SCOTUS Greenlights Trump's Ballroom

In this bonus episode, Leah and Melissa break down the Supreme Court’s decision to let Trump move forward with plans for a White House ballroom, despite lower courts finding that the project cannot proceed without congressional authorization and appropriated funds. They also discuss a whistleblower’s allegations that the federal government is defying court orders on voting by mail, and new reporting from Jodi Kantor on the Supreme Court’s secretive policies governing when the justices’ papers and internal records will be made public. Take theStrict Scrutiny survey https://crooked.com/strictsurvey. New Strict merch availablehere https://store.crooked.com/products/were-gonna-need-a-bigger-court-graphic-t-shirt. You can now listen to Strict Scrutiny for CLE credits in California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon! More info atcrooked.com/strict_cle http://crooked.com/strict_cle Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC:Crookedcon.com http://crookedcon.com/ Buy 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 https://bookshop.org/p/books/lawless-how-the-supreme-court-runs-on-conservative-grievance-fringe-theories-and-bad-vibes-leah-litman/5b562d6fcb316d6e?ean=9781668054642&next=t, now out in paperback Follow us onInstagram https://www.instagram.com/strictscrutinypodcast/?hl=en,Threads https://www.threads.net/@strictscrutinypodcast, andBluesky https://bsky.app/profile/strictscrutiny.bsky.social For a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email [email protected] mailto:[email protected]

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

• 0:00Leah Litman?

  Strict Certainty is brought to you by Americans United for separation of church and state. 250 years into the American experiment, it's time for all of us to decide, what kind of a country do we want to be? The founding fathers got a lot of things wrong, but one thing they got right was knowing that church and state need to be kept separate. Christian nationalists are trying to destroy that history and take this country down a scary path. They're misusing government power to impose their beliefs, rewrite our history, and decide who belongs in America. Americans United refuse to let that happen. Every single day, Americans United is fighting back and holding the line against Christian nationalism with everything they've got. AU has sued the Trump administration seven times in the last year alone, and 12 times since the second administration began.

• 0:42Leah Litman?

  They've challenged government officials who use taxpayer resources to promote their religious beliefs, their exposing abuses of power, defending public schools, and holding the government accountable when it violates the Constitution. But filing lawsuits, changing policy, and community advocacy don't happen on their own. They happen because people like you decide to be part of Americans United's fight. If you're looking for an empowered community to join, take a look at what's going on with AU. Visit au.org/crooked to learn more and join the fight today.

• 1:12Speaker 01

  Coca-Cola. For the big, for the small, the short, and the tall. Peacemakers, risk-takers. For the optimists, pessimists. For long-distance love. For introverts and extroverts. The thinkers and the doers. For old friends and new. Coca-Cola. For everyone. Pick up some Coca-Cola at a store near you.

• 1:41Speaker 02

  Hello, I'm Chris Richards, general manager at Safford Volkswagen Richmond. I'm here to announce an exciting new program that I want you to listen to. Here's my friend Happy.

• 1:51Speaker 03

  Hi, I'm Happy Harry Turner, special finance manager at SaffordCredit.com. If you're in an open Chapter 13 bankruptcy, recently filed a Chapter 7, or you've been turned down because of credit challenges, don't give up. For nearly 30 years, I've helped people get reliable transportation when others said no. Visit SaffordCredit.com. Remember, I'm not happy unless you are.

• 2:11Speaker 04

  Mr. Chief Justice, may I please report? It's an old joke, but when a hargained man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.

• 2:25Speaker 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."

• 2:55Leah Litman?

  Hi, everyone. Here's the deal. We plan to take Labor Day off. It's a holiday, and unlike some people, cough 1 First Street, we're not anti-union. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court always stays on its hustle of doing the most and being the worst, which means we've got to stay on ours. Hence the bonus episode today.

• 3:11Melissa Murray?

  Can't stop, won't stop.

• 3:13Leah Litman?

  Never, ever. Think of it this way: We announced hot SCOTUS reform September, and then the Supreme Court decided to make it really easy on us by helping us make the case for SCOTUS reform. So, before this Thursday's first episode of Hot SCOTUS Reform September, we bring you this bonus episode. Because, listeners, the Supreme Court really did it this time. They indulged Mad King Donald Trump's edifice complex. They are letting him have his gold-gilded ballroom, and they are allowing him to use our taxpayer dollars to fund this ballroom. And they did it in part because we all know that Donald Trump is a very special boy, and

• 3:54Leah Litman?

  he needs a very special ballroom, and also national security. Not surprisingly, listeners, there were some casualties along the way. Fiscal conservatism definitely caught some strays, but so too did standing doctrine and a Justice Scalia opinion on standing. So, yes, folks, you heard that right. These committed conservatives did not have any qualms whatsoever about sacrificing the patron saint of the conservative legal movement on the altar of Donald J. Trump's very special ballroom. So TLDR, the Scalia opinion and the doctrine of standing are for suckers, much like stare decisis. So in case you're keeping score at home, stare decisis, Scalia opinions, and standing, all for suckers. Here's the background.

• 4:39Leah Litman?

  Donald Trump decided on his own, without congressional authorization, as one does, to tear down part of the White House. The White House is the people's house. It's not his. He doesn't own it. It is a federal holding, not-

• 4:52Melissa Murray?

  You know how we know he doesn't own it?

• 4:53Leah Litman?

  Hmm, how?

• 4:54Melissa Murray?

  Because it's not literally covered in fucking gold, everything. That's how we know it's not his.

• 4:59Leah Litman?

  Well, it's about to be.

• 5:00Melissa Murray?

  Well, that's true. But now it isn't.

• 5:02Leah Litman?

  He's not even a renter here, and he decided to remake it in the image of Mar-a-Lago.

• 5:06Melissa Murray?

  He wants to remake the people's house, the White House, the house that Dolly Madison first lived in, the first First Lady to live there, the lady who took all of the paintings out when they were being attacked during the War of 1812. He's going to take that house, the people's house, and he's going to remake it in the image of his casinos, his garish resorts, and maybe Versailles. Not the real Versailles, but that Florida Versailles that was the subject of that documentary. Was it Marie Antoinette who said, "Separation of powers? No, let them do coke off of gold toilet seats." Is that Marie Antoinette? Did I get that right?

• 5:47Leah Litman?

  I think that might have been her, but I do think this is more of a Special K crowd, to be honest, than a coke crowd. But, you know, details.

• 5:55Melissa Murray?

  Well, I'm coming to you live from the Department of Health and Human Services, and I would like a word. So, maybe.

• 6:01Leah Litman?

  That's fair.

• 6:02Melissa Murray?

  It's hard to say.

• 6:03Leah Litman?

  This isn't a DHS special, though. But Donald Trump decided, again, to be clear on his own, without congressional authorization, that he wanted a ballroom. He wanted a ballroom both because he wanted to throw some sick parties at the White House, but also because his administration was sure to add because of national security.

• 6:20Melissa Murray?

  National security is very broadly used here, and I just want to emphasize that. Like, we don't understand exactly what national security means for these purposes, but it basically means you get to do what you want. It's basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for everything, I think. Anyway, all of this is to say that what the president is doing is illegal many times over. There is no congressional authorization to spend money to tear down a portion of the White House and build a ballroom, right? The president is basically appropriating Congress's power of the purse to feed his edifice complex. That's what's going on here.

• 6:58Leah Litman?

  There is also no congressional authorization to repurpose this federal building, federal property, into a ballroom, so it's kind of like defacing public property. You know, I cannot walk up to the Lincoln Memorial and decide to raise it and erect a monument to Olivia Rodrigo and the Daisy Chain Festival because of national security.

• 7:16Melissa Murray?

  Don't give them ideas.

• 7:17Leah Litman?

  But that's what Donald Trump did.

• 7:18Melissa Murray?

  It won't be Olivia Rodrigo, but like, we might see the Lincoln Memorial go down. Kid Rock, that's exactly what I was thinking, like, a big statue of Kid Rock.

• 7:26Leah Litman?

  They are a Special K crowd.

• 7:28Melissa Murray?

  In any event, on Monday evening, five Republican justices said, "What is the separation of powers, anyway? Is this separation of powers? No. Instead, we need to build baby build." And again, we know that they are abundance bros and one cis, and they got down to it. But here's the rub, folks: They did this in the most craven way possible, because of course they did. Despite allowing Donald Trump to go ahead with this monstrosity of a ballroom, the court couldn't actually bring themselves to say that it is totally lawful and constitutional to allow a president to raise the White House and create a gilded ballroom in its place.

• 8:10Melissa Murray?

  Because even the Supreme Court, in its conservative supermajority, or at least in this case, a conservative majority, are not quite that delusional. What they're basically saying here is that the plaintiffs here did not have standing to bring this lawsuit. And that raises the very pertinent question of whether there's anyone who could bring this lawsuit, who would have standing to challenge this nonsense. I'm just spitballing here. I think really the only candidate is Congress, and LOLLOLOL, because we all know that this Congress's not going to do that.

• 8:47Leah Litman?

  Yeah, what is a Congress? Now you can see why it's so craven. The National Historic Trust doesn't have standing. No taxpayer would have standing, because federal taxpayers don't have standing to argue that their federal taxpayer dollars are being spent illegally. So it's left-

• 9:01Melissa Murray?

  Because we'd be doing it all the time. We would be suing all the time.

• 9:04Leah Litman?

  So it's left to this boot-looking Congress to challenge it, which the court knows will not happen. So despite knowing that Donald Trump probably could not prevail on the merits, they let him get away with it by fucking around on standing.

• 9:17Melissa Murray?

  Can I just say, it's not the first time they've used these procedural justicibility doctrines to avoid getting to the heart of a matter and basically saying that the president can't do something. Instead, they fuck around with these justicibility doctrines, and they allow him to go forward. They did it just the other day with the Postal Service order, where they said that the case had not been brought at the right time, that it wasn't ripe, leaving aside the very pertinent question, can a president come in and fuck around with elections? The Constitution says, no. They don't get to that question, though, because they never get to jurisdiction, because there is no jurisdiction, because it's not ripe, or there's no standing. And then the president gets to go on TV and talk about how he won in the Supreme Court, and it's just insane.

• 10:00Leah Litman?

  It is.

• 10:00Melissa Murray?

  Anyway.

• 10:01Leah Litman?

  The lower courts had, here correctly, concluded that it is illegal for the president to raise a portion of the White House and construct a ballroom with taxpayer dollars that have not been appropriated by Congress or authorized by Congress for that use. Basically, the lower courts shorter another word for what the president is doing is theft. But then, as always, the president and his administration ran off to the Supreme Court and said, Daddy Scudis, please help us. Please let us raise the White House and put up our ballroom. And as almost always is the case, the Supreme Court, on the shadow docket, with very little explanation, decided to block the lower court orders and clear the way for the destruction of the White House, all because, as we all know,

• 10:44Leah Litman?

  Donald Trump is a belly special boy, by which we mean he is a Republican president and because national security. The decision was a 5 to 4 decision. The justices who decided to stand 10 toes down on separation of powers and Congress's authority to appropriate monies were justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, joined by, wait for it, another special boy, John G. Roberts. How did John G. Roberts come to join the sanity caucus? I just don't know. Maybe it's because it didn't matter at all. That part. Since conservative super majorities are gonna super majority, and John G. Roberts decided that now would be a convenient time to stand up for the Constitution. Obviously, we are not going to be giving him

• 11:29Leah Litman?

  too much credit for standing up to the president when it didn't actually matter to the outcome, because not only did it not really matter, all of this is kind of his, that is John G. Roberts' fault. See Trump versus United States, the immunity opinion. If you are going to give the president kingly powers, you probably should not be shocked if the president acts like a king. Roberts created this multi-headed monster. He both helped make a lawless executive and a Supreme Court that enables a lawless executive specifically on the shadow docket, and more.

• 12:03Leah Litman?

  Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Lawyering Without Law. What happens when authoritarianism doesn't abandon the law, but uses it to undermine democratic values and institutions? Lawyering Without Law, a podcast from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, takes on this urgent question. Hosted by Katie Glenn Bass and Mudd of Kosla, the six-part series explores the role lawyers play in either defending democracy or facilitating the slide into authoritarianism. Episodes feature leading experts, including Kim Lane Shepley, on how authoritarian leaders exploit legal systems to consolidate power; Lawrence Lessig, on the threat institutional corruption poses to American democracy; and Deborah Pearlstein, on how the decades-long erosion of professional norms have fueled the democratic backsliding

• 12:47Leah Litman?

  we're witnessing today. While sobering, the conversations also find hope in the lawyers who've refused to bend and institutions that have held the line. And they offer surprising and ambitious proposals for how the legal profession and American democracy might find their way back. Listen to all six episodes of Lawyering Without Law wherever you get your podcasts. This episode of Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Alloy Health. Here's something nobody tells you. The skin changes that start in your 40s aren't just aging, they're hormonal, specifically estrogen loss. Estrogen naturally helps maintain collagen, support elasticity, and keep skin hydrated. As estrogen declines, skin gets thinner, drier, and more creepy. That means your expensive cleanser, retinol, moisturizer, none of them were designed to solve a hormonal problem.

• 13:31Leah Litman?

  As I've said, I'm a woman of a certain age, which means my skin doesn't look the way it did 20 years ago. It's just not as plump or peppy. When skin feels thin, creppy, dry, or dull after 40, nobody told us our routines needed to change. But now there is a routine. It's M4 skincare from Alloy, the first head-to-toe line of estriol-powered skincare. Estriol is a safe, gentle, and bio-identical form of estrogen, clinically proven to rebuild collagen, restore elasticity, and visibly reduce wrinkles. One product in the line is M4 Face Cream, where 88% of users saw improved elasticity. And for M4 Body Treatment, 95% felt smoother skin. The full line targets face, eyes, and body. Estrogen-powered skincare everywhere you notice changes. It's prescription strength without the appointments,

• 14:16Leah Litman?

  pharmacy trips, or insurance hassle. HSA and FSA eligible. Delivered free to your door. Here's how it works. You complete your intake form. M4 is available by prescription, so you'll start with a quick online form. Then you'll get your prescription. You'll be matched with a menopause-specialized physician who reviews your intake and prescribes what's right for your skin. Plus, you get $0 unlimited messaging with your doctor. Finally, M4 is delivered to your door. Once approved, your prescription ships straight to you. No pharmacy, no hassle. Try M4 skincare from Alloy and see results in as little as eight weeks. Head to myalloy.com and use the code STRICK to get $20 off your first order. Your menopause-specialized doctor will tailor your skincare to your needs. Plus, you get $0 unlimited messaging with your doctor.

• 14:59Leah Litman?

  Head to myalloy.com and use code STRICK to get $20 off your first order.

• 15:11Leah Litman?

  The reasoning in the court's very short opinion is actually pretty revealing here. The court, again, issued a per curiam opinion, meaning that they don't actually indicate who is the author of the opinion. Again, a very craven move. Although I think there are some very telling signs that maybe one Neil Gorsuch has his hand in the honey pot here. It's Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh, or one of them with an assist from the other. I don't know if it's Brett Kavanaugh, because it was written in ink. And so it's just hard to say. Well, that's why I said with an assist from Neil Gorsuch, right? Brett could do some finger painting, and then Neil could translate for him. The dictation, and Neil writes it all down. Neil could be the scribe here. In any event, the very first sentence

• 15:55Leah Litman?

  of this per curiam opinion reveals the absolute audacity of the Supreme Court's entire project of expanding executive power. So the court writes, quote, "In October 2025, the federal government started a project to replace the east wing of the White House." Hmm, come again? Excuse me? The federal government did no such fucking thing. The executive branch did. The president did. And I don't know who needs to hear this, but the federal government and the president are not the same thing. They are not synonymous. Big if true, big if true. I mean. Mind blown. There's this whole Constitution thing, and they're separate.

• 16:38Leah Litman?

  In any event, I just want to emphasize for those of you listening at home, this isn't a project of the federal government. It is the project of a president, a rogue president. And the problem here for this per curiam opinion is that this court seems to have no problem conflating the federal government with the president. This president specifically, because we all know that Joe Biden did not get the federal government edit from this court. No, he did not. And the court's conflation of the president, or at least this president/Republican president, with the entire federal government reflects a very capacious view of executive power that the Republican justices have embraced in Republican administrations, the unitary executive theory.

• 17:23Leah Litman?

  The unitary executive theory maintains that the president possesses, or at least Republican presidents possess, all executive power, and that laws cannot restrict the president's exercise of what are exclusive executive powers. But as we have said before, there is a creeping trend in the unitary executive theory toward allowing the president to exercise not just executive power, but legislative power and even judicial power as well. So it's now a unitary executive in the sense that this theory unites all government power, all constitutional power in the president, again, only Republican presidents, as the court made clear by just saying the federal government did this and housing that in the presidency.

• 18:08Leah Litman?

  Republican presidents, of course, also get to exercise Democratic presidents' executive power, just as an added boost. All of this is terrifying, because it is basically a description of autocracy.

• 18:20Leah Litman?

  Basically. Basically. Trying to dumb it down for the boys in the back. That was literally the understatement of the... That was literally an understatement. Um, yeah. The reasoning here is A+. 10 out of 10.

• 18:35Melissa Murray?

  Obviously, just kidding. The court, again, did not actually make a decision on the merits. And again, I don't think they can, because if you were to decide this case on the merits, there is no world in which the Constitution authorizes the president to raise a portion of the White House and go around Congress in this way. Just don't see it happening, which is why the court was sort of hemmed in here and had to decide this case on justicibility, in particular, standing. So the main thrust of the majority's reasoning here is that the plaintiffs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, does not have standing, because apparently, the destruction of an historic federal site does not injure the National

• 19:19Melissa Murray?

  Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. They have no stake in this whole matter, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. I'm saying the name over and over again, because for textualists, I think it matters. Like, is this textualism? I think so. It's right there in the name.

• 19:41Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 19:41Melissa Murray?

  Right? They are concerned with the preservation of national sites, historic sites, like the White House, which historically has been the home of our nation's leaders. Names aside, the court decided that a federal agency charged with the historic preservation of national landmarks and historic sites has no stake in a rogue president's decision to raise a wing of the people's house. Think about it. This kind of aesthetic injury, the majority held, is basically kind of the same as when pro-life doctors argue that the FDA's regulation of Mifepristone offends their interests in seeing beautiful babies born.

• 20:21Leah Litman?

  Just like it.

• 20:22Melissa Murray?

  Just the same vague speculative aesthetic injury.

• 20:26Leah Litman?

  Yeah. A quick snide aside, you can tell that this opinion is very serious and very careful, given this passage, which appears on page three, quote, "To establish its standing to bring this case, the trust relies on a declaration from a single of its members, Allison K. Hoagland." Yes. "A single of its members." Giveaway, this was written by Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Great English, great legal reasoning, great all around.

• 20:52Melissa Murray?

  I mean, yes. Allison Hoagland, in addition to probably knowing how to write a sentence, Allison Hoagland is an architectural historian. So maybe she does have a stake in some of this, I don't know. Hard to say. In any event, though, Hoagland, at the very least, lives in the District of Columbia, where said historic site, the White House, is located. She visits the area around the White House on a monthly basis, being an architectural historian, and she alleges that the monstrosity that is now the hole that used to be the East Wing injures her, quote, "ascetic cultural and historical interests," to which the Supreme Court of the United States said, quote, "We have not recognized standing like this before."

• 21:37Melissa Murray?

  Fact check, you also have not recognized kings as presidents before, but you did that a couple of terms ago.

• 21:44Leah Litman?

  But you didn't.

• 21:44Melissa Murray?

  Yeah, yeah. You also don't have a habit of pulling back rights, but you did that a couple of terms. There's a lot of things you do that seem novel and innovative, and surprised you couldn't do it here. In any event, we should note that having a recognized claim, or one that is an analog of earlier claims, is not necessarily a requirement to establish standing under Article 3. Instead, typically, what we require of plaintiffs when we want them to establish standing is that they show, they allege, that they have suffered an injury. In fact, there's no court case that says that the injuries have to be similar to ones that earlier plaintiffs allege. Like, that's not a thing.

• 22:27Melissa Murray?

  There can be new injuries, and there likely will be new injuries that we've never heard of, when the executive does things that we've never heard of and never seen before. Like, when they're just literally pioneering new lawless ways of governing. So just want to bring that in there. Like, maybe if you don't start doing novel, new, illegal stuff, there won't be novel, new, illegal injuries.

• 22:47Leah Litman?

  Maybe. Girl can hope. One slightly inconvenient fact for the court's claim that these aesthetic injuries do not suffice for purposes of standing is that one Antonin Scalia, again, patron saint of the conservative legal movement, wrote an opinion that said the, quote, "Desire to observe an animal species, even for purely aesthetic purposes, can constitute an interest for a purpose of standing." Now, we all know Nino Scalia was not quite conservative enough for this court, real rhino, that guy.

• 23:20Melissa Murray?

  He's definitely a Republican in name only, and originalist in name only, too. But that court decision, for those of you following along at home and in constitutional law, was Lujan versus Defenders of Wildlife, and it's a pretty seminal standing case, and really does sort of touch on this question of just having an interest in seeing certain things in the wild. But, you know, it's different, and it's distinguishable, Leah, because this isn't in the wild, this is not in the jungle. We're not looking for new species, we're just looking for new ballrooms, and that's okay. The chief justice, though, wasn't buying this new novel theory of injury. He wrote in a dissent, quote, "With the court's rejection of Hoagland's standing today, however,

• 24:01Melissa Murray?

  it now is the case that I want to look at a crocodile can adequately answer the ever-critical 'what's it to you' question of Article 3 standing, while I want to look at the White House cannot." That is basically me agreeing with John G. Roberts, which almost never happens. Like, I agree with him that the only difference here is that the White House is not in a jungle, otherwise, the claims are basically the same. And if it worked for Lujan, it should work here as well. The majority opinion-

• 24:28Leah Litman?

  Real crocodile tears, real crocodile tears.

• 24:31Melissa Murray?

  Crocodile tears, rhino tears. The majority opinion also does some wild stuff. It cites to Trump versus Casa, that was the nationwide injunction case from a few terms ago, and the accompanying claim about irreparable harm. So the court wrote, quote, "The district court likely exceeded its Article 3 authority to enjoin the activities of a coordinate branch of government." And then they cited to Trump versus Casa. Sit with that for a minute. The real problem of lower courts enjoining the president's unlawful destruction of the White House, absent congressional approval, is the real separation of powers problem. This is basically like how just thinking about race is the real racism, trying to

• 25:16Melissa Murray?

  remedy racism, that's the real racism. They're just doing it in different venues now.

• 25:21Leah Litman?

  Yeah, no.

• 25:21Melissa Murray?

  Same logic, different venues.

• 25:22Leah Litman?

  The Supreme Court is busy solving the separation of powers, handing the president more and more power, allowing him to do illegal things. Found a problem, they identified a solution. I want to add just two quick points about how fucked up this is. As Melissa, you were noting, this is very similar to what they did in the mail-in ballot case with respect to irreparable harm. How can it be that the president is irreparably harmed when he is told he cannot do wildly illegal stuff? Even if you think that the lower courts erred, that, that is, the president's doing wildly illegal stuff, should also obviously factor into the balance of the equities and assessment

• 26:03Leah Litman?

  of what constitutes irreparable harm that might warrant emergency extraordinary relief. Alas. Second, this whole standing separation of powers thing, this court loves to say that standing protects the separation of powers, but the reality is, they have used standing to disempower Congress, part of their longstanding project, and empower the executive branch to break federal laws. That was the upshot of Lujan versus Defenders of Wildlife and Lujan versus National Wildlife Federation, to say plaintiffs could not enforce laws constraining the executive against the executive branch. They have also, right, essentially nullified congressional statutes that Congress wanted private parties to be able to enforce in TransUnion versus Ramirez, the Fair Credit Reporting Act case, and others.

• 26:46Leah Litman?

  So this kind of doctrine is just part of their larger project of incapacitating Congress and empowering the executive branch.

• 26:54Melissa Murray?

  I low-key believe that Neil Gorsuch did not put his name on this opinion, because where is the fucking major questions doctrine here? Neil Gorsuch loves to talk about the major questions doctrine, loves, loves, loves to talk about it. Where was it here? The whole idea behind the major questions doctrine is that the executive cannot take steps that have major, salient, economic consequences without first being authorized to do so by Congress. Wouldn't the destruction of the White House and the creation of a new ballroom with massive amounts of federal monies be implicating the major questions doctrine? Like, wouldn't that have to be specifically and explicitly authorized by Congress?

• 27:37Melissa Murray?

  Or am I missing the point of the major questions doctrine? Like, he can have a ballroom, but you can't have student loan relief.

• 27:43Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 27:43Melissa Murray?

  Chew on that.

• 27:44Leah Litman?

  Yeah.

• 27:45Melissa Murray?

  And just to put a cherry on top of all of this, the court nods to the executive's invocation of national security here. So at the same moment, military officials are resigning-

• 27:58Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 27:59Melissa Murray?

  -because Pete Hegseth, they are noting how, quote, "The Secretary of the Army, for example, represents that the height and mass of the planned above-ground ballroom are crucial to shield the planned underground military installation from kinetic impacts, and that without such height- And mass engineers would need to dig impractically deep.

• 28:18Leah Litman?

  This is just so embarrassing that the court is just reciting this and taking it at its word. It's also terrifying because we don't know what else the court will do or allow the executive branch to do merely by saying eh, they say national security. And the idea that this is national security is nonsensical, right? These guys are also liars, but who cares about that? As we noted, Chief Justice wrote the dissent for the Sanity Caucus, together with himself, once again, before you give the Chief Justice too much credit, wanted to highlight another story that came out the day after the Supreme Court released this ballroom order. And that's from the New York Times, which reported that a whistleblower is alleging that the federal government is defying court orders on voting by mail. The Times reports, quote, "A US Postal Service official

• 29:03Leah Litman?

  has alleged that the agency is moving forward with a secretive rushed effort to implement President Trump's order exerting federal control over mail voting, despite a court order blocking those plans. And what the whistleblower has warned about is something like a catastrophic failure of mail-in ballots in the upcoming midterms. And I just wonder, why does the administration think they don't have to comply with lower court orders? Could it be because the Supreme Court has freed them from lower court orders and injunctions that the administration has not complied with? Cannot rule it out. The court has told Trump and Chief Justice Roberts has joined opinions telling Trump that he's a special boy and can do what he wants, including getting emergency extraordinary relief, blocking lower court orders that the administration has plausibly violated, right?

• 29:48Leah Litman?

  They face no consequences for violating those orders from this court.

• 29:52Melissa Murray?

  Well, I'll add another story on top of this. Also, on Tuesday morning, the day after the court told the president that he can treat the White House like his personal property, Jodi Kantor, again, the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist who has joined the Supreme Court beat, published in the New York Times, a story about how the justices have seemingly worked out, behind closed doors and in secret, policies for how and when their papers will be released. Specifically, the reporting suggests that the justices have determined that their papers will be released only when every single justice involved in all of the deliberations is dead. So again, because they keep picking these justices younger

• 30:36Melissa Murray?

  and younger, we will never see these papers in our lifetimes, right? Like, basically, this means that we might not get the information about how they went about deciding Trump versus United States until, like, I don't know, 40 years from now?

• 30:51Leah Litman?

  Yep, maybe.

• 30:53Melissa Murray?

  I mean, insane. Essentially, just as the justices let Trump treat the White House like his own public property, even though it's not, the justices themselves are saying that their papers and the discussion and deliberations that occur as part of the decision-making processes, those official proceedings of the government of the United States are their own personal property, and the public has no interest in it until they're all dead.

• 31:16Leah Litman?

  Yeah. Serious question, just on this ballroom order. If a Democratic president raised the ballroom or announced plans to raise the ballroom in 2029, do you think this court would say anyone has standing?

• 31:28Melissa Murray?

  Oh, my God, a vegetative Mitch McConnell would be able to bring a ca-- well, he is in Congress.

• 31:34Leah Litman?

  Right. He is in Congress. So here, here are the plaintiffs--

• 31:37Melissa Murray?

  Pick a different one.

• 31:37Leah Litman?

  Okay, donors, right? Since they love--

• 31:39Melissa Murray?

  Yeah, that's a good one.

• 31:40Leah Litman?

  Oligarchs. And maybe Trump, since they love kings. They would say they both have standing. But point is, right, like--

• 31:47Melissa Murray?

  I mean, the di-- the cyclospora would have an interest here, I'm 100% sure.

• 31:52Leah Litman?

  Yeah, do not expect any sort of consistency to allow Democratic presidents to undertake, let's say, expansive assertions of executive authority either. And this seems as good a time as any to remind you that the shadow docket is really the just the tip docket. Because they say they're not fucking the country, but they are definitely fucking the country. And this stay in the ballroom case is the entire ballgame for the ballroom. Like, even if they later decide that all of this is lawless, the ballroom will already be built.

• 32:24Melissa Murray?

  Well, and Justice Jackson tried to tell us, like, black women have been trying to tell you all for a long fucking time, so let's just dig into that. So she warned in her dissent from the court's decision granting the stay against the absentee ballot voting executive order, she wrote, quote, "Allowing the government to obtain interim relief based on isolated threshold concerns about the justicibility of the plaintiff's claims facilitates a patently inequitable, catch me if you can, approach to pursuing the president's policy agenda." And she is right.

• 32:55Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 32:55Melissa Murray?

  Continues to be right.

• 32:56Leah Litman?

  Yep.

• 32:57Melissa Murray?

  So all to say, some real fuckery going down here, and that's all we have time for. If you want to hear more about SCOTUS gone wrong, you can join me and friend of the pod, Alex Wagner. We will be in conversation about her forthcoming book, The Steal: Four Right-Wing Hardliners, One Republican Presidency, and the Raid on America's Courts. Yes, folks, it's basically a bedtime story about how we got to this fucking place. And that is on September 15th, a Tuesday night from 7:00 to 8:00 at McNally Jackson Books at Brooklyn Studios, 1 DeKalb Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, the Borough of Kings. Come by and check us out.

• 33:36Leah Litman?

  And remember, don't forget to listen to the first episode of Hot SCOTUS Reform September this Thursday. We are off on Monday for Labor Day, but there will be another Hot SCOTUS Reform September episode next Thursday as well. We're super excited for Hot SCOTUS Reform September, and you know who else is? Representative Jim Clyburn, who announced his support for court expansion the day before we announced our Hot SCOTUS Reform September series. Here he is on the Sunday shows.

• 34:01Speaker 07

  Former Vice President Kamala Harris shares some of your criticisms clearly. She's called for expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13. Do you support adding four more seats to the Supreme Court, Congressman?

• 34:16Melissa Murray?

  Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls from some significant actions taken by the Congress. And we ought to expand. And 13 is a pretty good number. A biggest dozen will be a good number to have on the court.

• 34:35Leah Litman?

  Jim, do we have a great show and series in store for you? Check it out.

• 34:39Melissa Murray?

  I mean, when you've turned Jim Clyburn--

• 34:41Leah Litman?

  I know.

• 34:42Melissa Murray?

  Like, this is an institute, like, folks, they did it.

• 34:44Leah Litman?

  Welcome to the party. Welcome to the party.

• 34:46Melissa Murray?

  It's nice to see you, Representative Clyburn.

• 34:48Leah Litman?

  Exactly.

• 34:49Melissa Murray?

  We've been warming it up for you.

• 34:50Leah Litman?

  Yep.

• 34:55Leah Litman?

  Starks Ruteney is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Melody Rauel and Michael Goldsmith. Our music is by Eddie Cooper. Our team includes Matt DeGroot, Ben Heathcote, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffett, Adam Lippard, and Eric Schut. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

• 35:25Melissa Murray?

  Sprained wrist, ankle twist, broken thumb can't make a fist, busted knee, surgery, that patch of ice you didn't

• 35:32Speaker 07

  see. Where pain starts, Gernavix, whose estrogen begins. Gernavix is a non-opioid 50-milligram prescription tablet for adults with moderate to severe acute pain that reduces pain signals before they reach the brain. Tendon tear, nose repair, tripping on that broken stair, dislocation, operation, moped crash while on vacation. Do not take Gernavix with SIP3A inhibitors. Avoid use with grapefruit or liver problems, as these may increase side effects. Tell your doctor about all your medicines if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. Gernavix may make certain medicines and birth control less effective. Side effects include itching, muscle spasms, rash, and elevated muscle enzymes. Joint displacement, knee replacement, fell on marbles in the basement, ladder slip, broken hip, that

• 36:15Speaker 07

  rock climb where you lost your grip. To learn more about Gernavix, ask your doctor, call 1-833-589-PAIN, or visit gernavix.com. So you had an idea. An idea that turned into a small business. It's a freeze-dried ice cream shop, like astronauts eat. Cool. And now you have to hire actual people to work there and pay them on time and do lots of paperwork and provide benefits. Wait, this is a lot. Oh, and make sure everything is compliant. I don't know how to do any of that. I just like making space ice cream. Then let Just Works handle the payroll benefits and hiring stuff for you. That's much better. Yep, because you don't have to worry when it just works.