing produced in this case. So, you know, a couple of things. One, that is a pretty stunning number. I think it makes clear that Judge Shilts in Minnesota, who recently noted the government had violated nearly 100 orders in just, I think, January in just that district, was not an outlier, that this is a much more widespread phenomenon. So I guess first, sort of, Steve, any reactions to that sequence of events in New Jersey?

• 18:02Speaker 07

  I guess, I mean, it's hard to be surprised at this point. I mean, I think it's, you know, Kate, you and I both, I think, talked to a lot of folks behind the scenes, judges, you know, lawyers who are practicing these cases. And to a person, I mean, whether it's the district courts that are in the news, Kate, or the ones that are not in the news, they are all deluged with these cases. You know, you have like small district courts that maybe would get two or three of these immigration habeas cases a year that have now gotten 100 in the last six weeks. And so I think, you know, I understand why folks don't trust anything this administration says. It is not entitled to any benefit of the doubt at this point. But I also think that at least some of this is a logistics problem.

• 18:43Kate Shaw?

  Of their own making.

• 18:45Speaker 07

  Of their own making. And as I think Judge Provino pointed out in the Minneapolis case, I don't know what we're going to talk about in a second, right, one, that is not an excuse for the behavior. But, you know, I do think that some of this is logistics and incompetence, not malice. Where the policy causing all of this was maliciously intended.

• 19:05Kate Shaw?

  Absolutely.

• 19:06Speaker 07

  Right? But where the real problem on the ground is just that there aren't enough, there aren't enough people, there aren't enough lawyers, there aren't enough people at ICE who are responding to the lawyers. And the answer has to be, you know, sanctions, which I think is where at least we saw in Minneapolis.

• 19:21Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, so let's talk about that and the kind of your observation, I think. Crystallize something that had been troubling me, which is like where those sanctions should be directed, right? Like, so let's now talk about Judge Provinzino in Minnesota. So last week, she found a government lawyer in contempt of court for failing to return the identification documents of a detained immigrant she had ordered released with all of his property, and he did not receive the property that she had directed he be given. And so she actually ordered an actual fine of $500 per day until the property was returned. So I do want to know what you make of this development. So judges, as you have documented, and we've talked about, they have been bending over backwards to issue warnings, to give

• 20:05Kate Shaw?

  the government time to correct, to sort of try to use kind of shame and public condemnation. But now we're talking about actually monetary sanctions. So like, is this an important ratcheting up of the kind of seriousness with which judges are going to take this kind of noncompliance, whatever the cause you were just kind of alluding to? Sort of, is it a good development? Are we going to see more of it? And are the right people sort of on the hook right now?

• 20:31Speaker 07

  Yes, yes, and no. So I think it is a good and long overdue development. I think we are going to see more of it, and I think it's the wrong people.

• 20:39Kate Shaw?

  Yeah.

• 20:40Speaker 07

  Right? So in this case, it's the random JAG lawyer who was, you know, assigned as a special assistant U.S. attorney, because again, back to our last exchange, they don't have enough lawyers, who's being fined personally, right, $500 a day for Kate what by all accounts are sort of a lack of hustle and a lack of cooperation over which she has zero control.

• 21:05Kate Shaw?

  Yeah.

• 21:06Speaker 07

  And, you know, part of the problem here is that not that long ago, I mean, Kate, you've been in the government, I haven't, right? But like, when a DOJ lawyer would call an agency and say, "You must do this by this date," the agency would jump.

• 21:18Kate Shaw?

  Yeah.

• 21:19Speaker 07

  And if there was any question, the Attorney General would call the Secretary or the head of the agency and say, yo, you must jump. And this is what happens when you have a culture in the Department of Justice in which that's not something that's going to wield their institutional authority to achieve. And so, you know, I think it's, if there's no one else to find, you find the lawyer. But it's not, I think, at the end of the day, the lawyer's immediate fault.

• 21:45Kate Shaw?

  Yeah. And the culture at DOJ is a big part of the problem, but in some ways, an even bigger part of the problem is the culture and the DHS components that are just completely uninterested. And, you know, you've always had kind of different institutional cultures in the FBI versus the CIA versus DHS versus DOJ. And so that fact is not new, but a lot of the details are very new. And I do think that these are, you sort of see contempt for courts and the rule of law from DOJ and DHS, to be sure. But I don't think in equal amounts. And it does seem as though at least some line lawyers and, you know, some maybe mid-level leadership at DOJ would like to comply more fully, at least than they have been, with what courts are directing them to do. And they are getting no cooperation from the Department of Homeland Security.

• 22:26Kate Shaw?

  But I do think that getting high-level officials in court, the way Judge Shultz initially threatened to do, I think is something that courts should revisit and actually make happen.

• 22:35Speaker 07

  So this is, this is where I was going to say, so the problem here is that, right, the JAG lawyers, I think, are in an especially vulnerable position because resigning as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys can only happen if they resign as JAG lawyers, right? They would have to resign their commissions to get off of these cases. And, you know, listen, some of them may already have approached or crossed that red line. But that's a little different to me, Kate, from someone who was already working for DHS, right, and walks in the court, like the, I don't remember her name, but the woman who had the breakdown.

• 23:07Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, Lee, yeah, her name.

• 23:08Speaker 07

  That's right. Right? I actually feel a little more sympathy for the JAG lawyers because they, this is not anything they have any control over because they're subject to orders.

• 23:16Kate Shaw?

  Right.

• 23:17Speaker 07

  And so I think, you know, my, the best thing I think we could say is that Judge Provinzino is on exactly the right track, but that I think that the focus has to be higher in the chain of command.

• 23:27Kate Shaw?

  Yeah.

• 23:28Speaker 07

  And that will necessarily... Provoke appeals. I mean, this, the administration has already fought tooth and nail about preventing, you know, forcing agency heads or senior lawyers to have to come to court. But I think that's a fight that's now worth having if you're the lower federal courts.

• 23:43Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, agreed. And kind of on the topic of the lower federal courts more broadly, and sort of specifically what tools judges have to shore up their authority, defend themselves against threats. We got this really interesting advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference this past week, and you wrote your latest one First Street bonus newsletter about it, and you titled it "Federal Judges Speaking Out." So first, can you just briefly tell us what is the Judicial Conference? And then can you tell us a bit about that advisory opinion?

• 24:10Speaker 07

  Sure. So the Judicial Conference is the policymaking arm of the federal judiciary. It is formally a group of 26 judges, so it's the chief judges of each circuit court. It is one district judge from within each of the circuits. There's one, I think, bankruptcy court representative, and then I think, and then the chief justice himself. And, you know, this is the body that's supposed to sort of gather on a regular basis to identify problems of judicial administration, to make recommendations about how we should fix things. And it has a bunch of committees, and one of the committees is called the Codes, Plural of Conduct Committee, which is tasked with providing advisory opinions on the scope and applicability of two different codes of conduct.

• 24:53Speaker 07

  Of the codes of conduct for federal judges, which is what applies to every federal judge other than the nine justices, and the code of conduct for federal judicial employees. That's why it's plural. So the Codes of Conduct Committee's latest advisory opinion was about when and how federal judges can speak publicly and/or participate in civic engagement, and when they can't. And what I thought was really striking is most of the four-page opinion, Kate, is a rehash of prior opinions, where it's like, okay, you're not saying anything new. But almost every place where the committee is saying something that they're not citing to a prior opinion, they're speaking in support of

• 25:35Speaker 07

  Judges speaking out to defend other judges who have been unfairly attacked and/or persecuted, the rule of law, or judicial independence. And, you know, I don't think that this is a committee that doesn't do anything by accident. This is the same committee, for example, that said that, for example, judges should stop going to federal society events and then got overruled, right, that opinion was withdrawn. It strikes me that this is a message that was subtle, but also unmistakable to the folks who are used to reading these opinions, that the committee wanted to signal that it is okay for federal judges to raise alarm bells publicly as long as it's not about specific

• 26:16Speaker 07

  cases, as long as they're not, you know, suggesting a thumb on the scale on an issue or a case. And Kate, I think some of that's a reaction to some of the criticisms that we've seen from the right, as the New York Times, for example, has been reporting on an anonymous survey of federal judges, as MSNBC has interviewed federal judges who have been very critical of the Supreme Court's behavior. And to me, it's a very positive response because it's reminding everybody that the canons don't prohibit federal judges from speaking publicly and/or through their opinions in defense of each other and in defense of the rule of law.

• 26:50Kate Shaw?

  I agree. It felt significant, the fact that the chief justice is involved felt potentially significant. I mean, I think we have been enormously, and I think, you know, fairly critical of the chief and the court's kind of failure to feel like they have the, kind of protect and have the backs of the lower federal courts against this really unprecedented onslaught of attacks from the administration in particular. And that really contrasts with the first Trump administration in which, you know, Roberts occasionally bestirred himself to defend the lower federal courts against attacks by politicians and even the sitting president. And it felt like maybe this was a sign that the tide was turning in some way, that the court, that the chief understands that the Supreme Court itself hasn't protected lower federal courts and

• 27:35Kate Shaw?

  You know, that maybe more needed to be done in defense of lower court. So that's a very rosy gloss on this, but, but I hope that there's something to it.

• 27:44Speaker 07

  So I would just say, I mean, so the chief, yes, I mean, the chief's role here is sort of in not disapproving, right? That, right? He's not on the committee. I would say there's actually an even more positive sign of the chief be stirring himself behind the scenes, which is how he handled the Boesberg misconduct complaint. You know, this was, I don't want to sort of go too far in the weeds on this, but right? That the chief sort of sent that to Jeff Sutton when he had a choice of federal judges to send it to. I think knowing what Sutton would do with the complaint. Also, the administrative office sent two letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was basically trying to pour cold water on the substantive allegations against Chief Judge Boesberg. That could not have happened without the chief's at least implicit approval.

• 28:26Speaker 07

  So, you know, there is this disconnect between what the chief is doing in his own words and what he's doing behind the scenes, but at least behind the scenes, there are some signs of life.

• 28:34Kate Shaw?

  Some signs of life. Okay. Now, in sort of less, I think, positive signs from the chief. We had a development last week on, you know, a topic kind of related to Supreme Court ethics. And when you say that, you might think, oh, like, maybe they decided to do something. And of course, the answer is yes, but not something particularly constructive. So the backstory here is that, and this was all detailed in Chris Geidner's Law Dork Newsletter that had a very detailed post about this new rule adopted by the court involving stocks held by the justices. So the background here is that some Supreme Court justices hold individual stocks. Seems like madness to me, but at least the chief and Alito still do that. And this can lead to recusals that happened at the last minute when Justice Alito had to recuse from a case involving oil companies and the Louisiana coast.

• 29:18Kate Shaw?

  So maybe in response to this sequence of events, or just maybe kind of by pure coincidence, Roberts decided to take action on the question of stock ownership by justices. Steve, what did Roberts decide to do?

• 29:29Speaker 07

  Yes, so now parties must include the stock ticker labels for any company with an interest in a case and not just the names of the companies, which I think is designed, Kate, to facilitate the court's software, which they, you know, run all these briefs through to screen for conflicts because heaven forbid people actually read these things themselves. So the great stock ticker improvement of 2026.

• 29:54Kate Shaw?

  Right.

• 29:54Speaker 07

  One might suggest that the easier way out of this is to just not have the justices own individual stocks.

• 30:00Kate Shaw?

  Not that difficult.

• 30:01Speaker 07

  Just a thought.

• 30:02Kate Shaw?

  Not that difficult. But in some ways, like, this is, I think, kind of like the recent revelations of the chief's, you know, use of NDAs with staff and staff members and clerks, kind of an exercise in missing the point. But also kind of a reminder that they are fully capable of implementing rule changes when they see fit. And so that is a potential pressure point, just, you know, to actually get them to do things like require divestiture from individual stocks, which would be the easiest thing in the world for them to do.

• 30:31Speaker 07

  Well, and just, and just, I mean, but again, at the risk of trying to be rose-colored again, here, though, we have yet another example of the court responding to a problem. And it's like, it's remarkable that for all the folks who I think are, you know, there's a difference between being cynical about the court and being doomers. And, you know, you don't have to actually look that far to find evidence of the court actually being responsive to certain kinds of problems, Kate, even if the responses themselves are either bewildering or, you know, do grave injustice to the concept of half-measures.

• 31:04Kate Shaw?

  Totally.

• 31:05Speaker 07

  It's still, it's still something.

• 31:06Kate Shaw?

  It's, it is just like their kind of non-code of conduct, which was, in substance, just wildly disappointing. And also important evidence that they listen and sometimes care about sufficient volume and intensity of public criticism. And so it's really, really important to keep the pressure on. All right. So that's about all the time we have for this news topper. This has actually had unusually kind of high frequency of notes of optimism, but I guess it's you and me, Steve, and so maybe that's to be expected. But I did actually want to end on... Which again, like, we're very critical, like, I'm going to, I feel the need to continue to remind of that, because I certainly feel like we are, but also that, like, there are

• 31:49Kate Shaw?

  these signs of life that I think we're both kind of drawn to identifying. But I did want to note, I think, a good and positive development out of UCLA last week, which is that the Trump administration has dropped its appeal of a preliminary injunction that was issued last fall regarding a settlement proposal that the Trump administration had issued to UCLA. This was, like, in addition to this $1.2 billion fine that the administration sought to impose on UCLA for a number of reasons related to gender-affirming care and allegations of antisemitism, a challenge brought by UCLA faculty, and a big, big win, and I think a kind of important piece of evidence in the kind of continuing story of the importance

• 32:32Kate Shaw?

  of resistance, and not capitulating or surrendering in advance. Like, sometimes when you fight, you win, and, you know, when you don't fight, you never win. And so I think that is, like, an important takeaway from UCLA. I don't know, Steve, if you have any final thoughts before we break.

• 32:45Speaker 07

  Just, I agree with all of that. And just, one can be clear-eyed about how much really ugly, bad stuff is happening, and still want to highlight where the law is working, and where, you know, resistance is working, and where legal opposition is working. That's not by any stretch to say, "Everything was fine." It's really not.

• 33:06Kate Shaw?

  It's really not.

• 33:06Speaker 07

  But it is to say that there are reasons to believe that the law, in deeply imperfect and flawed ways, is still doing a heck of a lot more than, you know, it may appear at first blush. Not nearly enough, but we're still so much better off with all of these interventions by the courts than we would be without them.

• 33:23Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, and a lot of the solutions lie in kind of the worlds of organizing and politics, and not in law. But that law does have an important role to play, and that there are little moments in which it is working, and that is critically important, so.

• 33:36Speaker 07

  And now we see to turn them into bigger moments.

• 33:37Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, that's right. Okay. Well, Steve, always such a pleasure to have you. Thank you so much for joining me today.

• 33:42Speaker 07

  Thanks for having me. Thanks, everybody.

• 33:44Kate Shaw?

  Listeners, just a heads up on another podcast we are sure that you will enjoy. On the latest episode of Runaway Country, our friend Alex Wagner is joined by the amazing historian Heather Cox Richardson to unpack how Donald Trump has reshaped Washington, not just politically, but also physically. So they dig into what changes to D.C.'s built environment reveal about power and legacy and how leaders try to leave their mark. The episode is out now. Listen to Runaway Country wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube. So we're now going to take a quick break, and after the break, Aaliyah and Melissa will join me to preview the cases the Supreme Court will hear in this upcoming sitting.

• 34:22Speaker 03

  Long Play, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South, is back. Newsflash: The South is the new political epicenter of the country. Democrats are way on their heels in this region, but Republicans are going through their own reckoning in the South, too. We're in the final stretch of the midterms, and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential Phillips. So we thought it was time to get back out on the road and take a closer look at what's actually happening on the ground. I'm Erin Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics. And I'm Jennifer Palmieri, former White House Communications Director. Tune in on Mondays to Long Play Series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 35:04Speaker 01

  Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, has gone from a once controversial treatment to one of the biggest conversations in women's health.

• 35:12Speaker 02

  It's not just night sweats or aches and pains. The constellation of symptoms can be as varied as frozen shoulder to tinnitus to inexplicable rage to itchy mouth to, you know, there's so many different things. People go to their doctors and they want some relief. They're not able to sleep. Their, you know, marriages are falling apart, whatever's going on. They're not able to function at work in the same way because they don't know whether they're going to break out into a torrential sweat in the middle of a board meeting. Actually, there are things we can do. That's just a fact. So this isn't just my opinion. It's backed by science.

• 35:49Speaker 01

  So what does the science actually say about using hormones during menopause? Listen to the full episode of Health vs. Hype with the American Medical Association on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 36:11Kate Shaw?

  After a really big January sitting that involved cases on the future of trans rights, the Second Amendment, and whether it will cannibalize property law, and whether the court will allow the president to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve, spoiler, likely no, because the stock market, that's law, the court actually has a lighter February sitting in store for us.

• 36:29Melissa Murray?

  Don't worry, though. I'm sure they'll still do some nasties on the shadow docket. This is not an example of a court quiet quitting. They probably will even get around to releasing some opinions and argued cases, so gird your loins. The February argument session, though, does look pretty light, as Kate suggested, and that means that you don't get to take the day off and sleep on SCOTUS, though, because the March sitting is another doozy with many, many important election law cases about whether states will be allowed to count ballots that are received after Election Day. There are cases about asylum and whether the federal government can just insist that people stopped on the Mexican side of the

• 37:10Melissa Murray?

  border, at the border, cannot raise asylum claims. And of course, there is the challenge to birthright citizenship. So this, listeners, is just the calm before the storm.

• 37:21Leah Litman?

  It does, however, mean we get to spend a little bit more time previewing some of the February cases, and we're going to use some of that extra time to introduce you to one of the March cases, Nome versus Allo Tralotto, the asylum case that is hugely significant and, at least in my view, seems to be kind of sliding under the radar. So of the February cases, we're going to spend most of our time on United States versus Himmie, a Second Amendment challenge to a federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by someone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. The theory that the court below and the one the government relied on in this case is that the petitioner owned a handgun for self-defense but also consumed marijuana a few days

• 38:06Leah Litman?

  a week, and therefore, he was in violation of this law. And if you're thinking, that sounds weird, bad, unconstitutional, you know, like, I'm sympathetic to that.

• 38:16Melissa Murray?

  Well, there's a slight problem. The facts are a little more complicated. The agents also found some admittedly small amount of cocaine, so exactly one gram. I don't even know if you can snort that off a toilet seat. I'll have to check with someone who knows. Anyway, the federal government says Hamani, who is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, they say that his, quote, "actions have drawn the attention of the FBI." And the government alleges that in 2019, a search of Hamani's phone at the border crossing revealed communications suggesting that he was poised to commit fraud at the direction of suspected affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization. They also note that in, quote, "2020,"

• 39:00Melissa Murray?

  "respondent and his parents traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qassam Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before." The defendant's mother was displayed on video telling an Iranian news agency that she hoped that, quote, "her two sons, including respondent, would become martyrs like Soleimani." They also argue that Hamani maintains weekly contact with his brother, who attends an Iranian university that the United States government has designated as having terrorist ties, and allegedly that he told law enforcement officials that if he knew about an imminent terrorist attack by a Shia brother that would kill innocent people, he would not report it to the authorities.

• 39:42Kate Shaw?

  Now, things are pretty messy in this case. So, these are allegations that are in the government's brief. But the petitioner slash defendant doesn't really dispute them and instead suggests that the government has made all these allegations, maybe true ones, but hasn't actually taken action based on them. But it is not totally clear what the permissible action would be.

• 40:03Melissa Murray?

  Yeah. So, this, methinks, like United States versus Rahimi, might be a case where the defendant is the kind of person...

• 40:13Leah Litman?

  This Supreme Court thinks Kennan should be barred from having a firearm. Rahimi, of course, was the case that involved a federal statute that prohibited persons subject to certain kinds of domestic violence restraining orders where they were found to pose a threat to another person prohibited their possession of a firearm. So the District Court and the Fifth Circuit in this case, Hamanis, held that this statute was invalid as applied to Mr. Hamanis. And because we are in the worst of timelines, this case is ostensibly governed by the court's deranged decision in NYSERPA, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, which held that in order to sustain a firearm regulation that infringed on the Second Amendment right, the government would have to show

• 40:57Leah Litman?

  that a gun control measure fell within the nation's tradition of firearm regulation.

• 41:03Kate Shaw?

  All right, so let's dive into the history. The petitioner's brief argues that because the issue of firearms and intoxicants was something known to the framers, they were familiar with both, the government has to show a history of similar regulations that were addressed at this issue. The government concedes that the historical precedent for disarming intoxicated individuals cannot justify this prosecution because the law has prohibited carrying or using but not keeping firearms. So instead, the government points to a law that it says prohibited possession by, quote, "habitual drunkards." That seems to push the issue into whether the government is construing present day firearms bans to apply to addicts or people who abuse drugs or instead that merely use. The petitioner says that the habitual or common drunkards law or laws

• 41:48Kate Shaw?

  didn't restrict possession by people who regularly drank alcohol. The government also says that if it can show the government imprisoned people for habitual drunkenness, then it would follow that the government could impose the lesser restriction of prohibiting their firearm possession. I just have to stop and say I just can't believe this is what we have to do

• 42:05Leah Litman?

  Right.

• 42:06Kate Shaw?

  under the guise of constitutional law and short rant.

• 42:09Leah Litman?

  All right, well, I'm here to tell you it is. Whether and which of these analogies will actually prevail at this court is really just a game of red pill, blue pill, as this court decides whether it's going to apply the Bruin version of the Bruin test, which requires an historical twin, as it were, or the Rahimi version of the Bruin test, which doesn't require

• 42:34Melissa Murray?

  The showing of an historical twin. Rahimi, you'll remember, upheld a firearm restriction on persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders where they were found to pose a threat to another person. And much of the tenor of the oral argument in Rahimi was along the lines of, duh, you have to be able to prohibit firearm possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. It says violence in the title of the restraining order. And this led to Justice Jackson making this very pointed, but clarifying observation about what was actually doing the work and determining whether the court would say, oh, we only need a pretty general similarity, like laws that disarm bad people, or whether the court would require the government to provide a more precise and similar analog.

• 43:17Melissa Murray?

  Because if it is the former, a general analog, then it's really about modern sensibilities driving the analysis, not about history and tradition. And it also seems to be modern sensibilities that drive the choice of which test, the Bruin Bruin test, or the Bruin Rahimi test, you actually apply. So let's hear from her here.

• 43:37Speaker 10

  What if we had a hypothetical in which we actually determined, based on the historical record, that domestic violence was not considered dangerousness back in the day? I mean, I just don't know what we'd do with that scenario.

• 43:51Speaker 11

  So I think in that scenario, you would recognize that it is consistent with the Second Amendment's original and enduring meaning that you can disarm dangerous people. And the conception of what regulations that permits today is not controlled by founding era applications of the principle.

• 44:07Speaker 10

  Then what's the point of going to the founding era? I mean, I thought it was doing some work, but if we're still applying modern sensibilities, I don't really understand the historical framing.

• 44:18Melissa Murray?

  So as I was reading into this case, I saw that one of the amicus briefs on behalf of Second Amendment scholars arguing in support of this gun control regulation was filed by Greg Costa as counsel of record. And if that name sounds familiar,

• 44:37Leah Litman?

  Costa is a former Fifth Circuit judge who basically said "boys, bye" to his colleagues during the Biden administration. Like, "Costa, out. I can't handle this BS anymore." And I just found that interesting. So, we have been kind of talking about some of the oddities of the Second Amendment and how it might work as applied to this particular case. And I think in part because of what seems like an intuition that maybe this Supreme Court isn't going to be that sympathetic to this individual's Second Amendment rights. The petitioner in this case has, as their first argument in the brief, that the statute here is unconstitutionally vague because the term, quote, "unlawful user" is ambiguous and susceptible

• 45:22Leah Litman?

  to too many different interpretations. So, also wanted to observe that as we were talking about the government's defenses and pointing to these habitual drunkards law, the federal government, the Trump administration, the one that warned us that Kamala was going to take away guns, this administration, this federal government, is arguing that this law comports with the Second Amendment. And it's not just this, but also some recent-ish examples that have made me wonder if we are seeing a Second Amendment realignment. So, here is a clip of Donald Trump, who apparently speaks for the entire executive branch.

• 46:03Speaker 12

  Nothing said, you know, we can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. What about the Second Amendment? You can't walk in with guns. You can't do that.

• 46:12Leah Litman?

  And here is some box wine expressing a similar view.

• 46:17Speaker 13

  You bring a gun into the district, you mark my words, you're going to jail. I don't care if you have a license in another district, and I don't care if you're a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this district, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.

• 46:33Leah Litman?

  Now, obviously, it might not be a realignment so much as a reversion to their general rule, which is their people have rights, and people who disagree with them or don't look like them do not. But just wanted to flag that.

• 46:49Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, it's somehow figuring out for these justices to sort of try to synthesize the insane history and tradition test of Bruin with the like, for my friends, everything and my enemies, the law, kind of overarching constitutional theory of this Trump administration. I think it's like gonna be a little bit challenging, but it does feel as though that is what we are seeing. And whether the court is like, no, we're gonna try to do something that seems more law-like or just co-sign the for my friends, everything, the kind of a campaign of we get to decide who gets guns after decades of suggesting that it's the liberals who want to take some people's guns, you know, I think is gonna be a challenging

• 47:34Kate Shaw?

  undertaking intellectually.

• 47:35Melissa Murray?

  Other cases that the court will hear in February include Havana Docks versus Royal Caribbean Cruises. And this is about the meaning of the Libertad Act, a federal law that governs relations between the United States and Cuba. The law creates a private right of action, which is an authorization to bring a lawsuit for US nationals who have a claim that their property was confiscated by the communist regime in Cuba. And it allows them to sue the persons who traffic in that property. The question in this case is whether the cause of action applies where the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government when the plaintiff has a claim to that property, or whether instead the cause of action applies where the defendant trafficked in the property that the plaintiff

• 48:18Melissa Murray?

  would have continued to own at the time of the trafficking, had there been no expropriation. We should note that Chris Landau of Kirkland Ellis filed petitions before becoming Deputy Secretary of State in the second Trump administration, within the department that is quote unquote, running Venezuela and threatening Cuba. So also a kind of awkward moment.

• 48:41Speaker 14

  Yeah, look, if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I'd be concerned, at least a little bit.

• 48:45Leah Litman?

  I just thought this was interesting. Like, I've been in this business even before you guys. And maybe, right, that kind of helped bring him to the attention of the Trump administration. So, yeah, I mean, who knows?

• 49:02Melissa Murray?

  Everyone has an origin story. Why not this one? So another case the court is going to hear is ExxonMobil versus Corpora Estion Cimex about whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases of Cuban instrumentalities, or whether plaintiffs instead must show that their case falls within an exception to foreign sovereign immunity under the general federal statute governing foreign sovereign immunity, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. I love when it's a theme week at the court. Yes, yes.

• 49:33Kate Shaw?

  Okay, next up, Enbridge Energy versus Nestle is a case about whether district courts can still hear cases that are removed to federal court, that is, taken from state court to federal court by the defendant, where the case was eligible to be filed in federal court in the first instance, if the defendant didn't remove them within the 30 days required under the removal statute.

• 49:51Melissa Murray?

  The court will also hear Pung versus Isabel County, Michigan. That was easy to pronounce, not like the Louisiana county that you all decided to get in our mentions about, but anyway.

• 50:01Kate Shaw?

  No, it's actually Izabel.

• 50:03Melissa Murray?

  Right. Izabel. I was just about to say. Izabel. Izabel. Izabel. Anyway.

• 50:09Kate Shaw?

  We're covering a lot of ground here, people. It's hard to get. It's hard. Sometimes we mispronounce.

• 50:13Melissa Murray?

  Give us some grace, honestly. All right. This case is about the legal limits on the government's ability to take and sell someone's home in order to satisfy a debt the homeowner owes to the government. One issue in the case is whether if the sale results in a surplus and the government keeps the surplus, if that is a taking. Whether the case presents that issue, however, kind of depends on the second issue in the case, which is how to determine the value of the property taken. Specifically, the plaintiff here alleges that the government sold her house for a fraction of its real value, whereas if they had sold it at fair market value, they would have obtained way more than the tax debt the plaintiff allegedly owed to the government. The plaintiff also says that the tax debt was erroneous and she never actually owed the debt.

• 50:57Leah Litman?

  Another case, Hunter versus United States, is about the scope of what are called appellate waivers. So often, when a defendant pleads guilty and receives probably a more lenient sentence than they might have received had they gone to trial, the plea agreement forgoes certain options the defendant might otherwise have had.

• 51:15Leah Litman?

  One common term in a plea agreement is an appellate waiver, a provision that generally waives, relinquishes a defendant's right to appeal their sentence. Now, courts have said that those waivers do not prohibit a defendant from raising a Sixth Amendment claim that alleges they received ineffective assistance of counsel, in part because if the defendant was represented by ineffective counsel, then the plea agreement itself would be legally dubious. Courts have also allowed defendants to raise the claim that they were sentenced to more time in prison than law permits, even if, again, there's an appellate waiver in the plea agreement. The question in this case is whether a general appellate waiver also prohibits a defendant from raising a claim that he was unconstitutionally sentenced to have

• 51:59Leah Litman?

  to take mandatory medication for mental health issues. There's also what seems to be a threshold question that is a little bit more generally applicable about whether the appellate waiver should even apply in cases like this one, where the court that sentenced the defendant and approved the plea deal tells the defendant at the end of their sentencing, without objection from the government, that they, the defendant, have, quote, "a right to appeal."

• 52:25Kate Shaw?

  Finally, we have Montgomery versus Caribe Transport LLC about whether federal law preempts a state common law claim against a freight broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver that injures the plaintiff. Okay, so as we said, you know, not the big headline grabbers, but some interesting technical legal questions. And that does it for the February calendar. But we did want to give you a heads up about the important asylum case the court is hearing next month that we fear has crept under the radar and that is known versus Al Otro Lado. The question in this case is whether an individual who is stopped on the Mexican side of the US border arrives in the United States within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That in turn affects whether an individual can apply for and claim asylum, because the INA allows an individual who, quote, "arrives in the US"

• 53:10Kate Shaw?

  to apply for asylum and provides that they must be inspected by an immigration officer. People who are physically present in the United States can also apply for asylum.

• 53:18Leah Litman?

  This particular case arises out of a long history of efforts to restrict asylum. So, under the so-called metering rule and asylum transit rule, the federal government would only consider asylum cases for non-Mexicans who traveled through Mexico if they had applied for asylum there.

• 53:35Melissa Murray?

  Then at the border, officers would only allow people who were US citizens that had valid travel documents or asylum seekers who had complied with the asylum transit rule to actually enter the United States. The courts below concluded that the phrase "arriving in the United States" meant someone who approaches a port of entry. The Ninth Circuit also said that those practices violated another law, 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, that requires government officials to process their request.

• 54:03Leah Litman?

  So the Supreme Court's decision to take this case is hugely concerning. There is no circuit split. It is the only federal appellate decision on the issue, and the metering policy that led to the initial challenge has been rescinded, as was the asylum transit rule. But the Trump administration still wanted the Supreme Court to take this case, and the court did, likely because the Trump administration wants to adopt a categorical ban on applying for asylum by people who are stopped on the Mexico side of the US-Mexico border. The Solicitor General's cert petition, that is, the document asking the Supreme Court to take this case, wrote fairly ominously, quote, "The decision thus deprives the executive branch of a critical tool."

• 54:48Leah Litman?

  And it argued this administration should retain the option of reviving that practice.

• 54:53Kate Shaw?

  If the Supreme Court rules for the federal government, that would create a huge incentive for an administration like Trump's that wants to basically end asylum to stop people on the other side of the border, which, again, if SCOTUS rules for the federal government would mean the administration wouldn't even have to consider an individual's asylum claim. We will definitely have more to say about this case when it is argued in March.

• 55:13Leah Litman?

  Guess what, Striktes? We are, again, just weeks away from seeing you, our amazing Strik fans, in person on the West Coast. If you have not gotten your ticket for the LA show at the Palace Theater on March 7th, I'm sorry, but what are you waiting for? Like, get on it. We want to see you, and you want to see us. We are going to have the most, most fun. Super fun games. It's going to be amazing. You're going to be so glad you came.

• 55:42Melissa Murray?

  Am I right, Leah?

• 55:43Leah Litman?

  Oh, yeah, you are for sure right. I am so excited for this West Coast trip. I feel like I have been anticipating it for years and certainly months. I've basically already mapped out all of the sugar I will be eating in preparation for the show, so I am actually out of control by the time we even hit the stage.

• 56:03Melissa Murray?

  I'm telling you, this is going to be insane. And we're going to have awesome giveaways. It's going to be so much fun. Seriously, what are you waiting for?

• 56:10Leah Litman?

  I sent Kate, Melissa, and Melody, and Michael versions of the shirts that I will be bringing. And I will just say, their teenagers stole their shirts, which is basically the biggest compliment and sign that these shirts are super awesome.

• 56:24Kate Shaw?

  They're great. War to school the next day. Like, yeah, I never had a chance with that, with one of those shirts. Yeah, they're great.

• 56:30Melissa Murray?

  So get your tickets at cricket.com/events and then ponder why it took you so long. Just really think about it and then question your choices. That's all.

• 56:41Leah Litman?

  Be better, be best.

• 56:43Kate Shaw?

  Let's take one more break, and then I'll be back with Elliot Williams to talk about his new book, Five Bullets.

• 56:51Speaker 03

  Long Play, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South, is back. Newsflash: The South is the new political epicenter of the country. Democrats are way on their heels in this region, but Republicans are going through their own reckoning in the South, too. We're in the final stretch of the midterms, and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential Phillips. So we thought it was time to get back out on the road and take a closer look at what's actually happening on the ground.

• 57:18Speaker 15

  I'm Erin Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics.

• 57:22Speaker 03

  And I'm Jennifer Palmieri, former White House Communications Director.

• 57:25Speaker 15

  Tune in on Mondays to Long Play Series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 57:32Speaker 01

  Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, has gone from a once controversial treatment to one of the biggest conversations in women's health.

• 57:40Speaker 02

  It's not just night sweats or aches and pains. The constellation of symptoms can be as varied as frozen shoulder to tinnitus, to inexplicable rage, to...

• 57:53Speaker 02

  Itchy mouth to, you know, there's so many different things. People go to their doctors and they want some relief. They're not able to sleep. Their, you know, marriages are falling apart. Whatever's going on, they're not able to function at work in the same way because they don't know whether they're going to break out into a torrential sweat in the middle of a board meeting. Actually, there are things we can do. That's just a fact. So this isn't just my opinion. It's backed by science.

• 58:18Speaker 01

  So what does the science actually say about using hormones during menopause? Listen to the full episode of Health vs. Hype with the American Medical Association on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 58:32Speaker 16

  Monday night is not just another weeknight. It's the last game of the football week, when one play can change the score, the conversation, or your fantasy matchup. And when the game gets good, the last thing you want to do is step away to figure out dinner and miss a moment. That's where DiGiorno comes in. Have a DiGiorno pizza ready to go before kickoff, then settle in for restaurant-quality taste, fresh from your own oven, while the game takes over. No stopping to figure out dinner when the matchup gets good. Stock up on DiGiorno over the weekend, so when Monday night rolls around, the only thing you sweat is the game. From the opening drive to the final snap, stay locked into the game and enjoy everything Monday Night Football brings. It's not delivery. It's DiGiorno.

• 59:25Kate Shaw?

  For our final segment today, I am delighted to be joined by Elliot Williams to talk about his new book, Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Getz, New York's Explosive 1980s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation. Elliot is a CNN legal analyst and regular guest host on NPR and Sirius XM. He is also a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, among other things. Elliot, welcome to Strict Scrutiny.

• 59:48Speaker 17

  So great to be here, Kate.

• 59:50Kate Shaw?

  So happy to have you. So. Let's dive right in. Elliot, you are from Brooklyn, where I now live, but you no longer do. And you grew up in Jersey. So the events in this book loomed very large during your New York area childhood. I'm from Chicago, even though I now live in New York. So it wasn't as kind of close to home for me, but I definitely remember hearing about Getz and his trial. But I learned, of course, a ton from this book. So for our listeners who did not grow up in New York, or maybe our younger listeners who just like, don't really know much about the story, what happened on that New York City subway car on December 22nd, 1984?

• 1:00:28Speaker 17

  Right. And also for viewers who don't recall the lyrics to Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" with foreign debts, homeless vets, AIDS crack Bernie Getz. It was an event that was regarded as among the pantheon of some of the biggest moments of the 20th century. And a lot of people may not remember it. But Bernard Getz was a quirky loner who lived in the West Village of Manhattan and had been mugged once before and always carried an unlicensed firearm with him everywhere he went. There were four young unarmed black teenagers on the subway on the same car he got on. They were rowdy, they were acting up, but certainly did not mug or assault anyone. But a number of the passengers thought,

• 1:01:08Speaker 17

  hey, these guys are bothersome, perhaps a nuisance in some way. One of them approached Getz and either demanded $5 or asked Getz for $5. "Sir, can I have $5?" Getz, fearing that he would be mugged, immediately pulled out his firearm and shot all four of them in somewhat rapid succession, with the last one possibly even having stood over and said, "You don't look so bad. Here's another," and shooting him in the chest. He ran away, ultimately turned himself in after nine days, but became a cause celebre. Almost in a polarizing case, people really rallied behind, many people rallied behind this individual at

• 1:01:49Speaker 17

  a time when New York was just very unsafe and rough. And people saw him, many, as an Avenger, as almost as Batman of sorts.

• 1:01:57Kate Shaw?

  And you sort of paint that picture of 1980s New York as a dangerous place. And many people really felt that. And so they attached themselves, right? They sort of saw something of themselves in Bernie Getz in a way that was really troubling to read about, but is very real. People and- It was kind of a cross racial coalition of supporters, which is one of the very interesting, complex dynamics. This is not just a story. It is not not a story, but it is not just a story about an angry sort of white man

• 1:02:37Kate Shaw?

  who's kind of a recluse and who is scared of these four black teenagers and decides to act on that fear in a way that only white New Yorkers identified with. He had a lot of supporters across the spectrum, right?

• 1:02:53Speaker 17

  He really did. And just to put a finer point on how rough New York was at the time, this wasn't the New York, or isn't the New York, of the labradoodles and kombucha and Lululemons on every corner that we think of when we think of New York today. I mean, the homicide rate in New York was hovering just below 2,000 a year, which, by way of comparison, you're talking about 300 or 400 homicides a year in New York. The graffiti, the litter, the mismanagement, the seeking bailouts from the city. It was just a rougher place. And yes, an odd multiracial coalition did seem to get behind Getz, who, and I quote a number of black people in the book even, saying, "I would have done the same thing he'd done." Now, again, it became very abstract.

• 1:03:38Speaker 17

  A lot of people weren't on the train. And also, it's really easy to look in, to see this potential hero from a situation that you were not in, and that sort of lifted him up. Now, I will say this, certainly there was a multiracial coalition of sorts around Bernard Getz. However, the fact that he was white certainly made it much easier to make him a hero. And a point I make throughout the book, Five Bullets, is what if the races of these individuals were reversed? And I almost challenge the reader to really search within yourself and think, when you, your knee jerk reaction, were you to hear that a black man had shot four white teenagers? What would you think?

• 1:04:23Speaker 17

  And I think people are quick to say, "Oh, I'd regard everything exactly the same." And I just don't believe that's the case. At least in, certainly in 1984 and even today.

• 1:04:31Kate Shaw?

  Absolutely. Then, now, and you both pose the question and have a number of people really articulate that explicitly in the book.

• 1:04:38Speaker 17

  Yes.

• 1:04:38Kate Shaw?

  Okay, so 1980s, New York is sort of the subject of the book, and I kept thinking about just how wildly current

• 1:04:46Speaker 17

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:04:46Kate Shaw?

  so many of the dynamics in the book are. It really does feel like the 1980s are present in all kinds of ways right now. So partly, I think, I read this book, kind of quick on the heels of having read Jonathan Mollers Gods of New York, which is also kind of covering a similar period in New York history.

• 1:05:00Speaker 17

  Yeah.

• 1:05:01Kate Shaw?

  But everything from like the rise of Donald Trump, who is not like a central character at all in the book, but does show up, to the kind of politics of fear and anxiety, to Rupert Murdoch, who is then, you know, stewarding the New York Post rather than Fox News. But it just feels like we are living right now, either like in a version of the book, or, you know, the kind of logical outgrowth of much of what is in the book. And, you know, you actually make that point explicitly, sort of connecting Getz to Trump in some ways near the end of the book, in a passage that kind of just wanted to ask you to read.

• 1:05:38Speaker 17

  Sure.

• 1:05:38Kate Shaw?

  Because despite what sort of what I was just saying about, it is a striking aspect of the book, that it is a more complex picture in terms of who supported and who condemned Getz than I think maybe I realized at the time.

• 1:05:50Speaker 17

  Yeah.

• 1:05:50Kate Shaw?

  There is also a straight line between the particular style of racist and reactionary politics that Getz, in many ways, embodies to Donald Trump today.

• 1:06:01Speaker 17

  Yes.

• 1:06:01Kate Shaw?

  So do you mind reading that passage for me?

• 1:06:03Speaker 17

  Of course. And yeah, and it's absolutely, it's not just, I mean, it's fear-based reactionary politics. So here's from, toward the end of the book, "If Getz's reasons for mistrusting those in power sound familiar, they should. The notion that has been a thread undergirding American politics for at least a generation, reaching its high point with Donald Trump's second election to the White House in 2024." One of the most devastating campaign ads in recent memory featured a parade of grainy images of transgender inmates over the voice of Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking about trans issues. The tagline, Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you, cleanly captured, gets

• 1:06:45Speaker 17

  his animating principle decades after he became vocal about it. Half a century later, transgender inmates or MS-13 members pouring across the border in caravans, can we swap for black crime? And represent largely the same thing, a menace driving public fear that politically correct elites refuse to even name. Bernie was anti-woke before being anti-woke was cool.

• 1:07:10Kate Shaw?

  I just, when I read the book and then just now when you were reading that passage, I just liked the William Faulkner quote, like, "The past is never dead, it's not even past." It was just like so front of mind.

• 1:07:21Speaker 17

  Well, I would just say one more thing. It's the issues we live with today, vigilantes, race, fear in cities, how afraid we should be of cities, which all of Minneapolis, Washington DC, and Chicago know are all about what Washington thinks of cities. Literally, the people are the same as well. Rudy Giuliani, Rupert Murdoch, Al Sharpton, the National Rifle Association, which are key players in the book, literally used the events in 1984 to bolster the careers they have today.

• 1:07:51Kate Shaw?

  Giuliani was like a really serious lawyer back then, and it was just like wild to be reminded of the fact that that was the case. Wait, one more person you didn't just mention, but I do want to ask you about for a second is Curtis Sliwa, who, you know, people locally are, he's probably front of mind for folks who remember that he just ran in the last New York City mayoral race, and they kind of know him as this sort of older gentleman with the beret and a lot of cats, but that's maybe all people know about him. Can you say a few words about Curtis Sliwa for the uninitiated?

• 1:08:21Speaker 17

  Yes. Fascinating figure, for lack of a better way to put it. So he founded in the late, in the early 1980s, I believe, or late 70s, this organization called The Guardian Angels. And it's a, for lack of a better term, vigilante group. They are a public safety patrol largely made of black and brown teenagers in, around New York, but 50 cities worldwide now, that seeks to, at least according to them, fill in where the police failed. And he, I interviewed him a bunch through the book. And he regards the fact that The Guardian Angels even exist as indicative of the failures of the NYPD and policing generally, that if they did their jobs, we wouldn't have to step in.

• 1:09:04Speaker 17

  If the mayor cared about public safety, we would not have to step in. And he gave me many colorful, at best, and almost racist quotes, at worst, throughout the book, talking about, because he was part of the trial team. He was, in effect, the security. And was explicit about the fact that the defense team really wanted to stoke the racial fears of the jury. And they played into that. But needless to say, he has been a player on the New York scene, certainly for decades. He and Bernard get still run into each other quite a bit, believe it or not, at pro marijuana legalization rallies. They're big cannabis guys, both of them. And they see each other.

• 1:09:49Speaker 17

  It's just, New York was wild in the 80s.

• 1:09:51Kate Shaw?

  You talked to Sliwa, but you also talked to Getz a lot. And I, yeah, there's, casually at one point, you ask him about this really, really racist statement that he made that was not admitted in the criminal trial, but was admitted in the civil trial, if I remember correctly. And you ask him to explain that. And he basically says, I was high as a kite, so I don't even know what I was, I mean, anyway, he, I guess, has been a big marijuana guy for a long time. But yeah, so, talk for a minute about your decision to interview Getz. You talked to him a lot over the course of the book.

• 1:10:19Speaker 17

  Yeah. I did. And I really wanted to make it a complete work, not an essay, not a polemic, not a... All the terms, right? And I, and I felt that completeness would have required talking to him, not validating him, not platforming him, as some people might say, but I want to hear what Bernard Getz has to say. Now, to be clear, I made perhaps dozens of attempts to contact the surviving two young men, and they declined to be interviewed for the book. And I understand that. It was a traumatic experience 40 years ago. They tried to move on with their lives. One of them, to some extent, has. But I did talk to Getz, and the most remarkable thing in the conversations with him was the

• 1:11:03Speaker 17

  utter lack of self-reflection that came through. And I would have even accepted had he said, "I was scared on the subway that time, that day. New York City was a scary place. I was vulnerable. I'd been mugged once before, and I wasn't going to let it happen again. So I did this." Comma, and it was a tragedy. And it was Dickensian in its tragic outcome. No, he, in effect, almost made it sound like eugenics. And he said to me, "Those guys needed shooting." Those were his words. "That's not why I shot them, but they absolutely needed shooting." And to him, it's almost as, and he was just unrepentant, almost proud of the action.

• 1:11:44Speaker 17

  To him, it's almost that there are people who are unworthy of residing with the rest of us under our social compact or whatever else, and they just have to go. And he, there was no hesitating, there was no flinching. And that's the thing that, again, you can, you can be comfortable with your actions in the past, but at least have some reflection about them. And if anything, it's metastasized in him, and he's gotten even more aggressive about it.

• 1:12:09Kate Shaw?

  Right. He seemed less complex with the passage of time than sort of in the early days you're kind of recounting.

• 1:12:15Speaker 17

  Yeah, and I'm glad it's in the book. I don't think Bernard Getz comes across in that long chapter, the chapter where I detail the conversation. I don't think he comes off positively, and I certainly did not intend to make him the protagonist hero of the book, but you really see what's going on in this man's mind.

• 1:12:30Kate Shaw?

  And in his own words.

• 1:12:31Speaker 17

  Yeah.

• 1:12:32Kate Shaw?

  Okay, a couple of questions sort of pivoting to maybe kind of like law and policy. One, you mentioned the NRA. And I'm curious, like, can you just talk a little bit about what the case meant for the rise of the modern iteration of the NRA, which is of course, very different from the NRA in its inception? And this case plays a role in that transformation.

• 1:12:52Speaker 17

  Yeah, and everyone who's written a book will say, I think, that there are things that you thought when you set out to write, and then things you just learned. And I feel like I'm one of the world's foremost experts on Bernard Getz and this shooting now, but I did not know this when I started reporting. And ultimately, the NRA prior to 1977 was literally a sporting organization. Cub Scouts and clay shooting with grandpa was really their focus. They did not have an appetite for wading into the full-throated Second Amendment advocacy that we know today.

• 1:13:26Kate Shaw?

  Founded by, right, like, Union soldiers working on improving marksmanship.

• 1:13:29Speaker 17

  That was it.

• 1:13:29Kate Shaw?

  Like, it's really about the training and marksmanship.

• 1:13:31Speaker 17

  That's the training and marksmanship. So, in 1977, there was a literal revolt in the organization. And it's not me being cute. They called it the revolt at Cincinnati. It was a takeover or a coup at the board meeting, at the convention that year, where the Second Amendment sort of oriented members of the NRA took the organization over, got rid of the whole board, and decided to move into full-throated Second Amendment advocacy. Well, a few years after that, the Bernard Getz case happened, and it was as perfect a test case for any that they wanted. It was a white, urban-dwelling individual in a blue city, in a blue state, who had

• 1:14:12Speaker 17

  applied for a firearm and been denied, and had, at least according to them, engaged in an act of self-defense. There was, it was adjusted for every possible variable that made him perfect for them. Now, the more they learned about the case, the more they sort of backed off it. But this was a case that they latched on to. They gave him $40,000 over the life of his legal defense, for his legal defense, and really saw it as a watershed Second Amendment moment.

• 1:14:40Kate Shaw?

  And that actually is a perfect segue to the next question I wanted to ask, which is, you know, we are a Supreme Court podcast. Our listeners likely do know that in 2022, in the Bruin case out of New York, the Supreme Court struck down the state laws that required some special reason to get a permit to carry a gun, the very kind of version of the state law that, you know, Gatz unsuccessfully tried to use to get a permit to carry, you know, his failure to get a permit did not prevent him from acquiring and then carrying his gun, but he would have gotten it on his first try today. And, you know, we talked about this a good amount when the case was argued. It was, we didn't talk about Gatz specifically, but we did talk about, at the argument, New York City in the 1980s and the subway kind of loomed large, like Alito was asking

• 1:15:25Kate Shaw?

  questions that sort of evoked the city from that era. And it just conjuring up that image of New York City, like, seemed for at least Alito to kind of be, to motivate the need to declare, you know, a state of affairs that entitled everybody to carry a gun because places like New York are so dangerous, like, even though they, of course, dress up the reasoning as kind of historical. But like, that is not the New York City of today or of 2022 when Bruin was decided, or even a couple of years after.

• 1:15:56Speaker 17

  Oh, yes.

• 1:15:58Kate Shaw?

  So I guess what do we make of the fact that it looms as large as it does over kind of law and culture, and I think has somehow motivated in some ways the Supreme Court to declare this far more lax regime of firearms regulation in a way that like could be really dangerous if we end up again in a New York City that looks anything like the 1980s.

• 1:16:16Speaker 17

  Absolutely. And it's really important that you said just a few years after. When we talk about Bernard Gatz's civil trial, which was 1996, the city, the homicide rates were down, the city was just turned around, it was in stronger fiscal footing, things were just different. A race meant something different in the city at the time, even over the course of that decade. I'm not saying that it was a multiracial haven and a perfect utopia, but it was, but it was just a different place than it was in 1984. What's, what's fascinating about the way people regard that firearm question is it's very much a Rorschach test, which is if the city is rougher, therefore we need more firearms. Well, the argument was that the city remains as congested and crowded and the risk of stray gunfire is

• 1:17:01Speaker 17

  just a, a different and more acute issue in a more dense place like New York City than, than elsewhere. And they tried to make that argument. People have been trying to make it for decades and it just did not take hold. I mean, I think, you know, there was a Supreme Court majority that was certainly receptive to the idea that a more safe place necessarily requires more guns to be more safe. And that's, that's just the argument that won. But it, it really is remarkable. And, you know, one of the voices that I speak to a few times in the book is one of the leaders of the NRA at the time, their, their policy wonk, who is, he was lovely to speak with, but just comes at it from a perspective that more firearm, number one, is a constitutional matter. It's a no brainer to him, but also

• 1:17:45Speaker 17

  as a policy matter, more firearms in a place like New York are a good thing. Now, I would note Bernard Getz was charged with reckless endangerment because of the fact that he opened fire in a crowded subway that had at least one- There was a baby, right? There was a toddler. Like in the, so this whole idea, the, the argument that, well, New York is different because it's congested and crowded and, and the risk of someone being harmed by a firearm literally played out in this case of number one, a charge he was not even convicted with. He wasn't ultimately convicted of the reckless endangerment charge despite admitting to having, having blindly fired shots the first time. He said he didn't even aim the first time he shot. But also there was a huge risk to other people and somehow that argument just did not win.

• 1:18:32Kate Shaw?

  Okay, so maybe this will be the last question. And I mean, there's a couple of different parts to it. But so you mentioned the later civil trial, a decade or so later. You spend a lot of time, back to the criminal trial now. So you spend a lot of time on the trial and on the jury. And the jury mostly acquits, right? They convict on one relatively minor count, but acquit on everything else. And then they do subsequently award millions in a civil case brought by one of the victims, although like uncollected millions.

• 1:18:59Speaker 17

  Of course.

• 1:18:59Kate Shaw?

  But I guess back to the criminal case. My, again, impression from the Midwest, but just my general impression, I feel like, from the way I had understood the significance or understood the kind of trial was that this verdict was a travesty and an outrage. Like, these young men's lives were not valued, that hate and fear won and is acquittal. And that that was the sort of bottom line takeaway. And I'm not saying that you don't, that you're like writing hard against that. But I do think, as is true throughout the book, you take something of a more nuanced view. So let me, let me offer this new term if I'm reading you properly. That like juries are us, right? For better or worse.

• 1:19:37Speaker 17

  Yes.

• 1:19:37Kate Shaw?

  That grand juries and like a jury in a criminal trial. I've thought about this a lot because, right, grand juries, like this week refusing to indict Democratic members of Congress.

• 1:19:47Speaker 17

  Yes.

• 1:19:47Kate Shaw?

  Or, you know, guys who throw sandwiches in DC. And it's, you know, right or wrong, the jury was reflective of the views of New York at the time.

• 1:19:59Speaker 17

  Hands down.

• 1:20:00Kate Shaw?

  And that doesn't erase the kind of normative bottom line that I just offered, but it just says something different. So for better or worse, they are us. And that is who New York and maybe the country was at the moment of this criminal trial.

• 1:20:10Speaker 17

  Yes.

• 1:20:11Kate Shaw?

  So I guess, is that a fair reading of the kind of takeaway? And what do you think about the institution of the jury? I guess, having spent all this time, both, you know, looking at the gets jury, but also as somebody who follows, you know, kind of the law very closely right now, like, what is the role of the jury?

• 1:20:27Speaker 17

  Yeah.

• 1:20:28Kate Shaw?

  I mean, the big question, but I think it's a really important one.

• 1:20:29Speaker 17

  Yeah, well, let me answer that second question first. What is the role of the jury? I have long believed, and this is a very cynical view, that no matter how much we as a legal system attempt to Believe the fiction that juries are truly applying law to fact and pouring over the jury instructions and given clear directions as to the definition of reasonableness and reasonable doubt and recklessness and all of these different legal standards really are just trusting their guts. At the end of the day, these are complicated concepts. Explain, like, you know, we don't have the time here, but, you know, Kate, explain the concept of reasonable doubt to me, another seasoned attorney. Well, you could, in an

• 1:21:10Speaker 17

  hour, maybe we could unpack it, but it's a, it's a, it's a deeply complex concept that no jury instruction really explains. Well, juries just sort of feel like, I really think he did it, or I really think he didn't do it, and I just don't have a good feeling about this. But at the end of the day, they're trusting their guts. And the problem, and this comes up in the Getz case, where race and inequality, whatever else, are factors looming over the trial, trusting their guts means also putting themselves in the place of a, of a defendant that they felt they had some kinship or connection to. And I do make that point. Now, like I, you know, like you said, I treat it with some nuance, which is that, look, they did the best they could, but they were just sort of winging

• 1:21:54Speaker 17

  it, I think. Despite what the jurors I've spoken to from, from the trial seem, you know, they believe that they followed every aspect of the law to a T. But I just think, number one, the racial dynamics of the case were so clear. And number two, the act of applying fact to law is just an immensely complicated one, and far more complicated than we as lawyers wish to think. And so to answer your question, what is the role of the jury? It's a wonderful thing. And yes, it's great that people get acquitted sometimes, because that's the way the system should work. But at the end of the day, I don't think, I think it's a bit of a fiction to think that juries really are applying fact to law in the way

• 1:22:33Speaker 17

  that the lofty goals of our system seem to, seem to hope and think that they actually are. That was, that was the loft. And the bigger, well, I mean, the specific point about this jury is the same thing, but only just related to that broader point. I just think that this jury. One, just look at their defensiveness, and I quote a couple in the book, their defensiveness about the question of race. And I even posed the question to the juror I interviewed, and I just said, look, you know, in the back of your mind, you can't tell me it wasn't kicking around. And he just almost got defensive. Oh, of course not. No, no, no. I would cheat the same case, any case, the same way. I don't care if you're red, white, black, blue, or brown, whatever, you know, that kind of nonsense

• 1:23:16Speaker 17

  to me. And I just think they, they were of that city, of that time, in a rough city, six of them had been victims of crime, three of them had been victims of subway crime. And to some extent, I think they were just going with their guts.

• 1:23:33Kate Shaw?

  All right. Well, there's more to say about this great book, but you'll have to read it for yourself. Listeners, I'm gonna hold this up, viewers.

• 1:23:41Speaker 17

  I'll hold mine up too.

• 1:23:42Kate Shaw?

  Hold yours up too. The book is Five Bullets, The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive 80s and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation by Elliot Williams. Get it at bookshop.org. There's an audiobook that Elliot reads, and it really, really is a fascinating and, you know, profound meditation on a lot of stuff that we are still very much grappling with. So Elliot, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.

• 1:24:03Speaker 17

  Thanks so much for having me. This was wonderful.

• 1:24:06Kate Shaw?

  Thanks again to Elliot Williams for taking the time to join us today. And before we go, let's briefly identify some favorite things from the last week. I'm just gonna mention two. One is I am finally reading, I'm actually listening to Ron Chernow's Grant biography, which is fantastic. It's really long, which was kind of what dissuaded me from reading it in the first instance. And it's, you know, 40 some hours on audiobook. But I've had a lot of travel this week, and so I've been listening, and it's fantastic. And I am finally watching with my middle kid, the, what is it, eight or 10 part Michael Jordan documentary, Last Dance.

• 1:24:39Leah Litman?

  Oh, my gosh, I'm obsessed with that.

• 1:24:40Kate Shaw?

  So, of course, like, I know the memes, I know the tears, I know I took that personally, but I, and I grew up in Chicago, and so like, I watched the Bulls in the 80s and 90s. And it is still like, one of the best pieces of documentary filmmaking. There's so much amazing contemporaneous footage. The interviews today are incredible. Like, it's just so good. And so I am four episodes in and cannot wait to watch the rest of them.

• 1:25:02Leah Litman?

  So here are mine. I was traveling on vacation last week, which is how I knew the court would release the tariffs opinion. So I was doing some recreational reading. I finally read Adriana Herrera's A Caribbean heiress in Paris series. Absolutely loved it. Also, I am obsessed with Charlie's Wuthering Heights album. I'm not a Wuthering Heights girly, probably not going to see the movie. Love the album. I'm dying for you. My favorite track.

• 1:25:32Kate Shaw?

  I have to say, I haven't seen the movie yet. I do plan to see it, but I really liked, I started listening to the album, but I needed it as background to write. And it's actually like too engaging. Like you can't just put it on. You have to actually fully listen to it. So it's not writing music, which I, for some reason, had a feeling that I thought it would be. But yes, it's very good.

• 1:25:49Leah Litman?

  Yeah. Two other things. So Kenny from Crooked stepped in to do our video production of our emergency episode. So I wanted to add that to favorite things. And then finally, this is a manifestation. One of my favorite things this week is going to be reading an acceptance from a law review on my article, The Passive Vices, which I have sent out this cycle. And yeah.

• 1:26:13Kate Shaw?

  It's a fantastic law review article. Students, if you have spaces, pick this article up. It's so good.

• 1:26:18Leah Litman?

  I feel like it's a good title and it's going to get cited.

• 1:26:20Kate Shaw?

  It's a great title and it's a great piece. Indeed, that is going to be one of your, that is going to be one of your favorite things.

• 1:26:25Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 1:26:26Kate Shaw?

  And Law Review editors, it will be one of your favorite things when you read it.

• 1:26:30Leah Litman?

  Working with me, right?

• 1:26:31Kate Shaw?

  Exactly. That too, it will.

• 1:26:40Leah Litman?

  Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production, hosted and executive produced by me, Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw. Our senior producer and editor is Melody Raul. Michael Goldsmith is our producer. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our music is by Eddie Cooper. We get production support from Katie Long and Adrian Hill. Matt DeGroot is our head of production. And thanks to our video team, Ben Heathcote and Johanna Case. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app and on YouTube, at Strict Scrutiny Podcast, so you never miss an episode. And if you want to help other people find the show, please rate and review us. It really helps.

• 1:27:35Speaker 03

  Long Play, our docu-series exploring the people and forces shaping the South, is back. Newsflash: The South is the new political epicenter of the country. Democrats are way on their heels in this region, but Republicans are going through their own reckoning in the South, too. We're in the final stretch of the midterms, and the political map has only gotten more competitive with new states and districts emerging as potential phalanx. So we thought it was time to get back out on the road and take a closer look at what's actually happening on the ground. I'm Erin Haines, journalist and expert on all things Southern politics. And I'm Jennifer Palmieri, former White House Communications Director. Tune in on Mondays to Long Play Series on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:28:16Speaker 18

  In business, there's the easy way with Staples or the hard way. Hard means...

• 1:28:20Speaker 19

  Hey, did you proof the signs before having them printed?

• 1:28:22Speaker 18

  I think so.

• 1:28:23Speaker 19

  Because we're having a clearance sale, not a Clarence sale.

• 1:28:26Speaker 18

  Oh, big difference. Easy means professional-looking prints every time. Don't choose hard, choose Staples. And now at Staples, get 25% back in points on all custom prints. That was easy. Shop Staples online, in-store, or in the app. Ends 10/31, limit $250 in earned points. $100 minimum purchase. Exclusion applies. See app for details.

• 1:28:46Speaker 20

  Hey, what's up, everybody? It's Questlove. Behind every chart-topping hit, you know by heart there's an original. Writing it someplace where nobody was listening. Behind the culture that marks a generation, there's an original. Already moving, already shaking things up. Behind every night that changed the room, somebody had to walk in first. Not knowing it would land, but doing it anyway. Originals are out there, living stories worth telling. What's yours? Behind every original, live in Levis.