SCOTUS Lets Trump Play Word Games

This week, the Court weighed in on two cases arising out of the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people to El Salvador. Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down both rulings, looking at how SCOTUS is giving leeway to the administration. For the second part of the show, Deborah Archer, professor of law at NYU and president of the ACLU, joins to talk about her new book, Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequality https://bookshop.org/p/books/dividing-lines-how-transportation-infrastructure-reinforces-racial-inequality-deborah-archer/21479470. Hosts’ favorite things this week: Leah: Dividing Lines https://bookshop.org/p/books/dividing-lines-how-transportation-infrastructure-reinforces-racial-inequality-deborah-archer/21479470, Deborah Archer; Why Universities Must Start Litigating—and How https://www.thenation.com/article/society/universities-protests-trump-speech/ (The Nation), David Pozen, Ryan Doerfler, and Samuel Bagenstos; The Case for Suing https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/the-case-for-suing, Adam Unikowsky Kate: Princeton President Chris Eisgruber on The Daily https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/podcasts/the-daily/princeton-university-trump.html; Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service https://bookshop.org/p/books/who-is-government-the-untold-story-of-public-service-michael-lewis/21873336?ean=9798217047802&next=t&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=22224636854&utm_term=&utm_content=732790598635&utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_campaign=bookshop_dsa_prh&utm_term=&utm_content=177949575354&utm_page=%7Blpurlpath%7D&gclid=CjwKCAjw--K_BhB5EiwAuwYoytU5XuePZnpwk55snDZpwW3OxTRVx8dE7H0iwUaQjZfg9efnsP57pBoCYNEQAvD_BwE&gad_source=1, Michael Lewis Melissa: Up Home: One Girl's Journey https://bookshop.org/p/books/up-home-one-girl-s-journey-ruth-simmons/18503098?ean=9780593446027&next=t, Ruth J. Simmons; The White Lotus https://www.hbo.com/the-white-lotus (Max) Vote for Less Radical https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/less-radical/id1767700499in the Webby Awards here https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2025/podcasts/limited-series-specials/documentaryand here https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2025/podcasts/features/best-indie-podcast-limited-run! Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco 3/7/26 – Los Angeles Learn more: http://crooked.com/events Order your copy of 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/9781668054628 Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/strictscrutinypodcast/?hl=en, Threads https://www.threads.net/@strictscrutinypodcast, and Bluesky 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.

• 0:01Leah Litman?

  This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. If there's one thing we've learned as of late, it's that a lot of men need therapy. We've known this for a while, following the Supreme Court, but the news is really reinforcing that point. Therapy might feel like a big investment, but just imagine how much better off the country and the economy would be if we invested in therapy to help people work through their issues and work on their state of mind and general ethos. Let's talk numbers. Traditional in-person therapy can cost anywhere from $100 to $250 per session, and that adds up fast. But with BetterHelp online therapy, you can save, on average, up to 50% per session. With BetterHelp, you pay a flat fee for weekly sessions, saving you big on cost and on time,

• 0:45Leah Litman?

  because therapy should feel accessible, not like a luxury. With online therapy, you get quality care at a price that makes sense and can help you with anything from anxiety to everyday stress. Your mental health is worth it, and now it's within reach. So you can pop on over from your Signal chat or Gmail's on national security and sign into your therapy session that will help you avoid doing that in the future. So I've talked about how I've benefited from therapy, both for general maintenance and to cope with really significant events, be it the bike accident that left me super demoralized and crushed and concerned about my recovery, or, you know, the destruction of our constitutional democracy. Therapy has given me the tools to figure out how I can live in a sustainable way while staying in the fight over the long haul.

• 1:30Leah Litman?

  With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally. It's convenient, too. You can join a session with a click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life. Plus, switch therapists at any time. Your well-being is worth it. Visit betterhelp.com/strict to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P, dot com slash strict.

• 1:57Speaker 01

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

• 2:11Speaker 02

  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."

• 2:41Melissa Murray?

  Hello and welcome back to Strict Scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. We're your hosts. I'm Melissa Murray.

• 2:49Leah Litman?

  I'm Leah Litman.

• 2:50Kate Shaw?

  And I'm Kate Shaw. We have a great episode in store for you today. We are going to first cover the rapidly unfolding developments over the last week. And Melissa and Leah will then do a deep dive on transportation justice with the fabulous Deborah Archer, whose wonderful new book, "Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequality," drops tomorrow.

• 3:09Melissa Murray?

  But before we get into that yummy dessert, we have to eat some really un-yummy vegetables. And I'm just going to say, these are two great tastes that we didn't think would taste great together, and we were right. Article II and Article III, specifically SCOTUS, have been having a lot of meat cutes. I think they think it's meat cute, but we have found that it is decidedly not meat cute, folks. So we are going to give you a sense of what these two great institutions have managed to cook up together, and then we will explain why it is so very, very concerning.

• 3:43Leah Litman?

  It's fugly. So the big activity last week came in the cases arising out of the administration's extraordinary renditions of people who are primarily, but not exclusively, Venezuelan nationals to a notorious El Salvador prison with truly horrific conditions. The renditions arise out of the president's Alien Enemies Act proclamation, which declared that the Tranday Aragua gang was operating as a foreign state or foreign nation and engaged in an invasion or predatory incursion against the United States. The AEA is a 1798 statute that allows the president to designate nationals of certain foreign states as enemy aliens, subject to expedited removal proceedings. It was last invoked during World War II as part of the constellation of laws and actions

• 4:27Leah Litman?

  that underwrote the internment of Japanese nationals and American citizens of Japanese descent. There are many reasons to think that the current deployment of the AEA is improper, and we'll elaborate more a bit on that below.

• 4:39Kate Shaw?

  Two cases arising out of these summary expulsions came to a head in this past week. The first is a case that originated before Judge Boesberg in the D.C. District Court, and that's the challenge to the lawfulness of the administration's implementation and use of the AEA. That's a case where Judge Boesberg issued a temporary restraining order against the administration's use of the proclamation and certified a class action so the administration couldn't use the proclamation against anyone without affording them a degree of process, although it could still deport people on other grounds. And that initial TRO is what led to a complete meltdown by the president and top advisers, calls for impeachment, et cetera.

• 5:15Melissa Murray?

  The second case also arises out of the implementation of the Alien Enemies Act, and it is the case challenging the administration's conceitedly erroneous expulsion of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was born in El Salvador but who is a resident of the United States. He is also a father of three, and he is married to and has a child with, a U.S. citizen wife. The expulsion is mistaken because Mr. Abrego Garcia is not a Venezuelan national, subject to the proclamation, which specifically denominates those members of the Trandera Ragua gang as enemies. His case appears to be prompted by what the administration has conceded was a paperwork error. They made a mistake and put him on the plane, and now he's in El Salvador.

• 5:57Melissa Murray?

  His case was heard by an immigration judge back in 2019, and at that time, the immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador because he was being targeted and likely would continue to be targeted by an El Salvadoran gang if he was returned to that country. And it is very likely that members of that very same gang are currently being held in the El Salvadoran mega-prison to which the Trump administration erroneously deported Abrego Garcia.

• 6:24Kate Shaw?

  Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyer challenged his deportation, and a district judge, Judge Zenas in the District of Maryland, ordered the administration to try to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to pause that ruling, and the Supreme Court initially issued an administrative stay, deferring the district court's initial deadline to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the country. The court took some time to dispose of the application after that initial administrative stay, and it ultimately denied the government's request to put the entire order on hold. So it left in place a directive for the government to, quote, "facilitate" Mr. Abrego Garcia's return. But, as we will talk about in a second, we are not treating this as an unqualified victory, at least not yet, because the court also, in really important language,

• 7:09Kate Shaw?

  signaled that part of the lower court's order was at least questionable.

• 7:14Melissa Murray?

  On the same day that the court issued the administrative stay in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case, it also issued an order in the AEA case that was pending before Judge Boesberg. In that five-to-four order, the court blocked Judge Boesberg's rulings that had prevented the government from relying on the AEA to expel more people to a foreign torture prison. So what Judge Boesberg put in place has now been stayed by the court.

• 7:38Leah Litman?

  We're going to describe what the Supreme Court said and why it is consequential, both for what it means for people who could be affected by the administration's AEA actions and for what it pretends about the Supreme Court reviewing the legality of Trump administration policies. The court's per curiam decision, that is, it was unsigned, it didn't identify an author, in the AEA case, which is Trump versus JGG, did not rule on the lawfulness of the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That is, didn't say whether the law can be applied to Tren de Aragua, which is not a foreign state, nor did it really rule on the administration's implementation of the AEA. That is, whether the administration can even send people to a foreign prison rather than deport them to their country of origin.

• 8:22Melissa Murray?

  And it didn't even really say whether the administration's, quote-unquote, "process" or lack thereof violated the statute or the Constitution. It did, however, say some vague things that might suggest that the manner in which the administration has been implementing the AEA is actually unlawful. The court said, for example, quote, "The government expressly agrees that Tren de Aragua members subject to the removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review," end quote. So that is suggestive, but it's not definitive.

• 8:54Leah Litman?

  Also, please note that none of the people put on the two planes to El Salvador got any fucking judicial review at all, and yet the Supreme Court still felt fine saying this.

• 9:05Melissa Murray?

  Gaslighting, playing in your face.

• 9:07Leah Litman?

  Yep.

• 9:07Melissa Murray?

  Anyway, the potentially more significant thing that the court said was that, quote, "In this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs," end quote.

• 9:30Kate Shaw?

  Okay, so, but, and this is big, and it's implicit in the language that Melissa just read, the court put on hold Judge Boesberg's ruling blocking the administration's implementation of the AEA because the court said challenges to the AEA expulsions had to proceed via habeas petitions. Now, habeas is complicated. I thought the court's claims about habeas sounded dodgy when I read the order, but I am not kidding, I've been dying to get the full breakdown from genuine habeas expert Leah Litman. So we're actually going to start with the practical implications of the court's order, and then for the real law nerds in the group, we're going to circle back to sort of drill down on the claims about habeas corpus, the way the court characterized the writ and its own precedents, et cetera.

• 10:15Leah Litman?

  Just by way of preview on the law, the court is just flatly wrong. You know, I knew I had become an expert in habeas for a reason, and this occasion is it.

• 10:23Kate Shaw?

  Yes.

• 10:24Leah Litman?

  But...

• 10:24Kate Shaw?

  You've been training for this, Leah.

• 10:26Leah Litman?

  Right. Like, to the point, they were so wrong, I wonder if they were being intentionally species? You know, I'll come back to that possibility in a bit, but first practicalities, as Kate said, what does this mean on the ground? It's not totally clear, and the Supreme Court wrote its order, I think, intentionally that way, but it could be devastating. First, the majority says expulsions require due process, but these individuals in this foreign torture prison were not given due process. So what happens now? Can courts order the government to bring back people who were wrongfully expelled? TBD?

• 11:00Melissa Murray?

  I guess. So this is where the ambiguities in the court's order regarding Mr. Abrego Garcia really become relevant. So let's toggle back to that case for a minute. In brief, the Supreme Court left in place the lower court order to the extent it directed the government to quote unquote facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. But the majority added that to the extent the lower court ordered the government to quote unquote effectuate Mr. Garcia's return, that directive is quote unclear and may exceed the lower court's power, end quote. So the TLDR of all of this is that the court seems to be saying that you can order the government to facilitate a return, which seems to be the place where the court should

• 11:43Melissa Murray?

  have inserted the Kris Jenner, you're doing great, sweetie meme, but it cannot actually order the government to effectuate, actually do the thing. So try, but don't actually have to do it, which seems not the best outcome.

• 12:00Kate Shaw?

  Well, and I actually don't know. I mean, I think there will be a fight about what the court can order the government to do. It's not obvious what constitutes facilitate and where the line between facilitate and effectuate really is. And so there will be important questions about that. And also, whatever facilitate means, there will be questions about whether the government has made its best efforts to facilitate the return and whether the district court can probe that, how it can require the government to substantiate its claims, and what it can do if it thinks the government is not acting in good faith to actually do the thing the court is able, on the Supreme Court's own telling, to order it to do, which is to facilitate return.

• 12:41Melissa Murray?

  So this reads a little bit like what happened in Dobbs. In the effort to apparently settle this issue, the court has actually just generated the ground for far more litigation going forward. And they've essentially given the administration latitude to try and fight about the difference between facilitate on the one hand and effectuate on the other. So we're literally playing Wordle over a man's life. We're all left wondering, what does it mean to facilitate? What does it mean to effectuate? What's the difference? And since the justices invented this distinction, that gives the executive branch considerable wiggle room. To weasel around whether or not they have to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back, it's not really a settlement at all.

• 13:23Leah Litman?

  Yeah, so specifically, one question, as Melissa alluded to, is, does facilitate leave room for the administration to tell the court, well, we asked and El Salvador said no, like, we tried, so give us an A for effort. You know, I think if this is what it comes to, there should be immense public pressure and outcry about how that response is woefully inadequate. Like, this administration cannot claim to be a bunch of weak weenies, you know, and just say, we can't get him back.

• 13:52Melissa Murray?

  I mean, where was the masculine energy?

• 13:54Leah Litman?

  Exactly, exactly. That's not masculine energy. Masculine energy is getting back the person who you wrongfully deported. And we all know the administration could get Mr. Abrego Garcia back with a phone call. Like, El Salvador is detaining people pursuant to an agreement with the United States. The United States is a party to that agreement. They can set its terms. It is appalling and an outrage that the Trump administration has not already commanded El Salvador to return Mr. Abrego Garcia. And as Kate was alluding to, you know, given the administration's bad faith, I for one am concerned that it is not going to put forth its best efforts to facilitate a return.

• 14:35Leah Litman?

  That is, it's not actually going to try to get Bukele to actually return Mr. Abrego Garcia, and that is going to push the extreme limits about arguing what constitutes effectuate rather than facilitate. In most administrations, you would expect good faith compliance. You would also expect straightforward representations about what they have done in order to comply and what isn't possible. And this administration, I don't think, is going to do that. We've seen how they've tried to stonewall Judge Boesberg and also stonewall in this case. And I think the fact that the Supreme Court failed to grapple with that is a real problem.

• 15:09Melissa Murray?

  Hear me out. What if it's the plan? What if this is? What if they're really concerned?

• 15:13Leah Litman?

  Going to come back to that later. Yeah.

• 15:15Melissa Murray?

  Okay, I'm just worried. I think they're worried that where the administration is going to. Prove its masculine energy is when it tells the court to fuck off.

• 15:23Leah Litman?

  Yeah.

• 15:23Melissa Murray?

  And they're basically buying some time.

• 15:25Kate Shaw?

  Well, that's why I think the court of public opinion is really important.

• 15:27Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 15:28Kate Shaw?

  And this sort of masculine energy point, which it's so enraging to have to fight on these terms. And yet they want to project this enormous strength on the world stage. And I think that they need to be asked how this superpower cannot possibly procure the return of one resident of Maryland and convince the world that it can negotiate from a position of strength on tariffs.

• 15:51Leah Litman?

  He's a dealmaker. He's a dealmaker.

• 15:53Melissa Murray?

  Make some deals.

• 15:54Kate Shaw?

  Show us a deal. I actually think that that outside of courts, that kind of discourse is incredibly important right now.

• 16:00Melissa Murray?

  But I think this shows how weak the court understands itself to be in this moment. Like, I think they're genuinely worried that this administration is going to say, fuck you, and then we really will have this existential crisis. This is just deferring that and kicking it down the road a little bit.

• 16:14Leah Litman?

  Totally agree. And I want to draw an analogy between what the court did here and what the court did in the follow on to Brown versus Board of Education. You know, after the court declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, they then released a decision about schools' obligation to remedy that and actually effectuate or facilitate integration. And what the Supreme Court said is, use all deliberate speed, thereby preserving the option of saying, well, schools are trying, sorry, it's not happening, they're still complying with our decision, even though they weren't actually bringing about integration. And I think this is quite similar to that dynamic. And, you know, this administration released a statement that does not make me feel better

• 16:57Leah Litman?

  about their willingness to actually try to bring about return. The statement read, quote, "As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs. By directly noting the deference owed to the executive branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president's authority to conduct foreign policy," end quote. This does not sound like an administration that is planning to abide by an order or directive to undertake their best efforts to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's return.

• 17:30Kate Shaw?

  But I do think that the district court can write carefully in a way that does try to say, look, I'm not telling you exactly what diplomatic steps you have to take. You get all the discretion. To decide how, but the court did have my back on the bottom line.

• 17:45Melissa Murray?

  Yeah.

• 17:45Kate Shaw?

  You have an obligation to facilitate. So I do think that a lot is going to come out in, it would be overplaying, I think, for the district court to be too directive. And that's a kind of impossible position that the Supreme Court has put her in. But I do think that she has a path that she can navigate. And but obviously, of course, it all comes down to the response the administration provides.

• 18:04Melissa Murray?

  Yes. And Judge Zenas' modified order does, I think, sort of move in that direction. But I just want to make really clear. I don't even think the court wrote this order in a way that would signal to either the district court or the administration that the court was prepared to back up Judge Zenas with whatever she did going forward, if she issued some kind of modified order or if she was convinced.

• 18:26Kate Shaw?

  I don't know if I totally agree with that. But yeah, so you think that she may have.

• 18:28Melissa Murray?

  Well, I mean, I just think the order is written in a way where the court tells the lower court to clarify its directive. It says to clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. That doesn't really suggest that they have confidence that Judge Zenas is going to strike this delicate balance. And even if she does, whether or not they're willing to stand on business and support her and like, yeah, this is a perfectly acceptable way to thread this needle. You get the deference you need, but she's still observing what the requirements of law are. And, you know, as to the question of whether the administration is acting with, you know, some sort of eye toward honesty and good faith, the court said that the administration

• 19:12Melissa Murray?

  is ordered to quote unquote, share what it can about what it's doing going forward and the steps that it's taking and quote, "the prospect of further steps." So all of that seems like we're not entirely behind the lower court and maybe you get to do whatever you want.

• 19:30Kate Shaw?

  Well, certainly, an administration acting in bad faith could say, "Well, there's not much we can share and there aren't many prospects of further steps." And then I think we will see what the Supreme Court does if the case ends up, if the district court doesn't abide and the administration tries to take it back up. So the three Democratic appointees wrote separately to signal that they don't endorse the majority's caveat about the district court's ability to demand the government effectuate his return. Also, they made clear they would have immediately denied the government's request for a stay. They styled this as a statement, I think it was important to them and maybe to the rest of the court, that this reflect a projected unity among the justices. So they didn't, and of course, they did agree with the bottom line, which was that

• 20:10Kate Shaw?

  the government did not prevail in broad terms, although I said the specific deadline it did because the deadline passed. But anyway, let me just read briefly from what Justice Sotomayor wrote, "The only argument the government offers that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border is plainly wrong. The government's argument, moreover, implies it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. That view refutes itself." So the warning is dire.

• 20:43Melissa Murray?

  Well, can I say something? So I was out in Berkeley this week, which is where I was in 2016, when Justice Scalia passed away and everyone thought that President Obama would have the opportunity to nominate Justice Scalia's replacement and there would be a 5 to 4 liberal majority, a progressive majority, on the court. If that had ever happened, this would have been the majority opinion.

• 21:03Leah Litman?

  Yes.

• 21:04Melissa Murray?

  Or this would never have happened because maybe this administration would not feel so emboldened to do all of these things. But I mean, that's the difference that that one moment in time really did make.

• 21:16Leah Litman?

  So what happens next? Judge Zinnis has already acted quickly to modify the order to direct, quote, "that defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return as soon as possible," end quote. She is going to clarify what facilitate versus effectuate is. The judge will likely examine whether the administration is actually attempting to facilitate return. She ordered the government to submit a declaration addressing the steps they had taken and were going to take instead of hearing on the matter. She wanted the declaration and hearing on Friday after the order. The Department of Justice asked for an extension. Surprise, surprise, they're dragging it out, although its request for an extension was bounced because it was filed by someone not admitted.

• 21:59Leah Litman?

  DOJ eventually filed a document that basically said, we can't answer any of your questions. And they showed up to the hearing and said the same thing. Like, we've said what we can say. They wouldn't even answer questions such as, do you know where he is? Or can you say yes or no to whether you have done anything to try to facilitate his return? For that reason, the judge found the defendants had failed to comply with her order requiring a declaration. The government said they could maybe put something together by Monday, close of business, not like there's any urgency here, and that something they put together might try to invoke a privilege to argue they don't have to answer any questions. The judge said, I am ordering daily updates, you clowns. That's a paraphrase. And that's part of why I

• 22:40Leah Litman?

  don't want to give the Supreme Court credit until Abrego Garcia is returned. I think they felt some pressure to rule as they did. I think that is encouraging in some ways, but it also means we, like the greater public, needs to stay on them about this. So they can't get these great headlines that's like, you know, Supreme Court rules against Trump administration without actually doing anything. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. You know, sorry.

• 23:10Kate Shaw?

  He was picked up on March 15th, right?

• 23:11Leah Litman?

  Yes. Yeah, he's been there for a month.

• 23:14Kate Shaw?

  Yeah. Administrative error, the most horrific conditions, like every day is a travesty. And so, you know, they need to move quickly.

• 23:22Leah Litman?

  Yeah. We've shit on the administration's lawyering, I think deservedly so. I did want to give some credit to them. They managed to find a government action so repulsive, even Sam Alito was unwilling to give it an unqualified blessing. Are we sure about that? Well, maybe. There were no noted dissents, right? So anyways, I don't want to be too much. Right, exactly. I don't want to be too much of a downer. Like, this is a relief. It's something that's better than nothing. But I just think a lot remains to be seen.

• 23:54Leah Litman?

  Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Zbiotics PreAlcohol. Let me tell you, if there is a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after drinks with friends, it's with PreAlcohol. Zbiotics PreAlcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. PreAlcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make PreAlcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have PreAlcohol before drinks, I notice a difference the next day.

• 24:39Leah Litman?

  Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on getting up early in the morning and doing my anxiety-reducing, not relieving, exercises, which is key to avoid me being a total nightmare. You know, I was kind of on the fence about PreAlcohol initially, but hanging out in Mexico over spring break, sipping mango mojitos, I took Zbiotics, and it's the real deal. I drank Zbiotics before my first mango mojito, or strawberry daiquiri, the drinks of champions, and you wouldn't believe how on top of my game I felt the very next morning. Spring is here, which means more opportunities to celebrate warmer weather. Before drinks on the patio, that tropical vacation, or your best friend's wedding, don't forget your Zbiotics PreAlcohol.

• 25:21Leah Litman?

  Drink one before drinking and wake up feeling great the next day. Go to zbiotics.com/strict to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use strict at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100% money-back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com/strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15% off.

• 25:48Speaker 05

  CrookedCon is coming up right after the election, and we have just added a bunch more great names to the lineup. We've 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.

• 26:26Kate Shaw?

  So that was a long discussion of how courts might remedy cases where individuals were expelled without due process and without judicial review. We also wanted to talk about the uncertainties in the Supreme Court's initial order earlier last week in the AEA case, the one blocking Judge Boesberg's decision. So specifically, how will the requirements of due process that the court announced must be observed in some fashion in these AEA cases be policed or enforced? And what will SCOTUS say constitutes a "reasonable time and manner," as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief? So just consider how immigration detention works. Sometimes, your loved ones don't even know you're there. You don't have a right to an attorney in most places in immigration proceedings. Declarations filed by immigration attorneys in some of these cases say the

• 27:11Kate Shaw?

  government doesn't inform them that their clients are about to be removed pursuant to the AEA. What if you are snatched off the streets and don't have your phone? How is the government informing people that they are going to be subject to the AEA proclamation? What does the process for challenging that look like? What if individuals are shuffled between detention facilities? These are the open questions.

• 27:31Melissa Murray?

  Well, I think there are also open questions about what would constitute a reasonable time in which to file a habeas petition. And in its brief submitted to Judge Boesberg last week, the government said, "Nothing requires the government to delay removal to permit access to habeas on the aliens' preferred timeline." And that suggests that, under that logic, we don't really know what they think a reasonable amount of time is, and it would be left to the court to flesh that out. And I'm not sure how at least five members of this court would come out on that question.

• 28:05Leah Litman?

  Yeah. So let's talk more about the requirement that these cases proceed via habeas petitions. So habeas petitions generally proceed on an individual basis. That is, Every individual, each individual argues their individual detention and possible expulsion is unlawful. And the law on using class actions for habeas cases is unclear. Class actions are where individual plaintiffs get a court to certify that they are litigating on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, such that any ruling in their favor would apply to those other individuals who are similarly situated. Some courts of appeals have case law that permit habeas class actions. Others, by contrast, have cast doubt on them.

• 28:48Leah Litman?

  And of course, this Supreme Court has been pretty hostile to class actions in general and to habeas corpus in general. And so I'm not confident that they would sign off on using this class action device in the context of habeas petitions.

• 29:02Melissa Murray?

  And the uncertainty about whether class actions can be used means that every individual person who has been detained has to file their own case to be sure that habeas relief would be clearly available. And given the way that lawyers have been acted upon by this administration, you have a dwindling pool of available litigation resources to bring these cases, unless you're willing and able to aggregate them into the kind of class actions that would enable some kind of economies of scale here to be able to leverage the dwindling resources that are available.

• 29:35Leah Litman?

  And the prospect of having to pursue individual litigation in these cases is also concerning because, as Kate mentioned, you don't always have a right to a lawyer in immigration proceedings. And that just feels like it's asking for mistakes to happen in some individual cases, for some individuals to fall through the cracks.

• 29:49Melissa Murray?

  No, all of us, Jo. But we should say that a habeas class action has now been filed and it has been certified in New York. But it was just certified as to those individuals who were detained in New York. So this isn't going to be a class action if it is sustained and the class certification is sustained. That will apply to all of the individuals who are subject to these removal proceedings.

• 30:12Melissa Murray?

  Some plaintiffs also obtained a TRO in Texas that applied to themselves and other individuals who are detained in the same facility in Texas. And, you know, those are encouraging developments, the idea of aggregate litigation in these isolated places. But we're still waiting to see what the appellate courts will say about whether aggregate litigation or class actions in the context of habeas are actually permissible.

• 30:34Leah Litman?

  Yeah, so as Melissa noted, the New York case was confined to those individuals detained in New York. And that's because, you know, because these cases are happening via habeas petitions, the habeas challenge has to be filed where you are detained, which is going to mean Texas or Louisiana in a good number of cases, because that's where the government is expelling people from and moving them to, as it's shuffling them around immigration detention facilities. And that means, you know, there's a possibility that Judge Kesmirek's courtroom, like, could be a deportation factory. Like, America's top research scientists will also be moonlighting as America's sub vice chief border czar slash I don't even know what. And any check on those judges' determinations about whether someone is a member of TDA,

• 31:19Leah Litman?

  whether due process has been provided, whether these are lawful uses of the Alien Enemies Act, will happen in the Fifth Circuit.

• 31:25Melissa Murray?

  Perfect.

• 31:26Leah Litman?

  And, right, like, that, to me, is part of why this process is a potential nightmare. And we already kind of talked about how the ruling in the Abrego-Garcia case left some wiggle room as to what courts could actually do, what they could require the administration to do. And to my mind, the court channeling these AEA cases to habeas petitions is quite similar to their ruling in the Department of Education case that Kate briefly mentioned last week. That's where, you know, the Supreme Court paused a lower court ruling that had halted the administration's funding freeze of teacher training grants. And in that case, the Supreme Court didn't say that what the administration was doing was legal. Instead, it bought the administration more time to carry out its illegal policy by forcing plaintiffs

• 32:10Leah Litman?

  to litigate in less favorable flora before the Court of Federal Claims, rather than in federal district courts. And this, the shift to habeas, like, is not a minor technical change. You know, what the court did makes it more difficult to restrain Trump's arbitrary detentions and expulsions.

• 32:26Melissa Murray?

  Okay, so all of this is absolutely horrific. The court has not clarified anything, really, and has actually maybe made some of this even more complicated going forward. And you add that on to the fact that, you know, in the future, going forward, there's likely no criminal liability for the president in these circumstances because of the court's decision in Trump versus United States. Like, this would, I think, fall into the realm of official acts for which he is not criminally liable. And so that's a problem. And then you layer on top of that, you have the White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt essentially confirming that it may not stop with these

• 33:07Melissa Murray?

  non-citizens, that the administration is actually looking into whether they can expel American citizens to foreign prisons. So take a listen.

• 33:17Speaker 06

  So the president has discussed this idea quite a few times publicly. He's also discussed it privately. You're referring to the president's idea for American citizens to potentially be deported. These would be heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation's laws repeatedly. And these are violent, repeat offenders in American streets. The president has said, if it's legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that, he's not sure. We are not sure if there is. It's an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly as in the effort of transparency.

• 33:51Melissa Murray?

  Basically, Caroline Levitt said this the day after Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion from the court's AEA order, quote, "The implication of the government's position is that not only non-citizens, but also US citizens can be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal." So that's horrifying. And to be very clear, that wouldn't be a deportation or a removal. That is just straight up kidnapping and human trafficking. And apparently, we're looking into it.

• 34:25Kate Shaw?

  Yeah, but looking into it if we can do it legally. And so that, I think, is where the sort of public discourse is so important. Like, no, you can't. There's no way to do it legally. So look into it all you want. The answer is, the set is zero that allows you to do it legally. And everyone needs to be communicating that message in no uncertain terms.

• 34:41Melissa Murray?

  He who saves his country breaks no laws, Kate.

• 34:46Melissa Murray?

  You little optimist. Checkmate.

• 34:50Kate Shaw?

  Well, hopefully not from your lips to God's ears, Melissa. Okay, so Leah, we've all been waiting patiently for you to school us on what the court says about why habeas rather than the Administrative Procedure Act is the right way for these challenges to proceed. So what did the court say about that? And can you count the ways the court was wrong in what it said?

• 35:10Leah Litman?

  The limit does not exist. So the justices say these cases have to go through habeas because the challenges supposedly go to the core of habeas. That is descriptively wrong, and they engage in a wildly misleading, if not flatly wrong, use of the relevant case law. So first, habeas corpus literally means have the body. It is a way of calling into court individuals who are detained and questioning the basis of their detention. And the two primary cases that the procuriam opinion cites as to why these cases fall within the core of habeas, those other cases are about people who were serving state criminal sentences, and how in order to challenge their convictions and sentences, they had to use habeas rather

• 35:52Leah Litman?

  than general civil rights statute. And it's like, yeah, no shit. Like, when you're challenging your criminal conviction and sentence that goes through habeas, but that's not happening here. These individuals are not seeking like relief or release from a sentence or conviction. And the procuriam opinion refuses to acknowledge other cases where they have previously said that challenging removal and specifically transfers to another country cannot happen in habeas. So the court's recent decision in Thoreysagiam had said, quote, "Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention." And what these individuals wanted was not simple release, but an order requiring them to be brought to this country. Claims

• 36:36Leah Litman?

  so far outside the core of habeas may not be pursued through habeas. Then there is the court's previous decision in Munaf, where the court said habeas is not appropriate when claimants seek to preclude transfer to another sovereign, so that there they may face criminal charges. And the court once again reiterated that habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention, and that the typical remedy for such detention is release, quote. But here, the last thing petitioners want is simple release. Right. They're not challenging their detentions as the habeas petitioners in these other cases were doing, right? No, many are not even challenging their removability. They are just challenging whether they can be summarily expelled under the AEA. They're not saying the government can't detain them for immigration reasons.

• 37:21Leah Litman?

  They're not saying the government can't remove them. It's just you can't summarily expel me under the AEA. And of course, because we are in the worst timeline, we got a calve currents in that AEA case. That was like, sure, like I'm making it harder to challenge wildly illegal extraordinary renditions to a foreign torture prison. But I'm still a reasonable, nice guy. It's a paraphrase, but like he cited.

• 37:47Melissa Murray?

  He also said, I am a father of daughters.

• 37:49Leah Litman?

  Yeah, he cited this case Lubu to say that in extradition and foreign transfers, habeas is the appropriate vehicle. But Lubu was an extradition case and said that removal challenges didn't have to go through habeas. It's like, this is why I thought, like, are you being intentionally specious?

• 38:09Melissa Murray?

  Well, the question about whether they're being intentionally specious continues to dog us. So let's circle back to what all of this means for the court and what it might say about the court's posture toward the Trump administration and whether it will be in a position to hold this administration accountable. So one very distinct possibility is that maybe the Republican justices are just not that concerned with what the Trump administration is doing. They're just not alarmed by the fact that the government is disappearing people from the United States. Because if you were actually concerned, you probably wouldn't make it more difficult to challenge those disappearances and removals.

• 38:50Melissa Murray?

  Justice Sotomayor basically wrote this in her dissent from the court's AEA order. She said, quote, "History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this nation's system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable their rise," end quote.

• 39:06Leah Litman?

  And another possibility is, as we were alluding to before, these are face-saving measures. You know, they allow the administration to do what it's doing without the court having to say what the administration is doing is legal, but the justices are making it impossible to remedy or enforce any legal requirements, at least completely or meaningfully. I think that is a through line in the AEA case, Abrego-Garcia case, and the Department of Education case. And, you know, I wanted to also flag like another explanation that Justice Jackson had alluded to in her dissent from the court's ruling in the Department of Education case. So she wrote, quote, "Other than paving the way for the plaintiff state's immediate

• 39:47Leah Litman?

  suffering, it appears that the primary effect of today's emergency stay is to hand the government an early win, a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle," end quote. She's basically saying like the court is, once again, in the bag for Trump, trying to help him with optics by balancing out their rulings. And again, that is gross.

• 40:09Kate Shaw?

  It also felt like this week might have provided new meaning to the Chief Justice's statement that the proper course for rulings you disagree with isn't impeachment but appeal. Right? Remember, people interpreted that statement at the time as a clear rebuke of Donald Trump. But you do have to wonder after this week whether that hits a little bit different. Like, was the Chief Justice just saying, "Don't make all this fuss about impeachment, bud. We will just correct the rulings for you if you follow the orderly appeals course." And that kind of interpretation called to mind the exchange between Trump and the Chief Justice from the State of the Union, which we will replay here to refresh your recollection. Thank you again. Thank you again. Won't forget. It's so good.

• 40:52Leah Litman?

  Never forget.

• 40:53Kate Shaw?

  Nope.

• 40:54Leah Litman?

  Yeah. So want to emphasize that in these orders, you know, both the overall AEA case and the Abrego-Garcia case, there is no mention of the government's conduct in these cases. And the fact that the government has been obstructing courts, in some cases, not complying with court orders, and that just does not seem to have entered the calculus about whether the government was entitled to extraordinary relief or whether the court should make an assertive stand rather than cower, right, in the face of these threats to the rule of law.

• 41:27Melissa Murray?

  That's actually a really good point, Leah, that these orders are public records where you document what is happening and the court has sort of abdicated its role as sort of the scribe for this moment by just glossing over that.

• 41:42Leah Litman?

  Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Cozy Earth. What makes Cozy Earth different? Cozy Earth is here to help you turn your home into a sanctuary, a place of peace and comfort away from the demands of daily life. They know how important it is to recharge after a long day, and your evenings should be all about relaxation, unwinding, and true rejuvenation. With Cozy Earth, you can create a space that feels luxurious, where serenity and comfort go hand in hand. They offer temperature regulation. Cozy Earth sheets are so breathable, you'll sleep several degrees cooler. They also use enhanced fabric, the durable weave fabric, so it won't pill. It's guaranteed for 10 years. And the fabric is super, superior soft.

• 42:23Leah Litman?

  The ultimate ingredient for a luxurious sleep is that softness, and Cozy Earth's use of only the best fabrics and textiles enhances that. Cozy Earth also provides itself on the responsible production of all of its products. And Cozy Earth bedding products have a 100-night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty. That's how much Cozy Earth believes in them. I really love our bamboo sheet set. Once we use them, we've never stopped. They help you sleep like it truly matters, and it does. And also, since January 2025, for no apparent reason, I've had some problems sleeping. Total coincidence. But the Cozy Earth sheets are so soothing, soft, cool, and breathable, they've really helped. They really are designed to restore, refresh, and revitalize you every night.

• 43:07Leah Litman?

  And every morning, I still wake up and put on my Cozy Earth bamboo jogger shirt to do my physical therapy exercises in the smoothest buttery fabric that makes up for the fact that I am having to do PT. Still on the fence? Try Cozy Earth risk-free for 100 nights. Love it or send it back, no questions asked. Plus, every bedding product comes with a 10-year warranty for long-lasting comfort. Make sleep a priority now. Visit cozylearth.com and use my exclusive code SCRUTNY for up to 40% off Cozy Earth's best-selling sheets, towels, pajamas, and more. That's cozylearth.com code SCRUTNY. And if you get a post-purchase survey, tell them you heard about Cozy Earth right here.

• 43:46Speaker 07

  On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents Live Election Results. We're going to have Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3rd, at 9:00 PM Eastern, 6:00 PM Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.

• 44:32Melissa Murray?

  So SCOTUS hasn't just been on the immigration beat. It's also been doing a lot of other stuff. So the court stayed the district court's injunction in the case challenging the Office of Personnel Management's directive to fire thousands of federal workers. That was a decision out of the Northern District of California, and it required the federal government to rehire thousands of employees. That decision is no longer in effect. The court said that the plaintiff nonprofit organizations that brought the case had failed to establish standing in that case, meaning they had not established that they'd suffered a cognizable injury because of the government's actions. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson noted their dissents in that order.

• 45:15Melissa Murray?

  And at least for some period, other injunctions on similar issues were still in effect. That is, until the Fourth Circuit stayed the order requiring the federal government to rehire federal workers in a case out of Maryland.

• 45:27Kate Shaw?

  Okay, we now want to just quickly take through some general legal culture. One, just a note that we haven't made in the Abrego-Garcia case. DOJ put on administrative leave the lawyer in the Immigration Division who conceded that Abrego-Garcia was erroneously deported and also said during a hearing that he was asking the federal government to secure his return. This was apparently impermissible from the perspective of the political leadership at DOJ, who put him on leave as well as his supervisor for ostensibly failing to supervise a subordinate. The message is clear, and it is chilling. The only obligation DOJ attorneys have at this point in time is to toe the party line.

• 46:08Melissa Murray?

  It also seems that Stephen Miller has filed something in the Supreme Court. We're just joking. That not really Stephen Noel. Are we? I don't know. You'll see. So John Sauer, the lawyer who argued for President Trump in his immunity case before the Supreme Court, was recently confirmed as Solicitor General. Yes, we continue to be in the absolute worst timeline. And one of his first filings before the court as SG was a brief requesting relief from the lower court's decision ordering the government to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States. And the brief reads like a kind of Stephen Miller slash Andrew Tate, Melange slash Fever Dream slash fugue state.

• 46:51Melissa Murray?

  And after those two got in and wrote the substance of it, some DOJ lawyers apparently decided to step in and make it look lawyerly by adding some footnotes and citations. The brief describes Mr. Abrego Garcia as, quote, "a verified member of MS-13," which would still not make him subject to the Alien Enemies Act. It also provides no evidence for that statement. And indeed, the Fourth Circuit said that the government, quote, "presented no evidence to the district court to connect Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any other criminal organization," end quote. And the government subsequently abandoned its position that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community at that district court hearing. So my bad, no props.

• 47:35Leah Litman?

  Yeah. So the Associated Press also obtained the two-page memo in which Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who Democrats unanimously confirmed, laid out Rubio's rationale for determining why lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil's presence in the United States poses an adverse threat or force to United States foreign policy. Khalil is the Columbia student, the lawful permanent resident, who was swept off the street. The memo comes close to admitting, or at least strongly implies, they are expelling Khalil for his beliefs. We had expected the administration would try to manipulate things and obscure that they were deporting him for speech and ideas. And instead, they seem more comfortable just cozying up to full

• 48:18Leah Litman?

  On censorship and viewpoint discrimination, it says, quote, "participation and roles," end quote, "in protest," which they characterize as anti-Semitic, but we know that is partially tied to the substance of the views being expressed at the protests, are what justifies Khalil's removal. And it goes on to confirm that by suggesting Khalil's presence is inconsistent with United States policy on antisemitism. And then ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, decided to just become full-on thought police, you know, posting and then deleting from social media that they were stopping illegal, quote, "ideas" from entering the country.

• 48:52Kate Shaw?

  Another development, the full DC Circuit reinstated a lower court decision that had blocked the administration from firing the heads of multi-member commissions. So those firings definitely violate congressional statutes that are constitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's executor. The two-on DC Circuit panel had effectively decided that Humphrey's executor, which upheld independent multi-member commissions like the FTC and the NLRB, was no longer good law. So, good news, though short-lived. The en banc Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit recognized that Humphrey's is still the law of the land. And that lasted for just a minute because then Chief Justice Roberts subsequently stayed at that en banc ruling.

• 49:31Leah Litman?

  So this issue, the future of Humphrey's executor and independent multi-member commissions, is certainly headed to the Supreme Court.

• 49:40Melissa Murray?

  Seems like a perfect time, given all of the great economic activity we've been engaged in, and how our economy is like booming and we're making America great again through tariffs. Like, seems like a really good time to revisit Humphrey's executor and maybe take down the Fed.

• 49:54Leah Litman?

  Yeah, let's liberate ourselves from a stable economy in multiple ways.

• 49:59Melissa Murray?

  Yeah, sounds good.

• 50:00Kate Shaw?

  John Roberts is on it.

• 50:01Leah Litman?

  Liberation month, liberation year.

• 50:05Melissa Murray?

  We're joking, obviously, because if the Supreme Court did overrule Humphrey's executor, that would open up the president to the possibility of firing members of the Fed, which really would, I think, devastate the economy.

• 50:18Kate Shaw?

  Well, it certainly opens up the possibility. Although, of course, as Elena Kagan recently said, ah, maybe they'll find a way to exempt the Fed from whatever ruling they hand down because it's just too important or whatever. So we will see.

• 50:30Leah Litman?

  Or whatever.

• 50:32Kate Shaw?

  But the possibility is absolutely out there. The Supreme Court could say things that, by their terms, definitely either throw into question or doom Fed independence at this moment in our national and global lives.

• 50:43Melissa Murray?

  So if the tariffs won't do it, overruling Humphrey's executor will.

• 50:47Leah Litman?

  Yeah, make America great again.

• 50:49Speaker 05

  Indeed.

• 50:50Leah Litman?

  So, of course, of course, of course, of course, after we wrapped recording on Friday, we got a late Friday night decision, really a Friday night democracy massacre out of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which we previously referred to as the new YOLO Court rising. The decision came in the lawsuit by Jefferson Griffin, the person who ran for and lost an election for North Carolina Supreme Court Justice, and is now seeking to disenfranchise thousands of voters and steal a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an utterly outlandish, horrifying decision by a four to two vote, the North Carolina Supreme Court disenfranchised throughout the votes of a few thousand voters.

• 51:31Leah Litman?

  The court said that these few thousand votes from military and overseas voters would be retroactively nullified unless the voters provided their photo identification in the next 30 days. The decision is wildly illegal. It is basically January 6th in robes. As Justice Anita Earls wrote in dissent, quote, "It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast. Some would call it stealing the election. Others might call it a bloodless coup. But by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate." End quote. As Justice Earls indicates, and as we've said before, the North Carolina Supreme Court decision embraced an argument that retroactively changes the rules after an election.

• 52:15Leah Litman?

  The voters, when they voted, were not told they had to include driver's licenses or photo IDs, so they didn't. And now the North Carolina Supreme Court says, "We're going to throw out your vote because it doesn't comply with a rule we just discovered after an election that the Republican candidate just happened to lose." That is basically the prototypical example of a due process violation, being deprived of liberty without due process, without notice. If that weren't enough, the North Carolina Supreme Court embraced this challenge, which only concerned voters in a few counties. Which counties, you ask? No surprise, Democratic-leaning ones. Applying different rules to voters in different parts of the state

• 52:58Leah Litman?

  is, again, almost definitionally, a denial of equal protection of the law. So another federal constitutional violation.

• 53:06Leah Litman?

  Justice Allison Riggs, the person who won the election for North Carolina Supreme Court Justice, has already moved for a preliminary injunction, an expedited briefing schedule in federal court in a case challenging the state court's nullification of votes. Other lawsuits, perhaps by disenfranchised voters, maybe by the North Carolina Board of Elections, might follow. But this decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court is unlikely to be the last word. It's likely that federal courts and ultimately the United States Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court decision nullifying thousands of votes and stealing an election will stand. So stay tuned for the next big shadow docket decision. Is illegal for courts to steal elections for Republicans? We are about to find out.

• 53:51Kate Shaw?

  Okay, we got one more truly bizarre executive order that we wanted to flag. This one rescinds regulations defining showerheads, accusing along the way the Biden administration of making the water pressure not so great. And so our showers worse. And this is the part that we wanted to flag. The executive order said, quote, "Notice and comment is unnecessary because I am ordering the repeal. The rescission will be effective in 30 days." So that's not how it works ever, right? The administration is not supposed to be able to just say, "We don't want to do notice and comment rulemaking. The president gets a pass." But, you know, they've made clear they think executive orders can override statutes.

• 54:33Kate Shaw?

  And so I guess they're just doing explicitly what they have implicitly done in many executive orders. But they also issued another executive order saying notice and comment isn't necessary if they rescind a regulation on the basis that they think the regulation is illegal. So.

• 54:49Leah Litman?

  Yeah. And, you know, Kate mentioned this is just part of a pattern of them asserting that executive orders can trump statutes. And is this just the latest iteration of the unitary executive theory, where the executive is unitary, right? Not just across time and space, but also unitary in that it gets not just the executive power, but also the legislative power, too? This truly would be another reason why it's a great time for the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey's executive and go all in on presidential power and the unitary executive theory. That, too, is a joke. Okay, so before we go, I wanted to give a brief shout out to a student I met at Heswick, Brooklyn College, Matthew. We talked about his evolution and his views about the court and the law. And it was really wonderful to hear.

• 55:33Leah Litman?

  And on my trip back, I wanted to give a shout out to Todd, who I met on the airport shuttle and is apparently a friend of the pod. So, thank you both for listening.

• 55:43Melissa Murray?

  That's the news, all the news we have time for today. We obviously could have done more on tariffs, but you know how that went. We'll come back to it at another time. But right now, we have an absolutely terrific conversation with Deborah Archer about her new fantastic book, which drops tomorrow, Dividing Lives. So that's up next.

• 56:08Leah Litman?

  Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Fast Growing Trees. Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the United States? With thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers, they have all the plants your yard needs, like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered. Find the perfect fit for your climate and your space. Fast Growing Trees makes it super easy to get your dream yard. You can order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. Their Alive and Thrive Guarantee also ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus, get support from their trained plant experts, who are on call to help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants,

• 56:52Leah Litman?

  and learn how to care for them. When we moved to Michigan, our backyard was a mess. We basically had to get half of it completely torn up, and that's super expensive. And then we didn't really know what to do with it when we were starting afresh. And I am super excited to rebuild it, still a work in progress, with Fast Growing Trees. Fast Growing Trees has over 6,000 plants to fit in any space. And their 14-point quality checklist ensures you're getting the best quality plants possible. Whether you're looking to add privacy, shade, or natural beauty, Fast Growing Trees has in-house experts, ready to help you make the right selection with plant experts on call to offer growing and care advice. This spring, they have the best deals for your yard, up to half off on select plants and other deals.

• 57:36Leah Litman?

  And listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code SCRUTNY at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code SCRUTNY at checkout. Fastgrowingtrees.com code SCRUTNY. Now's the perfect time to plant. Use SCRUTNY to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.

• 58:00Melissa Murray?

  On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents Live Election Results. We're going to have Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3 at 9:00 PM Eastern, 6:00 PM Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.

• 58:48Leah Litman?

  As you know, we've been very interested in all of the ways that Real World/Road Rules alum/Lumberjack/Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is reorganizing our roadways and airways to make America great again/make planes fall from the skies. But I'm not sure we've even scratched the surface of how this administration might use the Department of Transportation to further entrench inequality in the United States, in part because I'm not sure we think about all of the ways that, to date, transportation infrastructure policy has helped to entrench inequality in our society.

• 59:19Melissa Murray?

  Which is why we have invited today Deborah Archer to join us. Deborah is my colleague at NYU, where she is the Margaret B. Hoppin Professor of Clinical Law, the Associate Dean for Experiential Education and Clinical Programs, and the Faculty Director of the Community Equity Initiative. She also happens to be the President of the American Civil Liberties Union. You know them as the ACLU. And, most importantly, for our purposes today, Deborah is the author of a terrific new book called Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequality. Welcome to District Scrutiny, Deborah. Thank you for having me. This is so weird, Deborah. It's like you're my work wife, and now you're my other job.

• 59:59Speaker 08

  You, I am, I am the best work wife to ever do it.

• 1:00:02Leah Litman?

  You are. Like, I'm in a conjugal podcast. I'm in a work conjugal podcast. Just like, you know, our, our episodes with Chris are kind of conjugal podcasts, so.

• 1:00:12Melissa Murray?

  She's talking about Chris Hayes, our former roadie, who's really done well for himself and at MSNBC. But we occasionally do crossover pods.

• 1:00:21Speaker 08

  I'm sorry, Lea, that I'm, I am definitely work wife number one. I'm sorry.

• 1:00:24Leah Litman?

  She really is. It's okay. I'm not in New York. I'm not in New York. I recognize that, that that has certain consequences for me. So it is what it is. But.

• 1:00:35Melissa Murray?

  Don't worry, Lea.

• 1:00:35Leah Litman?

  Maybe we can shift to the book now and leave work wife talk for a second? No, okay, we can stay on work wife.

• 1:00:42Melissa Murray?

  If you're jealous, Lea, just say so. You don't have to be so snarky about it.

• 1:00:46Leah Litman?

  You know I have intense FOMO when you and Kate talk about planning things in New York. So my FOMO is already through the roof, which is why I'm very happy to have the chance to actually be able to talk to Deborah and about her book as well.

• 1:01:00Melissa Murray?

  I'll allow it.

• 1:01:01Leah Litman?

  Okay. Thank you, Melissa. Over the last 10 years, the progressive community has talked a lot about structural inequality. But a lot of those conversations have focused on the enduring impact of historic inequalities like enslavement and segregation, like the continuing effects of, you know, long ago practices. But in dividing lines, you argue that the literal structure of inequality is all around us. In the highways and streets that we travel and the way our public transportation is routed. So if the literal infrastructure of our lives has contributed to our unequal society, why have we failed to notice it?

• 1:01:37Speaker 08

  People often focus on government-sponsored segregation, such as racial covenants and redlining. But when we expand our understanding of what government-sponsored actions contributed to segregation, it's clear that it's not just these invisible lines that were created by local, state and federal law that are dividing us. It's also the physical, the literal lines that run through and around our communities. And there are lines that may seem innocuous or practical or necessary or natural.

• 1:02:09Speaker 08

  But they're really part of the architecture of racial inequality. The nation's transportation system is an essential element of that architecture.

• 1:02:19Leah Litman?

  Just to give an example, you know, from a prior conversation we had when we talked to Michelle Adams about her book, The Containment, she brought up a literal segregation wall, you know, that existed to separate different neighborhoods in Detroit. So Deborah, could you give just like another example, maybe to make it concrete for our listeners about some of the ways in which, you know, either public transportation or like infrastructure kind of segregates along racial lines?

• 1:02:44Speaker 08

  Our highways, our roads, our trains, they represented progress and mobility and connection, but they've also served as tools of displacement and exclusion for Black communities. And in the 20th century, many city officials used transportation infrastructure as a powerful tool to enforce white supremacy. So as the civil rights movement began to win victories and segregationists could no longer consistently rely on the law to enforce racial hierarchy, communities around the country began to rely on transportation infrastructure, on highways and public transportation and roads to do that work of oppression and exclusion and division. You know, mentioning Michelle's work around education, one of the connections is the

• 1:03:29Speaker 08

  decision in Brown versus Board of Education. So Brown versus Board of Education, as I'm sure all of your listeners know, was decided in 1954, and it held that separate education by races could not be constitutional, separate could never be equal. And we know the ways that state and local officials showed that they were going to use every tool available to them to hold on to their way of life. They were going to go to extreme methods. So against this backdrop of Brown versus Board of Education in 1954, we have the Interstate Highway Act. Passed in nineteen fifty-six. And that facilitated the creation of our highway system.

• 1:04:09Speaker 08

  And rather than building our highway system against this backdrop of the promise of connection and equality, instead, it was built as a segregationist tool. And in the book, Dividing Lines, I tell the story of highways in Birmingham, Alabama, in Atlanta, Georgia, in Indianapolis, Indiana, in Nashville, Tennessee, and in Miami, Florida, which were all powerful examples of how the highway became a tool of a post-Jim Crow segregationist agenda. Communities were explicit, they were going to build a highway in this location in order to continue their their way of life.

• 1:04:46Melissa Murray?

  So, Deborah, can I can I pick up on that? You know, the cities that you just mentioned, Birmingham, Miami, they're all southern cities. But you actually begin the book on a personal note in Hartford, Connecticut, where you grew up, and you talk about your family's decision to leave inner-city Hartford for a home in the suburbs of Hartford in the nineteen seventies. And again, this is after the Supreme Court has formally dismantled segregation, and it's in the north. But you talk about how your family really experienced this legacy of transportation and justice and continued to experience it for some time. So could you say more about how your family's own experience shaped your approach to this book and some of the problems that you chronicle?

• 1:05:32Speaker 08

  Transportation shaped us, our communities, there in a way that people often think about. We were surrounded by highways, surrounded by major roadways. Our streets weren't safe. We lacked access to public transportation that would get us to the opportunities in the suburbs, to the jobs in the suburbs, to the educational opportunities in the suburbs. And having highways and roadways crisscrossing our community had impacts on on health and well-being, on happiness. I talk about not being able to ride my bike in the street because we had cars racing up and down. We didn't have. Walkable sidewalks.

• 1:06:16Speaker 08

  And eventually, my family was able to save money and navigate the invisible lines that we had that divided folks, right? Uh, when they tried to move, they weren't shown various houses. They were continually showed houses only in black communities. Uh, they were having trouble getting a mortgage, but they were able to eventually cross that um invisible line. And get us to a suburb, Windsor, Connecticut. It showed how disconnected suburbs are from cities. Cause we were having difficult time getting back to seeing our family and friends in Hartford. Because the bus didn't want to um stop in Hartford. They didn't want to connect the suburbs to to the city.

• 1:06:56Speaker 08

  Uh, it made it difficult uh for us to, my father to get to work, for example, without um, buying a car because the public transportation wasn't available. When I was uh writing this book and talked to people about this research, a common refrain was, it's just a road. And I think that's the reaction I got. It's the reaction that Secretary Buttigieg received when he talked about these issues as well. And certainly, it's just a road unless your community is the one that targeted. It's your homes um and community institutions and businesses that were destroyed. Um, it's just a road if it's if it's not your people and community being robbed of wealth and economic foundation.

• 1:07:37Speaker 08

  And it's just a road if it's not you who's having difficulty just living your life and getting to the essential components of of of our lives.

• 1:07:47Leah Litman?

  So, in the book, you acknowledge that many groups have been harmed by transportation policies. Um, but you made the choice to focus on the harms done to the black community in particular. Can you tell us why you made that choice and what we might say about the impact of transportation injustice on other marginalized groups?

• 1:08:03Speaker 08

  White supremacy depends on black people knowing what we perceive to be their place in the social hierarchy and then staying there. And it's been clear throughout history that one of the most effective means that white supremacy had of ensuring that black people knew their place socially was to keep them in their place physically, penning them in, constraining their movement, determining where they can or cannot live, or walk, or rest, or play. And transportation has played a critical role in that. I think that you can't tell the story of Americans' second reconstruction without mentioning the 1954 Montbomry bus boycott, the Freedom Riders,

• 1:08:45Speaker 08

  who tested the right to interstate travel. Few communities have the stories to tell that black communities do of the way that the governor of the state promises explicitly to white communities that we're going to use this highway to keep you safe from black migration. Or in Birmingham, Alabama, where the highway replaced racial zoning laws. So they had racial zoning laws that said black people could live on this side of the street and white people had to live on the other side of the street. And when racial zoning laws were struck down, they replaced that tool with highways. And in many places along I-59 and I-65, the highway follows the exact lines of the racial zoning laws.

• 1:09:28Melissa Murray?

  And now, as you note, and I think it's a really powerful rejoinder to those who want to sort of think about the structure of racism being mostly an historic event, we are continually building on those histories and re-inscribing them, often through transportation policy. But you also note that transportation infrastructure choices actually blunt efforts to turn the tide on racial discrimination. So you talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and both of these measures were statutes intended to fuel social integration, to break down racial barriers. And you suggest in the book

• 1:10:11Melissa Murray?

  that what really undermines them is transportation policy, and no one really appreciates the way that that happens. So can you say more about how?

• 1:10:21Speaker 08

  So even as we've tried to take other methods to ensure integration, to use the Fair Housing Act and other tools to challenge racial segregation, segregated laws, to challenge redlining. Uh, to challenge discrimination around mortgage lending. It is as if the, the folks who built our transportation infrastructure, the highways, the roads, public transportation, um, even, um, pedestrian infrastructure, knew that there was some kind of a genius in using these physical tools, uh, to perpetuate the exclusionary impact, understanding that a highway or a road would outlast existing laws that were facilitating

• 1:11:06Speaker 08

  racial exclusion in case they might get struck down.

• 1:11:08Melissa Murray?

  Yeah.

• 1:11:09Speaker 08

  But also was able to skirt future laws that promoted integration. So while we have, uh, the Fair Housing Act and other laws, helping us to provide tools to integrate our communities, transportation infrastructure still keeps people locked out and left behind. It still keeps economic opportunity from coming into predominantly black communities. It makes it difficult for people to move to suburbs where there are better education opportunities, where it's safer, if they can't catch a train to get back into, into work into the city where the economic opportunity. That's the, one of the challenges that my family faced when we moved from Hartford to Windsor.

• 1:11:53Leah Litman?

  Just picking up on that, what you were saying about transportation policy being so permanent that it blunts the effect of pro-integration measures made me think of a case that the court is actually hearing this term, Louisiana versus Calais, and you know, how it draws from Allen versus Milligan, because in those cases, the court, of course, is considering the Voting Rights Act and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and you have some justices suggesting that maybe Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should sunset, such that we don't actually need race-conscious redistricting measures, as if, right?

• 1:12:23Melissa Murray?

  We're in a post-racial world, Leah. I think you need to get hip to that.

• 1:12:26Leah Litman?

  Right, well, there's that, but one way in which, like, it is just ludicrous to imagine districting without kind of some race consciousness is because, like, if you have infrastructure actually dividing states, localities, municipalities along lines of race, then it's a fool's errand, right, to try to think about traditional districting criteria without being cognizant of how they draw from and replicate existing

• 1:12:57Leah Litman?

  Racial hierarchies, right, and segregation. So, I, I, sorry, that just kind of connected in my mind, Deborah. But could you talk more about some of the lasting impacts of transportation and justice on our society and how this might play out in everyday life?

• 1:13:10Speaker 08

  When you were talking about the voting piece of it, there are cases where part of the defense in how they're drawing lines is because that's where the highway is. That's where these major roadways are, without acknowledging that those highways served a discriminatory purpose, that they divided communities in half, that they separated black folks from white folks. And so, kind of building on that by defining our voting districts based on those regulatory infrastructure is, is really problematic. But thinking about the lingering impacts today, these wildly successful efforts to segregate our communities by race, using transportation infrastructure, has led to disproportionate environmental threats.

• 1:13:55Speaker 08

  It has led to poor physical conditions within communities, a lack of access to many of the traditional levers of success within predominantly black communities and other communities of color. Because after racial segregation became the official, and then the unofficial law of the land, based on transportation infrastructure, many black communities then faced systemic underinvestment in their communities, right? They viewed that highway, that road, as a line of demarcation, not just for the residents not to cross, but it was also the line where communities weren't going to pick up the trash. It was also the line where we weren't going to fix your water infrastructure.

• 1:14:37Speaker 08

  And, and so, it facilitated this underinvestment that wreaked havoc on communities, stripping them of wealth and health and opportunity. So after decades of living in communities that were built on a foundation of structural racism, entire communities now are suffering from the concentration of poverty and disadvantage. It's a thread that connects the, all the residents that are living there. It's interconnected environmental, economic, social, and political vulnerabilities that leave these communities without resilience, without resources, without access to opportunity.

• 1:15:16Melissa Murray?

  So can I ask a question, I guess, about how do you respond as a civil rights lawyer to those kinds of injuries, some of which I think are very clearly quantified and some that may be more in coattail? You've brought a lot of litigation in the course of your career. You've been a lawyer with the ACLU, you've been a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and now you run a clinic. How do you challenge the kinds of injuries that arise from transportation injustice when the fact of a highway may on its face appear to be a very neutral kind of enterprise?

• 1:15:54Speaker 08

  Some of the civil rights tools that we have today are simply not designed to help address these challenges. So there are powerful laws, the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, the Fair Housing Act, are all really powerful in many ways and have been able to facilitate racial justice and inclusion for Black communities. But they really aren't up to the task of challenging inequality in our transportation system. One, because they take the inequality that we experience today as a neutral baseline, and they're looking at what we're layering on it without really taking into consideration

• 1:16:37Speaker 08

  everything that's happened over decades and decades. What's really going to help these communities is for us to get ahead of those decisions, engage them, involve them, and put racial justice at the core from the beginning. And as I'm sure you all know, those laws are often looking for a smoking gun or focused on intentional discrimination. They want to identify the bad actor, and that's really not the way that transportation infrastructure decisions work. I think a shift in national transportation policy, including reimagining how we use transportation infrastructure to serve and support communities of color, is important. We need to do the work to unearth and address the racism that's deeply embedded in transportation

• 1:17:21Speaker 08

  policy and redress the decades of harm. On the point of community decision-making, we need to explore the dynamics and models of community control to make sure that all of the stakeholders are at the table and have a meaningful opportunity to shape what's happening in their community and to their community.

• 1:17:42Melissa Murray?

  So Deborah, you just said something and it reminded me of an opinion that Justice Clarence Thomas wrote as a dissent to the court's decision in Kelo versus City of New London. Kelo was a very prominent eminent domain case. The City of New London used eminent domain to seize property in order to do a redevelopment project of an area of New London that had, according to the city, become quite blighted. And the court upheld the use of eminent domain in that context. And Justice Thomas wrote this dissent that was very racially inflected, although race wasn't a central issue in Kelo. And he argued in that dissent

• 1:18:22Melissa Murray?

  that it's often black communities that are on the receiving end of the short stick of redevelopment. They always get the dregs of this. These redevelopment projects are done in the name of improving communities, but the black community rarely, if ever, gets to benefit from this. He's making a very racialized argument. How do you think someone like him would respond to the arguments that you're making in dividing lines about the entrenched racialized nature of transportation policy? Because he is often a justice who can't see the disparate impact of seemingly race neutral policies, but it seemed clear

• 1:19:04Melissa Murray?

  in Kelo that he understood the impact of redevelopment on certain communities.

• 1:19:09Speaker 08

  Yeah. And eminent domain and urban renewal went hand in hand, right? And leading us to this place where we have public transportation system, where we have highways that have targeted black communities and have removed wealth from those black communities. Because with eminent domain, the government's exercising its power to take your private property for public use. They say that they're going to give you just compensation, but for black folks, that compensation was never just. It was never enough. And so it worked hand in hand with those urban renewal programs to destroy and remove black communities and black wealth. Just thinking about...

• 1:19:51Speaker 08

  The impact that urban renewal and eminent domain had on black communities. James Baldwin, in a speech that he gave, said that urban renewal means Negro removal. And that is because, as you say, Justice Thomas articulated, black communities were disproportionately targeted. And so I love that he recognizes that black communities were disproportionately targeted. But the disconnect is then that you don't understand the reason why you have to focus on race in order to repair that harm. It cannot be that we know that race was the tool that created this system, that race was the common thread, the intent to hurt black communities and black people, but then

• 1:20:33Speaker 08

  not think that we cannot consider racial equity in crafting the solutions.

• 1:20:39Leah Litman?

  So, since around, I don't know, November 6th or so, ideally it should have been happening earlier, we have been talking a lot about what it takes to have and maintain a thriving, multi-racial, inclusive democracy. And throughout the book, you focus on the way that transportation justice is a necessary precondition for democracy. Of course, under the last administration, Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the Department of Transportation, was more attentive to the role that infrastructure can play in contributing to inequality and remedying inequality. Now, under a new administration, things are likely to be different. So what are some ways that you foresee this administration using transportation policy to make America great again? And what can ordinary people do to fight back? Fight back against all that greatness. Yeah.

• 1:21:24Leah Litman?

  No re-gratening.

• 1:21:25Speaker 08

  During his confirmation hearing, Secretary Duffy's only reference to racial justice was to criticize diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring efforts in the transportation industry. He did not address transportation's role in perpetuating racial inequality.

• 1:21:46Speaker 08

  Or its potential to expand opportunity, or what they were going to do in order to, you know, reconnect communities, um, to make-

• 1:21:54Leah Litman?

  Can I interject really quickly, just right here? I know one of the first things Secretary of Duffy did was adopt his own little DEI policy, in which he said he wanted to allocate highway funds, in particular, to communities with higher marital and natural birth rates. Um, that is its own kind of thing.

• 1:22:10Speaker 08

  But we, we have all of these policies that are seemingly neutral on their face that will have a racial impact, well, which will deepen racial inequality, because those communities are not going to get the, the funds that they need and deserve and were promised. So the Trump administration has initiated, as you know, this comprehensive review and suspension of certain programs within the bipartisan infrastructure law, particularly those emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion, those focused on environmental justice, those focused on racial equity. And there was an executive order that directed federal agencies to pause disbursement of funds that were already promised to communities.

• 1:22:55Speaker 08

  The current administration is redirecting funds away from programs that are designed to address racial equity and support underserved communities. But as we rebuild, we have a choice to make. We can make a choice that exacerbates past harms by continuing to make infrastructure development choices that benefit some communities at the expense of others, or we can choose a new path and use this opportunity, this crossroads in the American transportation system, uh, to build America's transportation infrastructure differently, to, as they say, build back better. And there's nothing that this administration has said that brings me comfort in believing

• 1:23:39Speaker 08

  that they're going to center these questions and concerns, center these communities, as we engage in this, um, large-scale reinvestment in transportation.

• 1:23:51Melissa Murray?

  Okay, well, that's grim, Deborah. We try to end these episodes on a somewhat hopeful note, although, as you've suggested with that last answer, it's really getting hard to do these days, but I'm going to persist nonetheless. Can you tell us what brought you to this fight and what's keeping you in it and what gives you hope that ultimately we will prevail?

• 1:24:16Speaker 08

  So what's giving me hope is the same thing that brought me to this work, and it is communities who want to fight back together, who have come together to dream of something different, who want to build something different, and they're willing to do the work to fight for something different. And so they're using incredibly creative mechanisms in their communities to get people involved, to get us to focus on these issues, and to force change. And they've had such incredible impact. There are stories of success all around the country, stories of communities like those in Indianapolis and those in Rochester

• 1:24:58Speaker 08

  that are fighting new highway projects and forcing them to be built in a way that respects the integrity, the history, that values the community, that values the health and well-being of the people who live there. And there are communities like those in New Orleans and other communities around the country that are reclaiming harmful infrastructure projects and turning them into something beautiful, into places of art and community and gathering, places where they are coming together for community markets and community events, holding yoga sessions underneath an overpass that has harmed the community for decades, but they're trying to bring something beautiful and positive to it. And if those communities

• 1:25:40Speaker 08

  can wake up every day and say that they're going to demand better and fight for better, demand more, then the least that we can do is to join them in that fight and bring the tools that we have to support their efforts to live joy-filled lives, to live choice-filled lives. To live happy and healthy lives.

• 1:26:01Leah Litman?

  That is a terrific note to end on. Again, the book is called Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequality, and it drops tomorrow, Tuesday, April 15th. So make sure you run out to your favorite bookstore to grab your copy. Deborah Archer, thank you so much for this terrific book and this really illuminating conversation.

• 1:26:20Speaker 08

  Thank you for having me.

• 1:26:22Leah Litman?

  Finally, let's end with some things we read and liked this past week. So I will start. Deborah Archer's Dividing Lines. Also, in the last week, the signs that I read at the hands-off protests were fantastic. Some of my personal favorites were so bad or so messed up, even introverts showed up. I felt very seen by that. Also liked, they're eating the checks, they're eating the balances, and we're all the couch now. So those were just some. And then two other pieces, one in the nation called Why Universities Must Start Litigating and How by David Pozen, Ryan Doerfler, and Sam Baggins-Dos. And then another related one, Adam Unikowski had a post at his Substack, The Case for Suing.

• 1:27:07Kate Shaw?

  I will just throw in two others. One, Princeton's president, Chris Eisgruber, did a Daily interview, the New York Times Daily podcast called The Daily, last week that I thought was excellent. He's really been a singular voice out there, standing up for academic freedom and against this administration's attacks on higher education. I also started reading Michael Lewis's new book, Who is Government? And his last book, maybe he's written others, but a recent book of his called The Fifth Risk was really amazing, sort of peek inside some of the wonderful work done by civil servants in government. And this is kind of a follow-on, and it's also the product of these essays that Lewis and others ran in the Washington Post last year, just about civil servants and the incredible, invisible work that happens inside government. And I think that those kinds of narratives

• 1:27:48Kate Shaw?

  are such an important corrective to the wild mischaracterizations of the work of government that Musk and Doge and this administration are. You know, sort of pushing all the time. So highly recommended.

• 1:28:01Melissa Murray?

  Okay, things that I loved this week, also last week, I just want to give a shout out to both of you for schlepping all the way to Brooklyn. Wasn't much of a slut for you, Kate.

• 1:28:10Kate Shaw?

  Just took a two handed one. But I love doing it.

• 1:28:13Melissa Murray?

  I got on a fucking plane. Yeah, that's true. You did get on a fucking plane.

• 1:28:16Kate Shaw?

  That was big.

• 1:28:17Melissa Murray?

  I just wanted to thank you all and all of the terrific colleagues who showed up to support me for Hess Week. And I really want to thank the folks at Brooklyn College. It was such a delight to be there for the week as the Hess Lecturer in Residence. The students were amazing. The conversations were fantastic. It was truly a high point in what has been a kind of terrible month of all of this happening. So thank you for making that happen. Also want to thank the folks at Berkeley Law, and in particular Dean Erwin Chemerensky, for bringing me back home to Berkeley to be the Hunt Distinguished Lecturer there. Thank you to Reed Hunt and his wife Betsy for endowing that lecture series. And to all of the great Berkeley Law students who came out and revealed themselves as friends of the pod.

• 1:29:02Melissa Murray?

  We love to see you. We love to hear you in our ear holes when you leave us messages and tell us great things about what you're doing and what inspired you to go to law school. So thank you for showing up. I also binged all of White Lotus. Nice. Whoa, oh my gosh. Papa.

• 1:29:21Kate Shaw?

  I haven't, I haven't yet.

• 1:29:22Melissa Murray?

  Well.

• 1:29:23Kate Shaw?

  This season or watch, I haven't watched this season yet.

• 1:29:25Melissa Murray?

  Let me just tell you, you're never going to look at organic vegetables and air conditioning the same way again, Kate. That's all I'm going to say to you. Other things that I'm loving, I read Ruth J Simmons's. She's the former president of Brown University and Prairie View University in Texas. And she has a great memoir called Up Home, and it's absolutely fantastic and really inspiring. So.

• 1:29:49Melissa Murray?

  Those are some things that are getting me through this period. So before we end, we do have some housekeeping notes for you all. In case you missed it, we are going on tour. Tickets for the Bad Decisions Tour 2025 are on sale right now, and we have three fantastic shows planned. So you have three opportunities to see us in the flesh. We will be in Washington DC on May 31st at the Capitol Turnaround. On June 12th, we will be in New York City at Sony Hall. And on October 4th, we will be in Kate's hometown, the second city, the windy city, at the Athenaeum Center to delight you all in the Midwest with our wonderful stylings. I don't even know what else to say. We're

• 1:30:33Melissa Murray?

  coming for you, Chicago, and it's happening on October 4th. Tickets are going fast, so please don't miss out. You can head to crooked.com/events for more information.

• 1:30:44Leah Litman?

  So, Strict Fans, are you looking for more content? Today, I am going to be joining the Friends of the Pod group thread on Discord at 3pm Pacific for an AMA. If you're around, join the conversation and ask me something good, please. If you're not a member, this month only, Crooked is offering a free 30-day trial of the Friends of the Pod subscription. And with your subscription, you will enjoy ad-free episodes of Offline, Love It or Leave It, Pod Save America, and Pod Save the World. Sign up at crooked.com/friends to start your free 30-day trial now.

• 1:31:19Kate Shaw?

  Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production, hosted and executive produced by Lea Littman, Melissa Murray, and me, Kate Shaw. Produced and edited by Melody Rauel. Michael Goldsmith is our associate producer. Audio support from Kyle Seglan and Charlotte Landis. Music by Eddie Cooper. Production support from Madeline Herringer, Katie Long, and Ari Schwartz. Matt DeGroot is our head of production. And thanks to our digital team, Ben Heathcote and Joe Matoski. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on YouTube to catch full episodes. Find us at youtube.com-at-strict-scrutiny-podcast. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe to Strict Scrutiny in your favorite podcast app 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.

• 1:32:10Speaker 07

  On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents: Live Election Results. We're gonna have Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all gonna help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3rd, at 9:00 PM Eastern, 6:00 PM Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.

• 1:32:50Speaker 09

  In business, there's the easy way with Staples or the hard way. Hard means- Jen, did you get the weekend specials menus from the printer by any chance?

• 1:32:57Speaker 05

  No, they said they'll be done on Monday.

• 1:32:58Speaker 09

  But they're weekend specials. Easy means Staples' same-day custom printing, where same day means same day. Hard means- Our new brochures are back from the print place.

• 1:33:07Melissa Murray?

  So how do they look?

• 1:33:08Speaker 09

  Well, our logo is brown.

• 1:33:10Melissa Murray?

  But our logo isn't brown.

• 1:33:12Speaker 09

  It is now. Easy means custom prints, perfectly printed. Don't choose hard, choose Staples. That was Easy. Shop Staples online in-store in the app.