Muse

Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And those most caught in the crossfire are specifically federal workers. A multi-faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution. Our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State received emails from multiple USDA employees. A handful of employees reached out saying the proselytizing Easter email sent by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins to more than 100,000 USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates the separation of church and state promised in the First Amendment. And they are absolutely right. Again, separation of church and state. If you can read the First Amendment, you see that the government cannot establish a national religion, cannot endorse a national religion. And here we are sending a proselytizing Easter email to 100,000 federal employees. The hits just keep coming from this administration, and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against creeping Christian nationalism. If you want to help, Head over to au.org forward slash crooked to learn more about their work and how you can get involved.

Are you having difficulty getting in with your primary care and find yourself sitting in a waiting room for an hour or two before you're finally seen? And then when you finally do get in, you may be seen for only five to seven minutes. And believe it or not, it's not even your provider's fault. It's big insurance. They're trying to keep and make as much money as possible. I'm Ashley Pollard of the Ashley Clinic, and I saw a need for a new way to deliver primary care. It's called Direct Primary Care, where you can have a same-day appointment and plenty of time with your provider. Come see us. We'll take care of you.

The Ashley Clinic. Knowing you is caring for you. This is the story of The One. The one who keeps multiple buildings running smoothly day after day. Plumbing that flows, HVAC that hums, cleaning supplies that keep surfaces sparkling. That's why she counts on Grainger. With easy reordering online and 24-7 support, Grainger helps her keep the product she needs on hand. So shelves stay stocked and buildings stay ready. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done.

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

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

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 and i'm leah litman and it's just

us this week, which means let the wild rumpus begin. That is correct, folks. Without the

tempering influence of Katherine Shaw, who knows what we two chaos goblins are going to get up to. Maybe, Leah, we will draft a concurrence saying that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply to redistricting claims or something crazy like that. Wrong chaos goblins, Melissa. That's

Clarence and Neil, I think we would write a different concurrence. But fear not, listeners. We can ensure you that this is going to be wild. And here's what we have on tap. We'll start with the news, including some updates on the slush fund. Then we'll turn to the opinions that the court issued last week, and we'll close with a dab of court culture or favorite things. And an interview that Melissa did with Yale Law Professor Judith Resnick about her recent book, Impermissible Punishments, How Prisons Became a Problem for Democracy.

And speaking of problems for democracy, we have some breaking news. Listeners, as you know, the court's decision in Louisiana v. Calais nullified Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had prohibited states from drawing districts that resulted in meaningfully less political and electoral power and political and electoral opportunities for minority voters. Basically, before Calais, under Section 2, states could not effectively pack and crack the Black electorate by consolidating them into a single district and then diffusing the remainder across several districts when it was very possible to draw two or more nice, reasonably configured, pretty districts where Black voters could actually have political opportunities. and in ending the podcast

of minority opportunity districts, Calais insisted that it was merely making the Voting Rights Act closely track those cases where the Constitution itself would limit states redistricting. So the Constitution prohibits redistricting that is intentionally racially discriminatory and intentionally disadvantages Black voters. Footnote, or maybe it doesn't. We'll get to that in a second. But Calais said it wasn't adopting an intentional discrimination requirement or rule. It was just limiting the Voting Rights Act to occasions that are likely intentional discrimination and give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. And just to be clear, we've seen these ghouls run this play before. In 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, the nation's leading institutionalist, John G. Roberts, assured us that even though he was eliminating the preclearance regime, there was no need to worry because Section 2 remained in place and prohibited discrimination in voting. Now, the court tells us we shouldn't be alarmed that Calais gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution still prohibit intentional racial discrimination. Again, hold that thought for a second.

In addition to trying to run the okey-doke on the whole country, a month after issuing the apostasy that is Calais, these ghouls decided that the last shards of law that prohibited intentional racial discrimination against Black voters was just too much equality to bear. And so this court granted Alabama's request to reinstate a set of maps that a three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees had twice concluded was racially discriminatory. Let that settle in. Two Trump appointees twice looked at these maps and were like, yep, seems like racial discrimination to me. In any event, the court did so by requiring a showing of racial discrimination to establish a Section 2 violation, and then they made it virtually impossible to prove intentional racial discrimination. Basically, the lower court looked at this and said, yes, this map seems like it was drawn to fuck over Black voters. And the court was like, well, can you really tell that they meant to fuck over Black voters? We're not convinced because racial progress.

And also, it's so mean to call someone intentionally discriminating on the basis of race. But folks, here's the thing. We know that these maps that the court blessed are, in fact, racially discriminatory because this same court told us they were. Back in, let's think back to, I don't know, three years ago, 2023, this court held that a similar Alabama map, which included only a single minority opportunity district in a state where Black voters are more than 25% of the electorate, likely violated Section 2. And Alabama said, you know what? Let's try that whole massive resistance thing again. It went so well for us in the mid-1900s. So it went back to the drawing board and drew another set of maps that also distributed Black voters across a bunch of white districts and contained only a single majority minority district.

In a very fast, rather secretive legislative process, nothing to see here, folks, it created yet another map that diffused Black voters across several white districts and then included only a single minority opportunity district.

After Alabama instituted those maps, a lower court said you can't use them. They both violate the Voting Rights Act and their intentional racial discrimination and violation of the Constitution. Alabama immediately went up to the Supreme Court. this is back in 2023, and said, please, daddy, let me use these discriminatory maps. And the Supreme Court said, no, they did not stay the lower federal court decision. And so that litigation continued to play out. And now fast forward to Calais. So after the Supreme Court decided Calais, it vacated the lower court opinions on the new but also old 2023 maps for inexplicable reasons. It told the lower court to reconsider the maps in view of its holding in Calais. And on remand, the lower court reconsidered the maps in light of Calais and came back and said, we said what we said. And also we said what you said in Calais, which is that the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act still prohibit intentional racial discrimination. And then the Supreme Court said, oops, bexies, unconstitutional racial discrimination is fine, actually. In fact, intentional discrimination against Black people might not violate the Constitution at all. Again, this comes back to something we have been talking about since Rucho v. Common Cause. In many districts, especially in the South, partisan affiliation and race are closely correlated. In those districts, white voters are often Republican and Black voters are likely to be Democrats. And what the court is saying basically is that if every single Black person votes one way and every single white person votes the opposite way every election, That's not even relevant to determining whether voting is. racially polarized as long as, or maybe especially as, Black voters are likely voting for a different political party than white voters. Like, the court only sees this as states consolidating partisan advantage, but not like the obvious racial undertones of partisanship. I mean, there was a realignment between the two political parties based on race, like the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. It literally lies underneath our entire political

party apparatus. It is literally why we talked about massive resistance. Like massive resistance is why white people in the South are Republicans now because they used to be Democrats. Yes. But Leah, what about the smoking gun of Alabama being hell-bent on using a map that a court had twice determined was discriminatory? Well, according to the Supreme Court, the three-judge lower court panel, quote, interpreted the state's legal disagreement with the court's earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus. Y'all, legal disagreement is the new massive resistance. Basically, shorter SCOTUS. Alabama's recalcitrance is not evidence of discriminatory intent because Alabama correctly predicted that SCOTUS didn't really mean what it said in Milligan, and Alabama anew that SCOTUS would later recant and say that actually, it's not discrimination for a state to draw a map with only one majority-minority district. Basically, Alabama is the Dionne Warwick of states, and it anticipated that what was racial discrimination before Calais would not be considered racial discrimination in Calais' wake. And if you are marveling at Alabama's clairvoyance, don't. Anyone could have seen this coming with this court.

Yeah. Also, I would just like to note that all of my characterizations of Brett Kavanaugh's intellect are just legal disagreement. And all of the cuss words I use to describe the justices are also just legal disagreement. So just for a note going forward. For when you next testify before Marsha Blackburn. Right. Exactly. Oh, you mean my legal disagreement? Are you talking about my legal disagreement, ma'am. But the real crux of the court's Tuesday night decision in Milligan is that it imported the Calais rule that had made it impossible to show a violation of the Voting Rights Act into the constitutional context. So Calais had said, you basically cannot show a violation of the Voting Rights Act unless you can show that a state could have drawn a different set of maps that had the same partisan result, but more majority-minority districts. That is, if the state wanted five out of six districts to go Republican in order to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act, plaintiffs would have to show that you could make one of those five districts that are all supposed to go Republican a majority-minority district. Wait, wait, wait. Are we asking Black people to vote for Republican? You are saying, right, Black people only have rights under the Voting Rights Act if they vote Republican, like a minority district in which black people elect a Republican candidate is the only way to show a violations of the Voting Rights Act. That is a null set. There are no such cases. There are no such districts. Given the correlation between race and partisan affiliation, there are no majority black districts that would elect a Republican, probably because Republicans are doing racist stuff like trying to disenfranchise black voters. But I digress. It's almost like black voters like to vote their interests.

so weird. Almost. Now, the court in Milligan, this is the new Milligan, the one that was released just last week, comes along and says, in order to establish that this map with six out of seven Republican districts and one majority Black district was intentionally discriminatory, you plaintiffs are going to have to show that the state could draw a map that also had six of its seven districts be Republican, while also having two of its seven districts be Black. That is, again to say what Leah is talking about. One of the black districts would have to be a Republican voting district. And again, that's kind of a practical impossibility, a null set. It doesn't exist. And because it doesn't exist, you will never be able to prove intentional racial discrimination in order to satisfy the requirements for pleading under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Unless, of course, black people in Alabama start voting for Republicans against their interests. So are you seeing why all of this is a trap? Do you see it? I'm starting to get the picture. But just to

put this starkly, I mean, look, the reasoning in Milligan is slapdash. We don't know how far it extends and how much to take it for. But like, if one political party literally called itself the anti-black party, like, would that matter? Right? Like, would you still say, you know, like minority voters could only establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination if they voted for the anti-Black party, like if the legislature came out and said, we are diluting the voting power of racial minority. Because we don't like people who aren't white, like, would plaintiffs still have to show that the legislature could draw a map with the same partisan distribution? Like, it's utterly unhinged, just, again, to put this starkly.

I mean, to put a finer point on what Leah is saying, they've actually ratcheted up what was already a very high bar to prove intentional discrimination, to make it even higher, maybe even impossible. Like, literally nothing you could show would be sufficient to establish that the state was doing intentional racial discrimination. And they talk a lot in this opinion about the sort of presumption that the state is acting in good faith. Like, why would we presume that after all of this?

It's very unclear. You know, the only real reason is because it's mean to call someone a racist, and that's way meaner than actually doing racist things, right, is a major through line in the court's decisions. Yeah. So another inconsistent and unprincipled part of all of this is that the Calais court insisted that it was not adopting an intentional discrimination requirement for the Voting Rights Act, even though it basically did. They told us they were not. So this is a little confusing, but again, if that's right, like if Calais did not require plaintiffs to show intentional discrimination and Calais said it wasn't saying plaintiffs had to show intentional discrimination, why on earth is the Supreme Court now in this Alabama case invoking Calais to speak to a claim of intentional discrimination? There was admittedly a lot of doublespeak in Calais, like on one hand, the court said it was interpreting the Voting Rights Act to, quote, focus on intentional discrimination and to cases where there was, quote, an objective likelihood of an intentional discrimination. But it also said it was not adopting an intentional discrimination standard, acknowledging that its, quote, interpretation does not demand a finding of intentional discrimination and mocking the dissent for, quote, stating over and over again that our decision requires a plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent.

And some of this doublespeak is in a footnote, literally in a footnote.

It's all over the opinion. And even if, even if the court did own up to adopting an intentional discrimination standard for Section 2, which they said they were not, that would still not resolve the claim at issue in Milligan, because in Milligan, the plaintiffs also alleged the state had violated the Constitution's prohibition on intentional discrimination. So I said this on a YouTube rapid reaction I did with Duell Ross of the NAACP LDF and Rick Hassan, who's a professor at UCLA. But this decision in the Alabama case was, for me, the Supreme Court's equivalent of the insurrectionist slush fund. Trump and carte blanche were saying, go ahead, insurrectionists, do a little insurrection, do some treason, overturn an election, we'll legalize it, pay you for it. Here, the Supreme Court is saying, go ahead, states, do unconstitutional racial discrimination, like nullify the will of the voters, lock out, you know, a third of the state from political power. We'll legalize it. We'll even tell you to go ahead and do it. It's a legal regime for white supremacy and white minority rule, like the 1776 fund was a slush

fund for insurrectionists. And listeners, when everyone at the end of this term is praising the Supreme Court for rebuking the president and telling him that he cannot nullify the 14th amendments guarantee of birthright citizenship, we want you to just remember that these are the same folks who just told states that they can nullify the Constitution's prohibition on racial discrimination. So don't give them credit for reading the Constitution because they don't read

all of it. No, they do not. I miss Kate. And yet, in some ways, I'm glad she isn't here to have to talk about this, given that I'm not sure she even expected the court to stoop this low.

This would be hard for Kate. I think Kate might be in a fetal position on this one. It would challenge her desire to see the good, or at least the upside of everything. It would. Struck Scrutiny is brought to you by Smart Credit. Here's something that most people aren't told about their credit score. It's not just whether you pay your credit cards, it's when you pay them. Most people don't realize that. But Smart Credit's data experts understand how credit bureaus operate, So they created something called the Best Pay Down Date that's built around how credit reporting actually works. So instead of guessing, you get a personalized strategy that shows you what to do and when to do it to help you maximize your credit score. And that matters because better credit can mean lower payments and more money in your pocket. And this is where it gets interesting. You can see your full credit picture in one place, your score, what's affecting it. And if something needs your attention, you can take care of it right there. So before you apply for anything, a car, an apartment, a refinance, it makes sense.

to start with smart credit. Go to smartcredit.com slash strict and try it for just $1. You may be surprised to see how many points smart credit estimates you can gain. That's smartcredit.com slash strict. Results vary. You can cancel anytime. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Z-Biotics. Hey folks, I would love to tell you that I am one of those people who can have three glasses of wine and still wake up glowing, but guess what? I am not. Somewhere in my late 30s, the morning after a few drinks just started to hit different. That's why I am so happy that I discovered Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol. Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol 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, the alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's the buildup of that byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme that breaks the byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best the next day. I tried pre-alcohol when I was going out in the summer and still wanted to wake up fresh and able to do things like, I don't know, get on TV and talk about the news. And let me tell you, you wouldn't believe how on top of things I was. There was no sluggishness, I didn't feel tired, just had pre-alcohol, had a glass of wine, maybe two, and then got up the next day and did my thing. Between weddings, the U.S. Open, and the first real beach weekend of the year, June barely leaves a Saturday open. So don't let a rough morning after cost you your Sunday. Drink pre-alcohol to stay ahead of it and make the most of every weekend this month. Just remember to head to zbiotics.com slash strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15% off. In what may be, listeners, a development that is entirely unrelated to the disenfranchisement of Black voters in the South, we would like to note that Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson just announced her resignation effective July 17, 2026. That is just four months before the upcoming election. No further details were provided about why Ms. Nelson was leaving at this moment or who would be her replacement. We should note, though, that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, i.e., are you there, God? It's me, Greg Abbott, had appointed Nelson to the Secretary of State post in 2023, and he will be the one to name her replacement. It goes without saying that the Secretary of State is charged with administering the election. And this year's

election is especially consequential in the Lone Star State. Every statewide elected office is on the ballot this year, including a very anticipated Senate race between the state's impeached Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose wife incidentally is divorcing him on biblical grounds, just that seems relevant. And James Tallarico, whom the president has continually derided on many different grounds,

none of which seems to be accurate. Last week, the Department of Justice announced it was abandoning the apostasy that was the slush fund for victims of lawfare, i.e. insurrectionists. Apparently, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson might actually be good for something. It was widely reported. I know that was kind of a joke. It was reported that Johnson managed to convince his overlord, Donald Trump, to abandon the slush fund on the view that opposition to the slush fund was mounting among Senate Republicans. Again, I have to insert here that sometimes it bees your own people. But apparently the furor over giving insurrectionists billions in taxpayer dollars was preventing the Senate from voting to give billions in taxpayer dollars to ICE and CBP to harass taxpayers. As Mick Jagger sang, you can't always get what you want. Or can you? But if you try, sometimes.

Sometimes what you need and what you want may actually be the same thing, as we learned. Because last Tuesday, Auditioning Attorney General Todd Blanche, more on him in a moment, appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, where he was pressed on the decision to leave the slush fund in a lockbox at a local fire station. And AAG Blanche's answers were, how do I say this, very revealing. Listeners, according to Blanche, although the administration is abandoning the slush fund, more on that in a minute, it is not actually jettisoning the part of the wink-wink settlement that insulates the president, his family, and their corporations from IRS audits. And to be very, very clear, Blanche stood 10 toes down on this. Some other interesting nuggets emerged in the Tuesday hearing. When pressed on whether he would commit in writing to rescinding the order to create the weaponization slush fund, Blanche refused. It seems like he learned what Leah and Stringer Bell have long advised. Listeners, you never take notes on a motherfucking criminal conspiracy. I think he learned the opposite

lesson because he put the motherfucking criminal conspiracy, the slush fund in writing, and now he's refusing to put in writing the end of the criminal conspiracy. Maybe Stringer-Bell would counsel different advice there. I just like that he's like, I'm not writing anything down right

now. That becomes relevant, right? So instead of memorializing the end of the slush fund in writing, as many of the legislators were asking, Blanche simply assured the members of the subcommittee that he would abide by his word. So kind of a pinky promise between friends. I know I feel reassured, Leah. I don't know about you. Completely most trustworthy guy in the country.

Yeah, anyways. But the administration's posture toward the slush fund is giving me real Allen versus Milligan energy back in 2023, when they were like, don't worry, it's all good. And then psych, right? They like did the very thing we were all concerned about. Well, not all of us were concerned, but okay, that's fair. That's fair. That some of us were concerned about. Also on Blanche's, you know, whatever he is saying about the slush fund.

I think he's unwilling to be very clear about how he's going to kill the slush fund with fire, right i mean if it's being killed at all yeah he says like he's abandoning it but maybe he'll come

back to it it's hard to say this isn't like the first amendment abandoning exactly overruling you

know many different shades of things you can do exactly i mean this doesn't seem like the first amendment's establishment clause where you know it's just been abandoned and it really is going to be killed off with hot fire in some later decision no it does not um and his posture toward the slush

Fund kind of tees up questions about what's known as mootness doctrine. So mootness doctrine is, again, set of rules about when federal courts can no longer hear cases because there's no longer a live controversy or dispute. And as we've discussed, a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the slush fund. Now that the slush fund has been, quote, abandoned, wink, there are questions about whether those suits are now moot. Under Article 3, federal courts can only hear live cases or controversies when an underlying issue is moot that is no longer a question to be resolved, cases no longer reviewable in federal court. So here, the fact that the slush fund has been abandoned, wink, might suggest that any suits challenging it are now moot. But, and it's a big but, there are a number of exceptions to the mootness doctrine. One of them is what's known as voluntary cessation. Basically, where a litigant voluntarily ceases the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit, it doesn't necessarily mean the suit is automatically mooted. Instead, in a 2000 case, Friends of the Earth versus Laidlaw, the court said that the party claiming mootness had to show it is, quote, absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur, end quote. Not sure that absolutely clear describes words coming out of auditioning attorney general carte blanche's mouth and the fact that the president or the president and the fact that the auditioning attorney general won't even commit in writing to killing the slush fund might suggest that the slush fund like a zombie could be resurrected under more favorable political conditions also doesn't help that the president also unclear whether he is abandoning the slush fund so maybe these lawsuits continue just to ensure that the slush fund is in fact dead dead dead. Another reason why it might be wise for a court to weigh in is that it seems that the number three at DOJ thinks that the administration might try other means for providing reparations to January 6 insurrectionists, which again, they just call victims of lawfare. So Stanley Woodward retweeted something by Lindsey Graham talking about how even though Senator Graham appreciated that the proposed weaponization fund wouldn't be moving forward, he was, quote, still of the firm belief that there are many victims of the weaponized Biden Just Department. And the number three at DOJ retweeted that and said, we're on it. All of these developments are especially

concerning given the legislative landscape. Now, as you may have heard, there's been a lot of outcry from the democratic caucus about the need to have.

codified limits on this proposed settlement, a codified end to this proposed settlement and the slush fund that it engenders? Well, guess what? Early Friday morning, the Senate passed legislation to fund President Trump's immigration enforcement agencies. That was the basic compromise to kill the slush fund to allow the funding for ICE and CPB to go forward. and Democrats had wanted to include some guardrails in that package in order to keep the slush fund from being resurrected or being used to pay insurrectionists. However, despite efforts to include amendments to the creation of the weaponization slush fund, all of the proposed guardrails failed to secure the required 60 votes. Basically, despite broad concerns, a majority of Republican senators banded together to defeat multiple attempts by senators on both sides of the aisle to codify ending or changing the settlement fund. And when pressed about the lack of restrictions on the settlement fund in the final bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, remember him, noted that Auditioning Attorney General Todd Blanche had already told lawmakers that the administration would not proceed with the fund. As Thune said, quote, I think what was talked about and then ultimately done away with is in my view, it's a settled issue. Really, sir?

Well then, I'm reassured. Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Barrett and others described Roe as settled precedent because it's also giving me that.

Does this mean that I get to play Susan Collins and tell the world that I have some concerns?

Well, no, not yet. Not yet. You are allowed to say, at this point, you believe them, they gave you promises, and then when they turn around to resurrect the slush fund, you can express some concerns. Okay, that's how I do with Susan Collins. Yes. Exactly. All right. And now we are back to auditioning Attorney General Todd Blanche, who might have been announced as the winner of America's Top Attorney General. So one reason why Todd Blanche is assuring or might be assuring the senators that he is 100 percent definitely against ever having an insurrectionist slush fund is that he might be halfway to the finish line and he needs these senators on his side. So last week, the president nominated Todd Blanche to be the nation's top law enforcement official. That's right, folks. It seems that lawless sycophency actually does pay off.

But as is often the case, getting the nod from the president is really just the first hurdle. Blanche still has to clear the Senate confirmation process because the Constitution. And that may actually be quite contentious for Blanche since he does have a lot of Epstein baggage and he does have a lot of slush fund baggage. Basically, he's got more baggage than United Airlines right now. and he's going to need all of the Republican votes, which may explain why he is standing 10 toes down on definitely 100% killing this slush fund, though not in writing. It's very hard to please two masters, y'all, but as you can probably tell, the ladies of strict scrutiny are rooting for Todd carte blanche.

And some late breaking news after we recorded. Auditioning attorney general slash maybe America's next top attorney general, Todd Blanche, decided to put something in writing. After even Republicans were pushing back on Blanche's refusal to put anything in writing, the Department of Justice filed a brief in federal court arguing that a lawsuit challenging the slush fund was moot because the plans for the slush fund had fizzled out. But the brief really went no further than Blanche's testimony in that it put his non-denial denial in writing. The brief noted that the acting attorney general told Congress that although, quote, the reasons for the fund remain important, the fund is, quote, not going forward, period. And it cited a YouTube clip of Blanche's testimony to Congress. So there you have it, folks, something in writing. And now back to our regularly recorded episode. Speaking of mediocre men getting promotions, now that Tulsi Gabbard has stepped down as the Director of National Intelligence, it's time for another wholly unqualified person to take charge of our national security. And that person, his name is Bill Pulte.

If Pulte's name sounds familiar, it's because he is the scion of Pulte Group, a residential home construction company. I first became familiar with Pulte Homes when I was living in California, and I would see people twirling Pulte signs at busy intersections, pointing the way to Pulte developments. You may also be familiar with Bill Pulte because he has served as the head.

of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 2025. Obviously, preparation for his new gig as the director of national intelligence.

And it was in that role that Pulte may be better known to Stricties as the dude who referred New York Attorney General Letitia James to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, alleging James, quote, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government-backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms, end quote. The accusation was James listed another residence she brought as a primary residence when it was not, in fact, her primary residence. In July 2025, Trump accused California Senator Adam Schiff of mortgage fraud, citing a memorandum from Fannie Mae sent to Pulte. Notably, the memorandum did not allege that Schiff committed mortgage fraud. Trump also called for Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook to resign after Pulte accused her of committing mortgage fraud. Days later, Trump stated that he had fired Cook for cause. Cook sued to contest her removal, and that case is currently pending at the Supreme Court. In perfect timing, last week, ProPublica reported that records show that, quote, Trump did the very thing he's accusing his enemies of, which is to say that in 1993, Trump submitted mortgage applications for two different homes, and both applications indicate that the homes would be his principal residence. Those homes were in Florida, but weirdly, at the time, Trump lived in New York. Indeed, as ProPublica reports, it's not even clear Trump ever even lived in the two Florida houses. It's like Donald Trump wanted to do some mortgage fraud mogging on everybody else.

This is all to say that Pulte seems to be exactly the right kind of sycophant to be in charge of national intelligence. Again, a reminder, the director of national intelligence is someone who has warrantless access to all of our communications. I know we'll sleep better.

What could go wrong? And now, Melissa, I found a clip related to Bill Pulte that I wanted to get your reaction for and that I avoided sharing with you in advance of the episode.

so this is real time and live here's the first ever man live fucking dildo slap on the pp live pulti look at this fucking thing all right come on harder daddy all right fine there you fucking have it the first dildo slap in history live so bill this says bill pulti fucks all right yeah and then if you notice on it's got a tramp stamp with a butterfly i like only the young one ass cheeks that yes it does say uh it does say only the young on the back here only young december 14 that looks pretty badass we have a uh mushroom stamp on the head of it and bed bath on one cheek and gme oh fuck gme on the other i got too excited there melissa

greatest clip ever what the fuck did i just watch you watched our new director of national intelligence he was in the suit he wasn't getting yes he was in the suit so he was not actually

getting slapped with the dildo he was just observing it but he was on stage as a guy who was about to hand him an award that was you know carved with something like fucks only the young

watching that guy slap another man with a dildo i mean i i'm genuinely in shock i i like it takes

a lot to shock me what the fuck did i just watch i i don't know i really don't know how did you

find that who gave that the interwebs i found it on the interwebs um and i sent it did you find it

the manosphere because that seems like it was made by the manosphere so i have been doing a little

research into the manosphere for a potential project i might be working on um put a pin in that and yeah do you shower after the research because i genuinely feel like i have to clean

myself seriously no joke like um oh my god i just genuinely i don't even know what to say thank you for not sharing that with me in advance um i i don't even know what to say strict scrutiny is brought to you by wild alaskan company wild alaskan company offers the best way to get wild caught high quality seafood delivered right to your door on your schedule each wild alaskan box comes with individually portioned fillets that are vacuum sealed easy to prep and great for any meal no matter how quick or how elevated all of their fish is quick frozen fresh from Alaskan waters, which helps to lock in the freshness, texture, flavor.

and key nutrients like omega-3s. This is fish you can trust. There are no GMOs, no antibiotics, or other additives. Every order supports sustainable harvesting practices and Alaskan fishermen whose history is tied to the region and the practice. My absolute favorite fish from Wild Alaskan Company is the Pacific halibut. I love, love, love this. You put it in a little parchment boat, you put some other herbs around it, maybe some vegetables, pop it in the oven, boom, magic. Really, you just can't mess it up. It's that easy. And the flavor is absolutely fantastic. It tastes fresh. It doesn't taste frozen. And the texture is so firm and lovely. It's a chef's kiss. Even I look like a good chef when I use this. Wild Alaskan is so confident that their fish is the absolute best, and I can see why they're so confident, but they are going to offer a 100% satisfaction and money back guarantee so you can try your first box risk-free. Just go to wildalaskan.com forward slash strict for $35 off your first order of premium wild-caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com slash strict for $35 off your first order. Many thanks to Wild Alaskan for sponsoring this episode. Strict Scrutiny is brought to you by Aura Frames. Father's Day is right around the corner, folks. And let me just say, Aura Frames is the perfect gift for the dad in your life. Are there memories of your dad, your husband, or your partner that always make you laugh? Are there moments that you've thought, I've got to get this framed. I've got to do this. Maybe from a family vacation. Maybe it's time with the grandkids, something from the first day of school, maybe a night out at your favorite restaurant. Aura Frames allows you to preserve all of these memories in one place and make them accessible to everyone that you love. With Aura, you can add as many photos and videos as you want via the Aura app or by simply texting the photos straight to your frame. You can even preload photos before your AuraFrame ships, making it the perfect gift for the dad or grad in your life. It couldn't be easier to shop for all of your special people who have special days in the month of June. AuraFrames was named number one by Wirecutter, and you can save now by visiting AuraFrames.com. And for a limited time, listeners of Strict Scrutiny can get $35 off select frames with the code strict. That's A-U-R-A frames.com promo code strict. And you can support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply.

It's time for the opinions we got last week from the court. Speaking of dildos across the face.

Yes. Dildos, dildos, and Supreme Court opinions. So we got three opinions from the court last Thursday. One of them was Hikma Pharmaceuticals versus Ameren. This case concerns a dispute between a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, Hikma, whose product can be dispensed for uses that both do and do not infringe on patents. So Ameren, which holds patents on uses of the branded pharmaceutical Vaskepa, a medication for which Hikma's product is a substitute, filed suit to hold Hikma responsible when pharmacists dispensed Hikma's generic product for uses that don't infringe on its patents. But Ameren alleged Hikma was kind of elbowing people, giving them the nudge to use the generic product for patented uses. So at oral argument, the justices had seemed skeptical that Hikma, the generic manufacturer, was doing anything to compel pharmacists to dispense the generic for uses that infringed upon the patents. The justices seemed skeptical of holding someone liable for someone else's conduct, and that skepticism bore out in the opinion. The court, with Justice Jackson writing for the majority, said that Ameren did not establish that Hikma, the generic drug manufacturer, was actively trying to get people to use the drug in ways that would infringe Ameren's patent. The case was remanded to the lower court, where Ameren can try again to make out its claim.

We also got an opinion in Streepatch v. SEC. This case pitted the conservative supermajority's antipathy for the administrative state and financial regulation against its antipathy for criminals. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the court held that the SEC can recover money that companies and individuals gained illegally, even if the agency cannot prove that investors suffered a financial loss. Writing for the court, Justice Gorsuch explained that, quote, a showing of pecuniary loss is not required before an investor may qualify as a victim of offender's wrongdoing entitled to compensation. We noted that this was a unanimous opinion, but as is his want, Justice Thomas would have gone further, which means it's time for another We Need to Talk About Justice Clarence Thomas segment. In a separate concurrence that nobody joined, Justice Thomas suggested that there might be a Seventh Amendment problem when the SEC seeks disgorgement in proceedings within the agency's adjudicative structure. and that disgorgement cases may have to go to federal court and be heard before a jury. Now, as is often the case with Justice Thomas's concurrences, this is an invitation to litigants to now challenge disgorgement proceedings on Seventh Amendment grounds. Basically, jarcusy only make it disgorgement.

Is it unconstitutional to send invitations to have a party, Melissa? I don't understand what the problem is.

Not if the party is to completely rewrite the Seventh Amendment.

Exactly. Speaking of the Seventh Amendment and needing to talk about Clarence Thomas, the court issued a surprisingly sane-ish decision on agency's adjudicative authority in FCC versus AT&T. There, eight members of the court, no points for guessing which cheese stood alone here, said that the FCC could impose what are called forfeiture orders within the agency's own adjudicative structure and, therefore, without a jury. The Supreme Court said these forfeiture orders did not definitively resolve the party's legal obligations or even definitively settle factual matters, and that before the agency can make a party pay, the statute requires the agency to go to court and prove the case to a jury. While it's heartening that the court didn't go full throttle against the agency, I think it's important to note that the agency ended up kind of obeying in advance, conceding to some limits on its powers to avoid a Seventh Amendment problem. And this decision could also mean companies feel emboldened to give the agency, FCC, a harder time in, say, settlement talks by threatening to drag out proceedings and go to court. There's also language in the opinion that might call into question agency fact-finding. So just some notes. We do, again, need to talk about Clarence Thomas, who dissented. The cheese stands alone. He said that because the companies paid under the understanding that forfeiture orders did definitively determine their rights, the case required some additional proceedings and re-litigation based on the understanding that actually they were not so required.

All right, let's do a little court culture. So folks, do you remember District Court Judge Jeb Bosberg, who tried to enforce the rule of law in the face of the administration's recalcitrance that earned him brickbats from the president, as well as an effort to impeach him from his judgeship? Well, guess what? Far from cowering, Bosberg decided to step up to the podium at Yale Law School's commencement to exhort the graduates to stand 10 toes down on the rule of law and their own principles. Take a listen.

The legal profession faces a pivotal moment, one that tests not just how lawyers practice, but the institutions they serve. More than ever before, our news headlines feature lawyers in both the private and public sectors and the cases they are litigating. So when you decide where you will lend your talents, make sure to take a close look at your selected institution and ask yourself whether its principles and its values align with your own. For private practice, do you actually believe in the mission of the firm of which you are a member? For those entering the public or non-profit sector, how comfortable are you with the priorities this entity espouses? Ask yourself if these are the missions you are proud to stand up in court to support. Now, do not mistake my message. There are very few jobs in which you will always believe that every client you represent has the better of the case or the moral high ground. If you were to quit the moment you didn't believe your client deserved to win, you wouldn't hold many jobs for long. When you are representing a public entity, for example, a municipality, a state, or the federal government, there's a meaningful difference between isolated disagreements with your client and helping to defend policies that are wholly antithetical to your core values. I encourage all of you to have your own red line. Each of you will put it in a different place. But if you are asked to cross that red line, you must decide whether you can do so and still look at yourself in the mirror or whether it's time to start searching for a new job.

Word up. Yeah. Speaking of standing 10 toes down on the rule of law, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the ban on transgender service members is unconstitutional discrimination. discrimination. Procedural note, the Supreme Court had earlier stayed a district court order in the case that had also concluded that the ban on transgender service members was illegal. And so as a result of this D.C. Circuit decision, this is going to put the case on the Supreme Court's regular docket. So the D.C. Circuit wrote that the case in part came down to whether, quote, we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line. Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes? Given that there was, quote, direct evidence that animus motivated, end quote,

the ban on transgender service members. Now, this is a welcome instance of a court being willing to call BS on the administration's pretextual rationales, something that the Supreme Court has been loath to do even when it has ruled against the administration. We should also note that the D.C. Circuit did limit the scope of the district court's injunction such that only the current

trans service members are protected. The injunction does not apply to aspiring service members, at least during the pendency of the litigation, because this was a preliminary injunction.

The D.C. Circuit used the Supreme Court's lack of explanation against it, saying that they didn't know why the Supreme Court had stayed the district court order, and maybe it was because they disagreed about the scope of the remedy. So this again almost certainly tees up the case to go back to the Supreme Court, but on its regular, argued docket. One final piece of court culture, which is I wanted to highlight something that is happening in my home state of Michigan, which is supposedly represented by two Democratic senators. So in May, the president nominated one Michael Martin, the criminal chief for the U.S. Attorney's Office for a district in Michigan, to a district court judgeship here in Michigan. And we are apparently still waiting to learn whether our esteemed senators, again, both of whom are ostensibly Democrats, Senator Alyssa Slotkin and Gary Peters, will return a blue slip on Martin and allow Martin to get a confirmation vote, which would almost certainly result in his confirmation, or whether they will instead deny a blue slip, which would block Martin's confirmation. Putting aside general issues with returning a blue slip given current conditions, doing so for Michael Martin would be astonishing, appalling, a perfect example of why Democrats hate the Democratic Party. Let me elaborate for a bit. So while Martin was head of the criminal office, two esteemed career prosecutors were fired from the office, seemingly because those prosecutors had the audacity to enforce a federal law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which prevents threats of force or intimidation against reproductive care facilities. As head of the office, Martin almost certainly would have had to sign off on those firings and removals. Also, even though Martin is a U.S. attorney in Michigan, he may also have been involved in the vindictive prosecutions arising out of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota and the killings of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, the investigations related to those as well. So remember, there was a mass exodus of U.S. attorneys from the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota because the Department of Justice was reportedly investigating Renee Good's widow rather than the immigration officer who shot Good. And while the principled U.S. attorneys in Minnesota refused to go along with these cases, there's some evidence that Martin may have volunteered to step in. Specifically, at least one case against a Minneapolis protester was filed in the district where Martin is the criminal chief. Again, given that he is the chief there and that the case was filed by an assistant U.S. attorney who reports to him, it seems somewhat likely that Martin would have had to sign off on what many view as the politically motivated prosecution and persecution of protesters. Democratic senators, if you are returning blue slips on a guy who may have fired people for enforcing the FACE Act and may have jumped in to facilitate the administration's

efforts to terrorize Minnesota and its people after the administration's actions in Minnesota prompted mass resignations of federal government lawyers. What are you even doing? Democrats don't have a ton of power right now, but blue slips are one area where they do. Grow a spine, grow up, do something. I have called your offices and now I am blowing this up on my podcast because this is my right. And now be sure to stay tuned for a great conversation that Melissa had with Judith

Resnick about her recent book. This episode is presented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. If you listen to Strict Scrutiny, you already know this administration, Congress, and the courts have spent the last few years making it harder to get health care in this country and its patients who are paying the price. Take the Supreme Court, for example. It paved the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood health centers from state Medicaid programs in Medina versus Planned Parenthood. This undoubtedly violates patients' rights to get care from quality providers that they choose. And last year, the Trump administration and Congress defunded Planned Parenthood, trying to shut down Planned Parenthood centers and to block patients with low incomes from accessing birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and so much more. That's why Planned Parenthood is fighting back. But fights like these take resources and supporters just like you. No matter the size, your donation makes a real difference. helping Planned Parenthood meet this moment and protect patients' access to care when and where it matters the most. If you believe all people should get health care, no matter their income, donate now at plannedparenthood.org slash defend. Are you having difficulty getting in with your primary care and find yourself sitting in a waiting room for an hour or two before you're finally seen? And then when you finally do get in, you may be seen for only five to seven minutes. not, it's not even your provider's fault. It's big insurance. They're trying to keep and make as much money as possible. I'm Ashley Pollard of the Ashley Clinic, and I saw a need for a new way to deliver primary care. It's called direct primary care, where you can have a same-day appointment and plenty of time with your provider. Come see us. We'll take care of you. The Ashley

Clinic. Knowing you is caring for you. Zaxby's just put all the other chicken chains on notice because now they got dry rubs. You can get their famous fingers and wings in three signature flavors zesty lemon pepper savory garlic parm and spicy nashville hot which means there's a little something for everyone chasing a bold hit of flavor if you've been sleeping on zaxby's this new dry rub menu is about to wake you up zaxby's dry rubs try all three flavors before they're gone who's got the sauce zaxby's

all right shifting gears for a moment as we've discussed in prior episodes there have been a couple of cases on the merits docket this year that concern the rights of prisoners and the administration of correctional facilities in november for example the court heard oral argument in lander versus louisiana department of corrections and public safety that was a case that considered whether a government official can be sued in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, also known as RELUPA. We're still awaiting a decision in that case, but the court has actually heard and decided two other cases about habeas relief for prisoners, Klein and Bow. In addition to what's been going on at 1 1st Street, we also have an administration that has also had prisons on the brain. This administration has been unceremoniously sending people to foreign prisons and building prison-style immigration detention centers all throughout the United States. All of this suggests that this might be an especially opportune moment for us to consider prisons, prisoners' rights, and our approach to punishment. And today, we have the perfect guest to help us do just that. Judith Resnick is the Arthur Lyman Professor of Law at Yale Law School and the founding director of the Arthur Lyman Center for Public Interest Law. She is a prolific scholar, and her research interests are truly wide-ranging, everything from procedure and federal courts to equality and citizenship. And at the intersection of all of these topics is her interests in prisons. She's one of the nation's leading experts on prisons, prisoners' rights, and carceral conditions. And she is the author of a recently published book, Impermissible Punishments, How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy. Judith, welcome to Strict Skirt.

Delighted to be here.

This book is a very heavy book. The book is sweeping, it is historical, and it begins in Arkansas. As you explain, Winston Talley, who was an Arkansas prisoner, made at the time a radical claim that he and other incarcerated men were being whipped, and their whippings were actually in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Can you tell us more about the Talley lawsuit and what happened at each stage of the litigation?

As far as I know, he was convicted of very low-level crimes, not part of a political social movement. But he had an idea that we need to understand he's a significant theorist of prisoners of rights in general. So if I just back up for a minute, Enlightenment era, the Enlightenment interruption was, excuse me, monarchs, you can't just be arbitrary. You need to be purposeful. These people, these Enlightenment thinkers, these great men brought us to a contemporary world in which it is accepted that punishment is supposed to be purposeful. What Winston Talley adds to this understanding is, while you may punish me, deterrence or retribution, you can't punish me like this. And he asserts the idea that he's a rights-bearing member of this polity and saying, you, the corrections establishment, you, the state of Arkansas, are limited. Yes, you can punish me, but you can't whip me.

All right. So there's a lot going on here. And I think it's great that you're connecting it to the past and the theories of punishment that many of our 1L listeners will be familiar with, retribution, utilitarianism. The government just can't punish people. There has to be a reason for it. This is one of the principles of limited government on the very basis of democracy. Winston Talley, who I think under most circumstances would have been understood as someone who is civilly dead because he has been in prison, is actually saying, I'm not civilly dead. I may be incapacitated for this purpose, but I have rights that you are obliged to recognize. And one of those rights means that you cannot punish me using an impermissible punishment. And to his mind, the whipping violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. What does the court say? First, again, thanks the judge.

let the guy in. Second, appoint a lawyer. Third, no retaliation. Fourth, sorry, the Eighth Amendment doesn't rule out whipping because we defer to correctional officials. And furthermore, Delaware whips, other places whip. It's not cruel and unusual punishment.

So this is in the 1960s. Delaware is whipping.

Well, Delaware has a statute that permits it. It's 1965, and the judge says it's only not cruel and unusual punishment if it's limited to no more than 10 lashes at a time, if it's based on a list of factors that you, the prisoner, know in advance, if you violate this, you could get whipped, and if the decision is made not by the person who's lashing you at the moment, but by some administrators. And the next step is, well, actually, two steps. First is one might assume, because it's perfectly appropriate to assume, that enslavement and whipping are intermeshed and, therefore, that Winston Talley was a black man. Winston Talley was a white man. Winston Talley and a whole group of other white men and lots of black men were mercilessly whipped in the Arkansas system for not working as they were told or other things. Not picking enough cotton. picking enough or not insubordination or whatever. A couple years later, three more white guys, William Jackson being one of them, go back to prison, and they say, actually, those rules aren't being obeyed, plus you shouldn't whip us at all. The judges again say, great lawyers, Arkansas, step up. There's a three-day trial, and you can, if you want to look at the URL, read the 640 pages of the transcript of the trial. And federal judges hear people who are the staff in Arkansas saying, we were raised by the whip, we whip our children, this is what we do. And second, they also heard the person who was the former head of the Bureau of Prisons of the U.S. saying whipping is medieval and actually out of bounds. And they also hear from many prisoners the brutal, horrible intrusions on their bodies. But he pulls down their pants, shows the injuries. And the judges say, it's not cruel and unusual punishment. You can whip if, and again with these limits, as a matter of Eighth Amendment law. Not procedural due process, but it's only not cruel and unusual if you whip within these constraints.

This is sort of interesting, and it reminds me of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's strategy for dismantling Plessy v. Ferguson. Like, they don't start with Brown, like, this is just per se unconstitutional. They argue first that separate but equal has standards. Like, it actually has to be equal if it's separate. So the initial litigation that ultimately culminates in Brown starts off as just trying to hold the South to account. Like, you don't actually have equal facilities. They're separate, yes, but they're not equal. And this almost seems like what the courts are doing here. We've set out these standards for what constitutes appropriate whipping in the context of prison, and you're not doing this. We have all of this evidence that you're not quite doing this.

Yes and no. First of all, these prisoners are one-offs. They're not part. The ACLU will come in. The judge is all treated as if it's a class action. It's going to apply to everybody, white and black in the facility. But the lawyers who represent them are the head of the commercial bar, of the bar association. They're not civil rights lawyers. They're not the ACLU or the Inc. Fund at this time. More will come. But the way to appreciate what the judges are doing is they may well have thought that because they put these constraints on it, and it's a hugely public read every day, the Arkansas Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat, that the executive branch would, in fact, stop whipping. Well, both deterrent and also we, vulnerable Arkansas federal judges, don't need to spend our political capital because it's going to end. We spent our political capital by putting it all in front of you as vividly as we could. And they are sort of right because there's a move to stop it executively, but sort of wrong because it keeps going on. And then in 1968, when Judge Harry Blackmun, before he became Justice Harry Blackmun, was sitting on the Eighth Circuit, he wrote the opinion, which he called the whipping case, for the three judges saying, you can't whip, it violates the Eighth Amendment, you're out.

Harry Blackmun, as a judge of the Eighth Circuit, which is the appellate tribunal that hears the appeal from one of these Arkansas lawsuits.

We've got to get the can—Arkansas is the only former Confederate state that is in the Eighth Circuit. And the Congress did that on purpose, stuck this state in.

AMY WALTER, The Fed Courts everywhere. It's like it's all here.

AMY WALTER, Stuck it in to get Northern control over Arkansas. AMY WALTER, All right. So Harry Blackmun is like, OK, we're done with this.

the whipping. There's no standard for whipping. Whipping is per se an impermissible punishment. And you argue that that decision reflects what you call an anti-ruination principle, this idea that impermissible punishments are those that ruin the person. And you're not just talking about physical ruin, but just the dignity of the person, the mind and body and spirit of the person, and that whipping is one of these punishments that utterly ruins a person, and the government cannot do that. They can do a lot of things to punish you, but they can't do that.

AMY WALTER- Blackmun is taking out, for the first time in U.S. history, a punishment that is justified as discipline, as in making you do the discipline of the work and the routine, first time ever across the board for anybody in the Arkansas system. But he is not prepared to say, I'm going to give you a grand theory of the limits on punishment. I'm just going to say this one's out, and I'm going to distinguish it from some of the other stuff which you can do. By the way, he mentions voting disenfranchisement as something that, of course, you could be able to do. The district judge who had first appointed the lawyer in 1965 sits and presides over civil rights indictments criminal by the Nixon administration of prison staff that is brutalizing these people in ways I don't even want to talk about. And then those juries acquit in Arkansas. And in 1970, this district judge says, the entire system of Arkansas's prisons is cruel and unusual. It's an evil and dark world, and it's unconstitutional. So within five years of opening up and listening to the grotesqueries inside the system, a federal trial judge says, you have to stop the system, and for the next 14 years, they're debating what that means. So the cusp of the question is between, once prisoners are rights holders and persons, not civilly dead, what does it mean to be a rights holder in prison? And what are the limits? What are the permissible and what are the impermissible? And then I say, if you try to look at the way the law is groping toward and some other legal systems are, what we should understand is, in a democratic order, you can't set out to ruin people. And so you can deter, you may be able to incapacitate, you can be mad and retribute if you want. You can't use things that take people down and out.

AMNA NAWAZ- All right. So the anti-ruination principle is your invention, and you use it to sort of render legible what the courts are doing during this period, where they are invalidating the use of whipping in the Arkansas prison. They're invalidating the Arkansas prison system as utterly cruel and unusual and inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment. And in your view, what undergirds all of this is this idea that this is a system that is meant to ruin people. It goes beyond simply deterring other people from doing crime. It goes beyond incapacitation. It goes beyond retribution. It's about ruining people. And in a democracy, that can't be what the government does. So I want to focus on this anti-ruination principle because you've talked about it in the book in the context of the Eighth Amendment. But one might argue that shards or glimmers of the anti-ruination principle are evident throughout constitutional law, and maybe even in just the whole idea of limited government. So in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, which is the very famous abortion case from 1992, the court talks about the impact of a forced pregnancy on the life of someone who is forced to bring a child into the world against her will. And they talk about the idea, like, it fundamentally changes your life. It might even ruin your life. So I think we might see a glimpse of the anti-ruination principle there. And a decision as momentous as whether or not to become a parent cannot be one made under the compulsion of the state. In a similar way, we might see evidence of the anti-ruination principle in just the fact that the Constitution itself is about designing limits on the state. Have we moved away from an anti-ruination principle, not just in the context of the Eighth Amendment, but in the context of our government and what we understand to be limited government?

So prisoners, suffragettes in the English system in the 1920s, say rights. When the world of rightslessness, it's after World War I that a group of people in England, a wonderful group of women feminists, were bringing to the fore the need for an international convention for rights for prisoners, because prison could be torture, and you had to treat every person in detention, political or not, the same. And they proposed a standard set of rules that this international organization took over but didn't embrace. AMY WALTER, This is the IPC. AMY WALTER, This is the International Penal Penitentiary Commission, and it agrees to draft rules that it promulgates that the League of Nets... nations promulgates in 1934. In 1934, Hitler's took Germany in 1933. And this organization meets in 1935 in Berlin, where they hear how great Hitler's just eugenics system is. The idea that you want to say, this goes to your general idea, that limit on government power, and we also have to talk about obligations of government to provide.

Okay, we'll get to that in a minute, yeah.

But limits on government power, fear of arbitrariness. Prison is the or place where you have sovereignty encompassing you.

And arbitrariness.

And terrifying power. And it is at 1950 when this International Penal Penitentiary Commission is about to close its doors that it has its final meeting at The Hague. And a man who had run the Belgian prison system speaks. He'd been briefly interred by the Nazis. And he says prison will be seen as primitive as corporal punishment because of its radical intrusion on autonomy. So somebody who's been interred is now speaking to that experience, even though he's been a prison official. So if we're looking at the idea of both obligation and constraint, government can do something to you if you've done something wrong. But let me also get to this idea of it should be the government can't send out to ruin you, no matter who you are, whether we call it punishment or not. So if I'm in detention because you're a migrant, if I'm trying to take you off the streets because I think I should be taking people off the streets, whether I've convicted you or not, the insight is you can't take people down or out because we're all equals in this democratic order. Right. And that's a stumbling block. It makes it harder for punishment. Taking on the burden of putting someone under your care and supervision is a burden that you should do as little as possible because it's a huge amount of activity. Jeremy Bentham said some people begrudge giving prisoners anything, and other people bemoan that they don't have things. And what he's got is the emotions that attach. When somebody's done something wrong, storm the Capitol, if you want that as an example. Just off the top of your head. How do you express the wrongness of that? And at the same time, don't you begrudge giving those people something because they did something so bad? Yeah. So there is Bentham's emotive analysis of the complication of punishment, which is that it's a reciprocal relationship in which now in a democratic order you have to recognize the equality of the person. And it's also hard, and we shouldn't not catch our breath to say it's both a burden in the logistics. It's also a burden emotionally because you have mixed emotions about giving to people who've done something really bad.

So you could also just pardon them. I've heard that's been done. But separately, the point about reciprocal obligation is really important here. So you note that one of the things that's unusual about punishment, maybe even particular about punishment in the American style, is that this prisoner now becomes a ward of the state almost, is under the care of the state, and indeed becomes dependent and reliant on the state for care. And in your view, that engenders certain obligations, affirmative obligations on the part of the state that may continue even after the period of imprisonment. So what are the obligations of a democratic society to the people that are imprisoned, both while they are confined and then when they are released?

So we'll get you right back to constitutional law and strict scrutiny because here we are with the U.S. Supreme Court saying in 1976, if you incarcerate someone, you have to give them health care. You can't be deliberately indifferent to known medical needs because that's cruel and unusual punishment. They could have said that violates their liberty. And, of course, the answer is it's both cruel and unusual, and it violates their liberty. So the idea is that one of the rare pods of affirmative government obligation is health care of some form, however limited it might be, because you have incarcerated. Footnote, Jeremy Bentham said in the Panopticon contract, we've got to give them health care. We've got to give them food. We can't kill them. We've got to keep them safe. In fact, we want to incentivize that they want to go work. So we're all in on that. So there are affirmative obligations. One way to read food, clothing, the 1.5 million person housing project called incarceration is you are provisioning, sadly provisioning for people who should be not incarcerated as well as for whatever number you think should be punished in some way or other. But you are in the middle of a burdensome relationship that, as a matter of constitutional law, statutory take-care law and moral obligation, is to... take care of the people who are in your care and custody. Now, then the question is, what does that mean? And one of the purposes of the book is to show you what an incredible construct prison is. There's nothing normal about it. It's a group of people who sit in fancy European capitals and rationalize sets of radical control over people. And so you could be incarcerated and wear your own clothes. You could be incarcerated. And if you're in Italy, with its constitutional court, cook, because you have a right to cook, because normal people cook. So the sort of what's the normal is what we make normal, and once whipping was normal. So, of course, the reason to start with whipping is to get people's attention to say, wait a second, how can I help you see how utterly abnormal the practices of prison are?

The idea that these carceral conditions are entirely socially constructed, like we do this.

invent solitary confinement invent whipping and use whipping for this you didn't invent it but you applied it in this in this way but you did invent the incarceration state and there are different versions of it it's not the only one and then the question is is it doing anything that's okay and the answer in terms of ruin is let's talk about the staff yeah mental illness physical illness, blood pressure, high suicide.

The people who are administering the prisons.

Prison is a toxic environment for people who live there, whether it's four hours, 14 hours, 28 hours, in whatever period of time. People are not doing well in a metal, concrete, noisy, dirty environment in which high security is apparently everywhere, but everybody's really insecure, because it's really scary.

How do we think about the relationship between prisons, this anti-ruination principle, and the idea of limited government, and where we are right now as a democracy? And like, I'll be very bald about it. Many people think we are on the precipice of no longer being a democracy. How does our approach to prisons reflect that precarity?

One way to respond is to say there's been the conceit that whatever you do to prisoners is different because they're prisoners. We're watching a federal government being willing to order the murders of people in boats offshore to grab people off streets. So the continuity of treatment, which comes back to your leitmotif of limited, lawful government, it's not just limited government, it's lawful government. And so if you're looking at the treatment of the people inside and the treatment of the people outside, if they're pushed aside as the people who could be subjected to horrible treatment is ungodly, terrifyingly comparable. And so, therefore, the joint project is to reject those forms of treatment in or outside. And one of the things, you know, Europe is validated as, oh, look at Europe, they do better. What they do better is provide social services inside and out, coming back to your health care in prison and annoying, how come they get it and I'm not in prison and I don't get it? many European countries, is everybody gets it, and some education. So I'm not giving prisoners more than I'm giving other people. I'm treating people the same. And, of course, the purpose of this concern is the ruin isn't just of the person, but of the body politic. It's a really terrific point.

The book is called Impermissible Punishments, How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy. The author is the indomitable Judith Resnick, a fantastic scholar, a really incredible thinker, and someone who has made the question of prisons accessible and, again, just urgent for this particular moment. Thank you. Thanks.

And now for our favorite things. One of my favorite things are elected officials who hold political power actually standing up for democracy and doing the right thing. And so I wanted to highlight a speech by Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collette, who gave a speech to the Pennsylvania Senate on Louisiana versus Calais. Very, I think, important that, again, officials are not letting this one go and speaking to their colleagues and the public about it. There's also a recent just-published law review article on autocratic judging that just came out in the UCLA Law Review, and it is written by two law professors, Rebecca Brown and Lee Epstein. Very important, timely work, and worth reading. Another piece, Megan Waxpress wrote at Liberal Currents called AOC for President. I just think has a really nuanced and sophisticated discussion about feminism and feminist politics. And I really enjoyed reading it. Megan is about to start as a professor at the University of San Francisco. So definitely.

watch out for her writing. Also, I wanted to highlight Mara Gay's opinion piece in the New York Times. She went to Alabama to kind of report on the aftermath of Louisiana versus Calais and the redistricting there. It is a searing read and worth reading in full. It's called A Shocking Betrayal of Black Americans. It's kind of hard to rebound after that Maragay

citation because that was a searing piece in the New York Times. But I will just say that it was a fun week for me because I was on the road promoting my book, The Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader. I went to Philadelphia. I was in Washington, D.C. It was super fun. I'm especially excited to get back home, though, and find some new reading delivered in advance for me. Lawless. Melissa is holding up the paperback version. It's so light. It fits in my bag. I had no objections to carrying around the hardcover, but I do like this paperback for summer. I also like the new material, which is so fun, so funny. It almost makes living through this moment okay, but not really. No, not really. You got close, but you didn't actually nail.

Yeah. I wasn't trying for that. I was not trying to make it okay, to be clear.

You did not stick that landing, but this is fantastic. Highly recommend. Please go and read. So because I was on the road, I got to meet a lot of people. I just wanted to shout out some of them. Shout out to one of our favorite friends of the pod, Attorney General, forever Attorney General, Eric Holder, who joined me in conversation at Politics and Prose in D.C. on Wednesday evening. Such a great night. Packed house. Thank you to everyone who showed up. Guess who showed up, Leah? Best intern ever. Best intern ever. Jordan was right there. Also with Jordan was Natalia, a rising 1L at Harvard Law School, Kit, my former student, all there in the crowd. I met lots of great people. Shout out to Eleanor, who is a high school student who is thinking about law school and has read all of our books, so good for her. I also got to attend in Philadelphia the Committee of Seventies Women in Public Service Breakfast. That was on Wednesday morning. I want to shout out to Andrea and the other stricties that I ran into. It was a really great event where they honored Kitty Colbert, who, as we all know, was the person who argued Planned Parenthood versus Casey and has continued to fight for equality throughout her long career. Also want to give a big shout out to recurring friend of the pod, Skye Perryman, and the great folks at Democracy Forward who let me crash their retreat. They were fantastic. It was an amazing retreat at Audi Field in DC. That's how big they are. They're fighting for democracy and they need a whole soccer field to hold them. And it was fantastic. Also a shout out to Stricty Rachel, who I met standing in line at the Pret-a-Manger in Union Station on my way home. I was a little embarrassed to be holding two sandwiches because I couldn't decide. I wasn't going to eat them all, but I wanted to be able to try both of them. It was really great to meet her. Finally, DC Stricties. If you have an opportunity, please check out the artist Imar Lyman's amazing exhibit at the Krieger Museum. Lyman is an amazing artist who by training is a lawyer and his work is infused with themes of law and justice and equality. And it's just truly arresting. Does a lot of work in multiple media, collage, sculpture. It's just really fantastic. And the Krieger Museum is an unsung gem as well. It's like nestled in a neighborhood in D.C., a private home that's been turned into a museum, and they have just a fantastic collection. So please get out there and see it. The show runs until July.

Speaking of undersung gems in Washington, D.C., if you haven't heard yet, tickets for Crooked Con 2026 are on sale now. You can expect potential presidential candidates, campaign strategists, pollsters, organizers, journalists, creators, and crooked podcast hosts like me. Who knows, maybe I'll even deliver a read to some potential presidential candidates, a la my take on the Michigan Senators. Anyways, CrookedCon comes just days after the midterms. We will have a lot to learn and a lot to do, a lot to get ready for, for the next two years. We'll kick it off on Thursday, November 5th with a Pod Save America live show. Then, on the evening of Friday, November 6th, you can catch us at Strict Scrutiny Live.

Oh, my God. The pod bros are opening for us. I know.

I know. Finally. Nature is soothing. Nature is healing.

Touch grass. Touch grass.

And on Saturday, November 7th, join us for a full day of Crooked Con panels and meetups. Head to CrookedCon.com to get tickets and more details, including how to become a Friends of the Pod subscriber.

for a special discount. We can't wait to see you there.

Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Melody Rowell and Michael Goldsmith. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hethcote, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffat, Eric Schutt, and our music is by Eddie Cooper. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

Artificial intelligence is moving very, very fast, and it's raising new questions just about every day about what it is, what it isn't. When all is said and done, what is the end game? I'm Chris Hayes, and as part of my podcast, Why Is This Happening, I'm speaking with leading

experts each week to help ground that conversation. We're right now in a situation where it's very difficult to understand what is real and what's not real. Why Is This Happening? The AI Endgame,

a special miniseries from MS Now. Start listening today, wherever you get your podcasts.

Are you having difficulty getting in with your primary care and find yourself sitting in a waiting room for an hour or two before you're finally seen? And then when you finally do get in you may be seen for only five to seven minutes and believe it or not it's not even your provider's fault it's big insurance they're trying to keep and make as much money as possible i'm ashley pollard of the ashley clinic and i saw a need for a new way to deliver primary care it's called direct primary care where you can have a same day appointment and plenty of time with your provider come see us we'll take care of you the ashley clinic knowing you is caring for you

this is the story of the one the one who keeps multiple buildings running smoothly day after day. Plumbing that flows, HVAC that hums, cleaning supplies that keep surfaces sparkling. That's why she counts on Grainger. With easy reordering online and 24-7 support, Grainger helps her keep the product she needs on hand. So shelves stay stocked and buildings stay ready. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger,

for the ones who get it done. This is the story of the one. As a maintenance engineer at a beverage manufacturing plant. He starts his day knowing every line is ready to run because Grainger delivers the industrial grade products he needs to keep mixers, conveyors, and packaging equipment moving. With Grainger's vast selection of bearings, belts, and motors, he keeps operations running smoothly so nothing grinds to a halt. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done.