Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Have a question or need how-to advice? Just ask Meta AI. Whether you need to summarize your class notes or want to create a recipe with the ingredients you already have in your fridge, Meta AI has the answers. You can also research topics, explore interests, and so much more. It's the most advanced AI at your fingertips. Expand your world with Meta AI. Now on Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Messenger.
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. I'm Kate Shaw. And I'm Leah Lippman. And today we are your podcast about the Supreme Court's continued efforts to read the 14th Amendment out of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court decided the presidential disqualification case, so we are bringing you an actually expedited emergency episode to explain what they did and break it down. I think we should also use this episode to officially launch the it's time for some bad decisions segment because yikes, between the court's order in the January 6th criminal case and this decision, it's bad.
And I want to be clear, like by bad, I'm not necessarily talking about the bottom line conclusion in this case. Allowing states to disqualify presidential officers is complicated. But the reasoning in this decision is bad. It's really bad. And because I don't know, at least speaking for myself, think law is a thing. And, you know, we're law professors. We think that matters in part because of what it reveals, you know, is driving the court if it's not. We're just awful institutionalist law professors and not the really cool law professors. I was just so strident there. Yeah.
Not the cool law professors who were never really buying into this whole institutionalist thing and are jaded and cynical by nature. We're so naive, you guys. So dumb, ladies.
Strident, dumb lady brains. All right. So let's bring all that to bear on the opinion that the court issued this morning. And the bottom line, which Leah alluded to a minute ago, is that the Supreme Court said that Colorado and other states cannot disqualify Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. So that narrow bottom line holding was 9-0. It was unanimous. But the opinion is actually more like 5-4 with respect to the court's reasoning.
And that reasoning, which garnered just five votes, says that the power to disqualify insurrectionists lies only with Congress and also that there are substantial limits on the way Congress can disqualify insurrectionists.
We'll break down that opinion, which was a per curiam opinion, meaning no identified author. We'll also talk about a separate writing by Justice Barrett. And then we will talk about a separate concurrence by the court's three Democratic appointees. Which really read like a dissenting opinion. I know. I keep almost stumbling over concurrence. But they did. They did agree with the bottom line. But it was one of those violent opinions.
agreement about the bottom line and disagreement about the reasoning in the majority or in the per curiam opinion. Well, let's talk about that per curiam opinion. So it holds, as we predicted coming out of the oral argument, that states lack the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officers, especially, maybe only, it's not entirely clear, when those federal officers are also presidential candidates.
But then it goes further to opine that history and tradition and text and maybe all of the things make clear that only Congress can enforce Section 3 and only by remedial legislation that the Supreme Court deems congruent and proportional. Can I just stop you for a minute? Yeah. This was a Section 3 opinion that I think I'm going to use to teach Section 5 of the 14th Amendment now. Oh, okay.
For sure. For sure. Because it actually says legitimate things about Section 5, namely that Congress has the primary role in enforcing the Reconstruction Amendments, which is not something the court basically ever does in actual Section 5 cases.
But of course, when it gives with one hand, it takes away with the other in saying the court is going to superintend Congress's exercise of that enforcement authority. This is exactly like the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in the CFPB case where they're like Congress's authority to make appropriations. It's so exclusive. We court are going to tell Congress how.
Right.
It seems like the court is effectively ruling out the possibility and the permissibility of a majority of congressional representatives refusing to seat someone who's been elected to office if the representatives believe that person is an insurrectionist. Like that seems to be a key dividing line between the five justices in the per curiam opinion and the others.
I should note, I have seen some people suggest the court didn't actually rule that out or require Congress to act via legislation here. But we'll go through the passages in the opinion that at least I think are indicative of that view.
And I am not in the business of saying that we told you so, except when I am in the business of saying that we told you so. And I just want to say we did tell you so. And because I am someone who likes receipts, I brought some today. So let's roll some clips. When Jason Murray took the lectern.
Based on the various colloquies between Murray and the justices, we are pretty convinced that the court is going to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court on the ground that states cannot disqualify federal officials or perhaps just the president absent congressional authorization to do so. This is a little different from any of the arguments Mitchell made, though it's related to some of them. So we're going to flesh that out.
And we should note that it's not clear how exactly the court will justify this new, air quotes, rule that states can't disqualify federal office holders absent congressional authorization. But it does seem like that is exactly the direction that they're headed in. So despite calling this, I think I'm still pretty triggered and offended by this opinion. So it is actually worse than we thought it was.
Don't you think? I agree. Like, Melissa, you brought the receipts. The court did not bring the receipts, the timeline, the screenshots, or anything. Or the law!
Yeah. So not surprising as a bottom line outcome, but nevertheless disappointing in particular in reasoning. And to go back to something that we said a couple of minutes ago, even when the court behaves in what really feel like unprincipled ways, we continue to think it's important to try to hold them to higher standards. And so we're going to walk through some of the acrobatics that the court performed in order to
first, to get Trump back on or to remain on the ballot, and second, and more egregiously in some ways, to make it harder to disqualify insurrectionists, including Trump, going forward. So understanding these inconsistencies and the court's pretty incoherent rationales helps underscore a point the Democratic appointees made in their separate writing, which is that they accuse the court of, quote, deciding novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner from future controversy, close quote.
And the petitioner, to be clear, is Donald Trump here. To be clear, and to be clear, the Democratic appointees are basically saying that this court is in the bag for Donald Trump. That's the big charge. I mean, that concurrence slash dissent was...
ready and loaded for bear because they made really clear that we all should take note, especially on the heels of the court's recent decision to grant Sarsha Rari in the Trump immunity appeal related to the criminal case arising out of January 6th that jeopardizes the possibility of a trial before the election, that we ought to understand everything the court is doing as in service of Donald Trump. Like, this is the committee to reelect the president. Right.
And they are creepy. Some more than others. The Democratic appointees also expressed concern about how, quote, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement and, quote, of Section 3. OK.
So as promised, we are going to walk through the problems with the reasoning in this opinion. First, again, as a kind of top line, the court has, taking a phrase from Sam Alito, basically shadow banned and content moderated the 14th Amendment out of the Constitution. Here's specifically Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because the court said federal officeholders can be disqualified from office if Congress passes legislation under Section 5.
And these are the passages that I had in mind when I was saying it seems like the
the per curiam kind of rules out the possibility of other methods of Congress disqualifying federal officeholders. So here's one, quote, The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how these determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject, of course, to judicial review, to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment, end quote. The court also adds, quote, Congress's Section 5 power is critical when it comes to Section 3, end quote.
I should note that in a really weird sentence, the court also says that in the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article 1 to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3, end quote, which seems to acknowledge that Congress may have sometimes done this without authorizing legislation. But those other passages in the per curiam opinion, quote,
led, I think, me as well as the joint concurrence by the Democratic appointees as well as the Barrett concurrence to say the majority decided that federal legislation is necessary to enforce Section 3. And in one of the more, I think, Orwellian passages of the per curiam opinion, the court says that, quote, the text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions when the
The text kind of says the opposite. Like, the text does not reinforce that conclusion. The text of Section 3 contains a prohibition, just like the text of Section 1 does. Section 1 contains the prohibitions on states denying equal protection and depriving people of liberty without due process. And Section 1 is enforceable. That prohibition is enforceable, even if Congress doesn't enact statutes. And Section 3 says nothing about affirmatively requiring congressional legislation. To the extent that it says anything about Congress, it suggests that legislation isn't actually needed to enforce Section 3. And yet...
The court uses language in Section 3 that undermines its conclusion and insists that the language actually supports its conclusion. So the court says, quote, its final sentence empowers Congress to, quote, remove any Section 3 disability by a two-thirds vote of each House. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it any time as the respondents can see, end quote. Melissa just made a face that, like, I wish our listeners could see. Thank you.
The math ain't mathing. Exactly. And to break down exactly how it's not mathing, the argument that the PC opinion offers just truly makes no sense. So, you know, as we talked about in our previous coverage of this case and as Melissa just described, the language in Section 3 says that Congress can remove a disability by a two-thirds vote.
This, to our mind at least, makes it less likely, in fact virtually incoherent, to claim that Section 3's prohibition on insurrectionists holding office has no teeth absent congressional legislation.
What am I missing? No, you're not missing anything. This is an example of what I mean when I say the court is no law, just vibes, right? They totally...
some superficial legal thing, the text of Section 3, and just declared that it means the exact opposite of what it seems to logically mean. Because if Congress can only remove a disqualification by two-thirds vote of each House, why would the amendment give a simple majority of Congress the power to block disqualification at all, since a simple majority could block the passage of legislation? Like, that's why this is Orwellian. Right.
The opinion is replete with references that minimize Section 3, which I think is really interesting as well. For example, the majority says this, quote, End quote.
No, friends. Sorry. It's about insurrectionists. Like just full stop. Insurrectionists who could be former Confederates, but could also be other people conspiring to overthrow the government. It says insurrectionists. This isn't textualism. It's just some other thing. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by IXL Learning.
Do you want to set up your child for success? You know, so that they can tell the difference between smog and laughing gas? Maybe you want to save money on private tutoring, or it's out of your budget, or maybe it's a big school year for your child starting a new level of school, or you've moved, or they're starting a new school, or whatever the case is. IXL Learning is an online learning program for kids covering math, language arts, science, and social studies. IXL is designed to help them really understand and master topics in a fun way.
Powered by advanced algorithms, iXcel gives the right help to each kid, no matter the age or personality. There's one site for all the kids in your home, pre-K to 12th grade. Kids can use it at home on the computer or on the go through the app on your phone or tablet. No more grading those worksheets. iXcel grades everything itself and no more trying to figure out how to explain math questions or grammar rules yourself. iXcel has built-in explanation videos. One
One in four students in the U.S. are learning with IXL. IXL is used in 95 of the top 100 school districts in the United States. My nephew is learning how to read. I've tried teaching him with friendship bracelets, but let's be honest, IXL would definitely be more helpful so that he could actually read said friendship bracelets. He does like the Heiress Tour movie after all.
Make an impact on your child's learning. Get IXL now and strict scrutiny listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today at ixl.com slash strict. Visit ixl.com slash strict to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.
This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. It's the end of the Supreme Court term, which means it's time for a self-care refresher. What are your self-care non-negotiables? Maybe you never skip leg day or therapy day. When your schedule is packed with kids' activities, big work projects, and more, it's easy to let your priorities slip.
Even when we know what makes us happy, it's hard to make time for it. But when you feel like you have no time for yourself, non-negotiables like therapy are more important than ever. And as we know from this season of The Bear, non-negotiables are a BFD.
If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. No travel time. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists anytime for no additional charge so you can find someone who works for you. Never skip therapy day with BetterHelp.
Visit betterhelp.com slash strict today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash strict.
So there are those issues with the court's reading of the text of the 14th Amendment. And another thing that I think is particularly galling about the per curiam opinion really gets to a point that we talked about with Sherrilyn Ifill on a recent episode. And Sherrilyn Ifill is someone who actually knows some things about the 14th Amendment, unlike the individuals who joined this per curiam opinion. And that issue is this. The court's decision is especially egregious in light of what this court has done with Section 5 and Congress's power to enact legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment. This is something we were
alluding to at the outset of this episode. So the opinion repeatedly invokes the centrality of Section 5, that is the enforcement clause, to the design of the 14th Amendment. There have been a litany of cases, however, in which the Supreme Court has actually invalidated legislation that Congress enacted under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment on the view that Section 5 severely limits the kinds of laws that Congress can enact under Section 5. Do you see the circularity here? So here are some examples of that.
In the civil rights cases, the court in the 1880s struck down the first Civil Rights Act of 1875 on the ground that Section 5 only authorized Congress to take steps to limit state action, not private acts of discrimination. Likewise, in City of Bernie v. Flores, a more recent case, the court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to the states on the view that it was not congruent and proportional remedial legislation.
In Kimmel and Garrett, the court struck down provisions of the ADA and the ADEA as applied to the states on a similar view. In United States v. Morrison, it struck down Section 13981 of the Violence Against Women Act on the view that it applied to private conduct as opposed to state action. In Coleman, it struck down parts of the FMLA as applied to the states. In Allen v. Cooper, it did the same thing in the context of a Patent and Copyright Act. And in Shelby County v. Holder, it struck
concluded that the VRA, though not a Section 5 case, was not congruent and proportional in the context of remedying rampant voter discrimination. So this court at every turn has really tried to limit the force of the Reconstruction Amendments and Congress's constitutionally conferred authority to enforce the requirements of the Reconstruction Amendments.
And in many of these cases, the court has said that any legislation that Congress enacts under Section 5 must be congruent and proportional to a pattern of constitutional violations. And the court has said that this places more restrictions on Congress's power to enact laws under Section 5 than when Congress enacts laws under other powers that are contained in Article 1. This has led them then to be incredibly trigger happy when shooting down congressional legislation that's
authorized under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and again, to limit the force of the 14th Amendment and the other Reconstruction Amendments.
But... And now, in the disqualification case, the Supreme Court comes along and says, because Congress has not enacted legislation, that means Section 3 is unenforceable. They are acting as if Congress's failure to adopt legislation is entitled to more respect and more deference from the court than when Congress actually does enact legislation. Pick a lane. Pick a lane. Right. And...
And this turns the 14th Amendment, in my view, into like a Schrodinger's Amendment of congressional power that exists but also doesn't really exist. Like the court is saying the substantive provisions of Section 3 are unenforceable and effectively not the law because Congress hasn't done anything. But in all the previous cases, the court has denied Congress's power to enforce the amendments, making the 14th Amendment less robust when Congress actually does something. Right.
Another thing that the opinion made me think about was the possibility that the Reconstruction Amendments in general contain some sort of SCOTUS supremacy principle, which is that the court gets to strike down congressional legislation to enforce the amendments in all the cases that Melissa was just talking about, but also can say that Congress's failure to enact legislation means that other provisions are unenforceable and that the Supreme Court won't decide whether someone is barred from office under Section 3 absent congressional action.
And this is all very difficult to square with a history of the Reconstruction amendments because Congress, when enacting those amendments, was very, very skeptical, and rightly so, of the Supreme Court and pretty clearly would never have wanted the Supreme Court to have this kind of authority.
And I want to give a concrete example, which the court had the audacity to include in their opinion in this case of the hypocrisy and how the court treats actual legislation enacted under Section 5 compared to the absence of legislation. So they cite legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which Neil Gorsuch is apparently now fine with, quoting a senator about Congress's role in enforcing the amendment. And then the court notes,
that, quote, the enforcement mechanism the senator championed was later enacted as part of the Enforcement Act of 1870, end quote. The opinion also mentions this a second time, quote, instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3. Shortly after ratification of the amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870, end quote. Well, guess what the Supreme Court did with the Enforcement Act of 1870? Oh, details, Leah, details. I know. Like, the court...
The court effectively took the teeth out of and nullified the force of the Enforcement Act by reading it so narrowly they read it to be toothless against the threats of racial violence from the KKK. That was the case Cruikshank v. United States, which we talked about on our episode with Sherilyn. That case involved the Enforcement Act of 1870.
The case reinvigorated the Klan and helped facilitate the end of Reconstruction because the opinion said that a white militia attacking black freedmen at a courthouse surrounding the contested election in Louisiana was not something that could be prosecuted under the Enforcement Act because, again, they would not give Congress the actual authority. They wouldn't let Congress to actually enforce the Reconstruction Amendment. So the Supreme Court has
Hamstrung Congress from enforcing the amendments. At the same time, it is now insisting that it must be Congress who enforces the amendments. And it's just, in my view, completely shameless. But on brand. Yes, yes. Shameless and on brand. The bar, as you say, is in hell. Correct.
So I think this is as good a moment as any to bring up the joint opinion concurring in the judgment, but essentially dissenting from everything else that the Democratic appointees wrote. So here's one of the lines that I wanted to quote.
End quote.
I love zero fucks Elena Kagan. I know. Absolutely. Also zero fucks Katonji Brown Jackson and zero fucks Sonia Sotomayor. All of it. I love it all. You know, my one note is that they maybe should have captioned the opinion concurring in the judgment, comma, but also dissenting from all of the bullshit. Oh, that would have been great. Let's get that. Let's make that happen. Let's make Supreme Court dissents great again. Yeah.
Another thing that struck me in reading all of these opinions is that the court is selectively toggling back and forth between whittling down congressional legislation and ramping up the absence of legislation. And it all reminds me of Pam Carlin's terrific 2012 Harvard Law Review foreword, Democracy and Disdain. And that foreword began with the line, quote,
"Sometimes the justices seem barely able to hide their disdain for the other branches of government." And there, Carlin argued that the current court combines a very robust view of its interpretive supremacy with a strikingly restrictive view of Congress's enumerated powers. And she continues, "The Roberts Court's approach reflects a combination of institutional distrust, the court is better at determining constitutional meaning, and substantive distrust. Congressional power must be held in check."
Basically, when the court is talking about Congress, it is reliably using Congress as a punching bag. And in doing so, it arrogates power to the court at the expense of Congress, which we have seen over and over and over again. This is a recurring theme. We see this in the administrative law cases. And now we're seeing it here, only the stakes could not be higher because it's not just whittling away Congress's power and arrogating power to the court. It's arrogating power to the court so that it can serve Congress.
this prospective presidential campaign. So the court purports to basically center Congress as the key actor here. But in all of these ways, as you just mentioned, Melissa, the court is really centering itself. And so let's talk a little bit about how. So the court basically says in the
So disqualification by Congress has to be the kind of primary method or the sole method of enforcing the 14th Amendment. But that disqualification, according to the court, has to happen in very particular ways. So how specifically does the court seem to think this disqualification by Congress has to happen? So one, by legislation.
and legislation that in the court's estimation is sufficiently remedial under Section 5 that it would satisfy the court's congruence and proportionality test. So it would enforce Section 3 as the court understands Section 3. But then there are also all these questions that Leah alluded to a couple of minutes ago about whether the court's reasoning here actually –
upsets long-settled practice in which Congress gets to determine the qualifications of its own members. So there is historical practice of Congress refusing to seat insurrectionists, including in an episode the court cites involving John Christie. There was no legislation in that exclusion. Does the court seem to think that in the future an actual bill passed by both houses and signed by the president will be required before that? I think the same questions arise with respect to expulsion of a member, which under the Constitution each house can do with a two-thirds vote.
That happened with New York Representative George Santos just a couple of months ago. Does the court here also say that if a sitting member engaged in insurrection, there would first need to be legislation before a house could expel that member for insurrection? And the last thing I think the court leaves somewhat unclear is whether Congress in the joint session of Congress that was the target of the January 6th attack
Whether Congress could potentially disqualify an insurrectionist as part of its counting function, I think no under the court's reasoning. So these are all ways that Congress is actually constrained, even as the court is at pain to suggest that Congress is in the driver's seat.
Yeah. And even if Congress enacted legislation, it is possible that this court would say the legislation was not sufficiently remedial, as Kate was alluding to. So imagine if Congress enacted a law disqualifying Trump on the ground that they thought Trump was an insurrectionist. My guess is there are at least two votes.
on this court to strike down that legislation on the ground that it wouldn't be consistent with this Supreme Court's understanding of Section 3 and therefore would not be remedial. There's also some discussion about the actual events that are at the heart of the case. This is the most the five justices who joined the Procurium opinion were willing to say about the events of January 6, 2021.
That's it.
And again, I think you have to read that in conjunction with its grant of Sarshi Awari, where it seems to credit the idea that maybe there is some
Room for disagreement about whether or not Donald Trump's actions were allegedly in the scope of his office or not. That's their language, not mine. But again, it just seems like they are really going out of their way to sort of limit the discussion of what happened on January 6th and to minimize its importance going forward, both in this election and generally as a matter of constitutional law.
which leaves it to the three democratically appointed justices and their concurrent slash dissent to actually describe what is in fact at stake.
And they do. And we'll turn to that writing in just a minute, but maybe like a couple more beats on the per curiam opinion first. And one is that there are these other kind of dubious attempts at support that the opinion offers. So there is this gem that is worth quoting, and that is, quote, "...nor have the respondents identified any tradition of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates in the years following ratification of the 14th Amendment. Such a lack of historical precedent is generally a telling indication of a severe constitutional problem with the asserted power."
And I just have to ask, is that really what it's a telling indication of? Or might it also have something to do with the happy fact that until recently we just haven't had presidents attempt to interfere with the peaceful transition of power and thus there just hasn't been reason to invoke this provision? Might that be why we don't have a documented history of the sort the court seems to be looking for? I think you're asking, Kate, whether this opinion is willfully blind or deliberately obtuse. I'm going to say both.
It's also completely clueless and perhaps even deliberately obtuse about the highly federalized nature of federal elections already. So the court makes a lot of the fact that it would never allow a, quote unquote, patchwork of ballots that would result from state enforcement. Doing so would, quote unquote, sever the direct link that the framers found so critical between the national government and the people of the United States, end quote. Now, we predicted that they would never countenance this idea of a patchwork of ballots, but it
This reasoning is frankly just absolutely bonkers because we already give the states enormous leeway in running elections. And, you know, all they have to say is like for this election, for the ballot, like it's really important that we have like the same candidates be on the ballot, whatever. But the idea that we're just going to base this in the view that all elections have to be sort of nationally governed and uniform, they themselves don't even do that because they are constantly allowing and crediting voters
suppressive voter laws that make it difficult for certain groups in one state to exercise the ballot, whereas it's perfectly fine for those groups in another state. So we already have a patchwork of electoral policies throughout the country, and we already give the states enormous leeway in how they run their elections, including elections for federal office. So it is a little...
late to be stating that there is a broad constitutional infirmity about the prospect of patchwork election policies. We already have that. There is a reason, I think, to be concerned in this instance. But across the board, this court has already blessed the prospect of numerous voting laws that are a patchwork all across the country. So in addition to waking up to some of the concerns with the federalized system of elections, something else dawned on the court, and this is
opinion, which is that maybe multi-factor legal tests are OK, because for a bunch of people who gave Justice Breyer endless amounts of shit for adopting multi-factor legal tests, all of a sudden they seem just fine with them. You know, the opinion says, quote, it is the combination of all of these reasons set forth in this opinion that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the court unanimously reaches, end quote. You know who thought this decision was well-reasoned, though?
Donald Trump. And he knows some things about the law. So let's play his reaction here. Very important decision. We're very well crafted. And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs. And they worked long, they worked hard. And frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will
be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now, extremely important. And then in another statement, you know, he capitalized and emphasized on the fact that the courts seem to be together on this issue as far as the bottom line results. So we'll play that here as well. So just to finish, I have great respect for the Supreme Court, and I want to just thank them for working so quickly and so diligently and so brilliantly.
And again, this is a unifying factor. Everybody now is together and they can go after me as a politician. They can go after me with votes, but they're not going to go after me with that kind of lawsuit that takes somebody out of a race who's leading in this case. But even if the person wasn't leading and.
I want to thank you all for being here. Tell me you didn't read the concurrences without telling me you didn't read the concurrences. Right. Exactly. Exactly. And speaking of the concurrences, we are now going to go on to discuss the separate writing by Justice Barrett. This is in part a concurring opinion and in part a concurrence in the judgment. What that means is she did not join some of the reasoning groups.
In the per curiam opinion, specifically, she did not join the parts of the opinion that seem to, in various passages, require congressional legislation to authorize disqualification. I mean, the TLDR of this opinion is, I'm a cool girl. Pick me, fellas. Right? That's all.
What else? What else was there to say about that? I mean, basically she says in this opinion, like the other ladies on this court, I agree that this per curiam opinion is getting way ahead of itself. We could just decide here that the states can't enforce Section 3 against a presidential candidate. But instead of actually joining the other women on the court in a show of solidarity and maybe explaining why this court is completely high on its own supply, I will instead...
Bash my fellow sisters and big up Brodus because feminism. These bitches have turned the temperature up, way up, and I will not have it. I will not have it. Amy Barrett, out.
That's the opinion. That sounds like an overstatement. Melissa just did a very faithful paraphrase of exactly what Amy Coney Barrett wrote. So I'm actually going to quote it here and you'll see how similar it is. So she basically says after noting that, again, she would have decided the case just by narrowly holding that Colorado couldn't disqualify Trump, quote, the majority's choice of a different path leaves the remaining justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.
You harpies? That was implicit, but definitely there. And she goes on. Wait, time the fuck out.
How is it that she agrees that Brodus is the problem, but she's beating up on the other women? This is so on brand, both for her and for the political context in which she was appointed. Here you have Justice Ginsburg's replacement calling her out.
now three female colleagues strident, and it exemplifies the hollowness of the brand of identity politics that the Republicans traffic in, where feminism means just appointing women to the Supreme Court who will lecture the other harpies about being overly strident in their efforts to warn democracy about what this court is doing. She's weaponizing her gender and her presence on the court against her female colleagues who are attempting to inform the public about what the court has done. And nothing, there are very few things that annoy me more than
women giving cover to regressive gender politics and dynamics, which she seems to just twirl in. Like that is her metier, if you will. And also, girl, like, if you think this opinion is strident, have you read anything by the justice you clerked for Antonin Scalia, who literally said he would, quote, hide his head in a bag rather than join a majority opinion of the court? Or for
No, but he's a man. He can't be strident. You can only be strident if you have ovaries. You know who else isn't strident? Neil Gorsuch. It's called legislation. Or Sam Alito, who in Fulton wrote a concurrence where he said the court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed, as am I.
Nope, that's a sharp wit, a sharp pen. That's not Striden's name. Nope, totally different. Sam Alito, famous for his sharp wit. Okay, that was really targeted at Scalia. Yeah. I don't know what to say. That's fair. Not Alito. I did want to say that this writing confirms something I have –
to Justice Barrett before, and that is her very strong Justice Dolores Umbridge vibes. Like, the real danger is not that Voldemort might be about to return, but that people are getting worked up about the fact that Voldemort might return and are trying to guard against Voldemort's return. She's literally saying, like, you must be civilized and speak in a civil tone when the coup starts, ladies. The insurrection must be met with civility. This is big whizzing gamut energy, I have to say. Yeah.
It has please don't say we're mad, right, elements to it. Like I'm not mad. Please don't put in the newspaper that I got mad kind of undercurrents. And it is consistent with what I think of as a pattern now of her showing flashes of these bros are crazy and I'm not one of these SCOTUS bros, BROTUS SCROTUS.
But at the same time, failing to actually meaningfully materially distinguish herself from them because she's right, of course, that the procurium went further than necessary. But then she turns around and tries to shame her three female colleagues who explain why the court shouldn't have done more than necessary to resolve the case.
Ladies, when our overlords speak, you're supposed to be decorous and civil. Smile. Smile more. Smile more, Sonia, Elena, and Katanji. Smile more. And even though I think she wants to be saying that this case is evidence that the court is great and totally about the law, the thing she emphasizes is the fact that the justices agree, quote, on the outcome.
Like not on the law or the legal reasoning. Apparently outcomes are what matters now. Like who knew? And the end of the majority per curiam opinion has some of this too. Yeah, the end of the majority opinion says, quote, all nine members of the court agree with that result, end quote. Like leaving aside the fact that there are some major disagreements. Like they're all in agreement.
With that in mind, for some actual reason, unclear to anyone else on the court, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson issued a joint concurrence that concurred in the judgment, but basically dissented from all of the other quote-unquote f***.
Like that's the legal term, which is to say that this writing is joint in the sense that it doesn't identify a single author. And it's a concurrence in the judgment because they refuse to join any other parts of the per curiam opinion. And so to our mind, this is really a dissent and dissonance.
I'm going to treat it like a dissent. So I wanted to note one thing about this, which is Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, who is fantastic, noted that if you double click on the opinion where it says J.J. at the top and copy paste it or control F, the line actually reads Sotomayor J concurring in part and dissenting in part.
And if you do a control F search for that, exactly, it highlights the same line. It appears in the metadata. So that provides some important legislative history about how this began and took shape. Fascinating. Yeah. I also wonder if Barrett was trying to get them, like whether you sort of see that the results of some protracted negotiation on their side of the nine that they then... The knitting circle? Yeah.
Things really broke down in their efforts to pull together. Someone got shivved with a knitting needle. We'll never do that again. But that's fascinating. I hadn't seen that stern catch. That's really, really interesting.
Okay, so whatever it is, partial concurrence, partial dissent, concurrence in the judgment, it starts with a bang. And that bang is that it cites the chief justice's concurrence in Dobbs, the case, of course, that overruled Roe, but where the chief justice would have proceeded more incrementally than his far more venturesome colleagues. And here's the quote. If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.
So wherefore that humility and minimalism, John Roberts, seems to be the question that the rhetorical question, at least that the concurrs begin with.
I think we were all so exercised about the majority opinion and Dobbs that we really skipped over the chief justice's concurrence in part because it was like so completely pointless. But that what you just read, it is if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Like that is so like the way to stop discriminating on the basis. Exactly. Yeah.
Does this guy have another lane? That's his lane. He has a template and he just like inserts. Like what's your grievance? Like insert here. So that's how the three justices, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson start off. And let me just say the tea continues to steep and get hot. So yeah,
The next thing they do, like I think it's actually the next paragraph, is they call Donald Trump, not explicitly, but it is very definitely implied, a quote unquote, oath-breaking insurrectionist. And there is no allegedly or anything like that. They're just like, oath-breaking insurrectionist. And to which I say, maybe accurate.gif. Here's the exact quote.
Quote, in this case, the court must decide whether Colorado may keep a presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oath-breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. End quote. Ladies. I should be clear that that emphasis that Melissa added to the passage is also evident in the metadata. Right. If you like carefully. Just click on the line. Yep. Yep.
And then here comes Professor Katonji Brown-Jackson with her PhD dissertation on the Reconstruction Amendments, noting that...
And, quote,
I just want to say like that. And she goes on to say like that by itself is how we should decide this case. But I love that she's sort of sticking it in there like I am going to educate this entire populace about the reconstruction amendments at every possible turn I have every possible chance I can get it.
It is also worth noting that this opinion contains the only reference to the importance of Section 3 in all of the writings that were issued on this case. The joint concurrers dissenters say, quote, Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed role in our democracy, end quote. What's the one thing most history books all over the world have in common that they're seriously lacking in the melanin department?
Wondery's podcast Black History for Real introduces you to the most overlooked Black history makers you should already know about. In recent episodes, they've told the story of the women of the Black Panther Party, like Assata Shakur, who's still a fugitive in exile, and Elaine Brown, the first female chairperson of the party. And there's so much more, like why a young Samuel L. Jackson got expelled from Morehouse College, and why country keeps trying to keep Beyonce out.
Follow Black History for Real wherever you get your podcasts. Discover more to the story with Wondery's other top history podcasts, including American History, Tellers, Legacy, and even The Royals.
Hi, I'm Stacey Abrams, host of the brand new Crooked podcast, Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams. Each week, we'll work together to better understand one of those big issues that seems insurmountable. Whether it's the Electoral College, America's loneliness epidemic, or the future of Hollywood post-strikes, I'll challenge you to dig in and ask, how do we get here? What obstacles lie ahead? And what can we do to get good done? Are you in?
Episodes of Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams are available starting August 15th. Head to your favorite audio platform and subscribe now so you never miss an episode.
Just kind of taking through the different elements to this joint writing, the closing section of this joint concurrence in the judgment slash dissent includes them calling this opinion in Trump versus Anderson basically Bush versus Gore 2.0. So they write, quote, what it does today, the court should have left undone, end quote. And that is quoting Bush versus Gore, Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion. That is the opening passage to their concluding section.
And the separate writing also notes that in addition to the hurdles that the opinion erects to congressional enforcement of Section 3, it also disables courts from enforcing Section 3, both, you know, as to ballot access specifically, as in this case, but it also offers this kind of I found chilling example, which is
The writing explains that the decision, quote, forecloses judicial enforcement of Section 3, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. So, you know, impossible to know who they might have in mind as an insurrectionist who somehow ascends to high office and then
a prosecutorial apparatus to target enemies, you might think that under those... Who could that be to? No idea. No one springs to mind. But it's still a very dystopic vision and one in which a court would be, it seems, disabled from considering an argument that the insurrectionist actually is without constitutional authority to hold the office that has unleashed the prosecution. So I don't think that was a trivial or incidental example that the concurring opinion produced.
you know, trotted out in terms of what the consequences of this ruling might be. On that note. Well, I mean, we expected it, but we didn't expect this. Yeah. Again, like expected the result and the kind of hollowness of the reasoning, but they went further than they had to and that they had telegraphed that argument.
In terms of maybe final thoughts we want to offer, Annie, before we wrap, I mean, one, just because we haven't said this, it was pretty quick, the opinion. It could have been quicker. I actually suspect that the debates among the ladies... Given the shitty reasoning, it definitely could have been quicker, right? And it's 20 pages for a Supreme Court opinion. You know, that's pretty short. And that's 20 with the rewritings. And that's all the opinions combined. Yeah. Yeah. You know, so it's whatever, you know, three and a half weeks for, you know, that is relatively quick. Maybe...
you know, more protracted because of these discussions about how the separate writings would be characterized and who would sort of join forces and how. But I also just think that that's an important lesson for the immunity argument, which is like, it was not an accident that the Supreme Court issued this opinion on Monday before Super Tuesday, because it understood that there were imperatives to get the opinion out before the election, even though, you know, Colorado is a vote by mail state, and most people have already voted, the ballot had Trump's name on it. So but at least,
you know, atmospherically, it was really important for them not to continue to sit on this after Super Tuesday. And they got it and they moved expeditiously. I mean, like the immunity decision. Who really needs to know that? Right, exactly. This is the fear because there's not a date certain. I don't know exactly how to force their appreciation of the urgency in the absence of a date certain. Like,
They know the urgency, Kate. They're being willful. They know the timeline Judge Chutkin established. They can count. They live in D.C. It's not that hard. I mean, they know what's going on. This is purposeful. Well, we'll see once the argument happens. I'm just saying that the message from all quarters to them has to be that it is every bit as important and in many ways more important than the court.
because again, the voting was already happening in Colorado, the court still has the power to control whether we ever see a trial, which if they care a great deal about America's voters being able to participate in a nationwide election to select the chief executive, which is all the reasoning on display here, though, that should counsel in favor of letting there be a trial and a verdict. And somehow their very logic here seems to my mind to counsel in favor of speed. And that I just think is an important message, not that I'm saying they will hear it, but that it's at least worth voicing. Yes, I agree. Well,
Can I offer another message? My favorite Pollyanna. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to come back to it. Like, do you remember all that, those rumors around Bush v. Gore about how Sandra Day O'Connor was allegedly at some dinner party and when she found out like that. I think it's, I think that's confirmed. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Was it confirmed? I think that's fine. I mean, yeah. Okay. She expressed dismay because she'd been planning to resign or retire from the court and this Al Gore winning would have thwarted her plans. Yes.
Have we given serious consideration to the fact that, like, there are at least two justices who may have real, real interest in seeing Donald Trump be elected? One, someone whose wife is apparently very close, at least, like, has text messages that are insurrectionist adjacent. So that might be an issue. But just as a general matter, yes.
There are two septuagenarian justices who might want to step down under a Republican president and have their replacements be movement conservatives just like them. And for that reason, maybe they're just not that inclined to throw a wrench in the works that subjects their preferred candidate to a criminal trial where he might be found guilty and be wearing an orange jumpsuit on January 20th.
And all of the Fifth Circuit judges who have been performing endless antics in order to audition for this role, you haven't done enough. Do more, sirs. Do more. I mean, it's truly dystopian. I mean, Kate, I don't think this is a court that is going to be built for speed. I think it's built for something else. Well, those two obviously are a lost cause. Yeah.
in every way. I'd say the Chief Justice, too. I mean, he's in his 60s. Also, don't you think the Chief Justice wrote this? Yeah. I mean, I thought it was Dobbs' opinion, the Dobbs quote at the beginning. I think the Chief wrote the PC and Kagan wrote the concurrence dissent, whatever it is. Yeah. Do you disagree, Leah? Although the metadata suggests that Justice Sotomayor started. No, metadata suggests Justice Sotomayor. My guess is Justice Sotomayor wrote...
the initial draft and then Kagan punched it up. And Justice Jackson... Justice Kagan added a star footnote that was like, fuck you clowns. And Justice Sotomayor and Jackson were like, how about we edit this to say, you know, like...
The court went further than it needed to and was gratuitous. Anyways, that's how I imagine it in my head. I thought it was really snarky. I thought it was super snarky. Can I just say, can we talk a little about Twitter for a minute? So I wrote that I thought the dissent slash concurrence was snarky. And someone was like, I wish they would stop doing snark and save our democracy. And I'm like, excuse me, ma'am, can you count three?
Three people like, you know how we could save our democracy by like actually doing a lot to get people out and voting and putting the court on the ballot and recognizing that this court is not an inevitability. This is something we got because people sat at home in 2016 and Donald Trump got elected. You're saying decorum is not going to get us there, Melissa. I mean, obviously. I mean, like I really almost like civility and whining about Joe Biden's age. I mean, like seriously, like.
It's only because I had to log on to meet you guys. I didn't write back like, what are you talking about? Do you know how to count? Do you know how government works? Like, what are three people in the minority going to do to save democracy? Like, get three of your friends and go to the polls and then get three of their friends and take them to the polls and like get a bunch of college kids and go to the polls.
That's where this opinion leaves us. I mean, it does, which again, is not to say like the court, I think obviously attention is going to shift to the immunity case. And that case is not disconnected from, you know, actual electoral democracy. It's deeply, deeply connected. But given the track record of this court, like there's no reason to be confident, which is not a reason not to urge, but it is a reason not to put all eggs or really any eggs in that basket. And instead to assume that the only if the eggs are extra uterine children. Yeah.
Put those in a drop box and, you know, together with the 14th Amendment. Or put them in your passenger seat and go through the HOV lane. Right. No, the 14th Amendment, the court put it in a drop box and left it at a fire station. So there we are. Another banger from the nation's highest court. Only the best for us. Nine greatest legal minds in the country. It's only Monday, you guys. Some geniuses.
All right. That was grim. Let's end this. Let's end it. Okay. I'm calling it. Time of death, democracy, 206.
Okay. Strict Scrutiny is a Crooked Media production hosted and executive produced by Leah Littman, me, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw. It's produced and edited by Melody Rowell. But today we have sitting in the producer seat one Bill Pollack. Thank you, Bill, for subbing in for Melody. We get audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis with music by Eddie Cooper and production support from Madeline Herringer and Ari Schwartz. And 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.