

5-4
Prologue Projects
5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. Hosted by Peter Shamshiri, Rhiannon Hamam, and Michael Liroff, it's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases and an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics.Subscribe to our premium episodes & much more at fivefourpod.com/support5-4 is a production of Prologue Projects.
Episodes
Mentioned books

Aug 5, 2025 • 6min
Trump Brings the War Home [TEASER]
The podcast dives into California's role as a battleground for Trump's ambitious policing tactics. Topics include the controversial merging of military and police forces, with a focus on aggressive ICE raids in Los Angeles. Legal battles are highlighted, showcasing the clash between state and federal authority fueled by Governor Newsom's challenges. The discussion also touches on the community's reactions to cultural issues amid law enforcement's heavy-handed approach, including ACLU lawsuits sparked by the raids.

27 snips
Jul 29, 2025 • 56min
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Dive into the legal labyrinth of Texas's age verification law for adult content, where the First Amendment meets regulatory whims. Explore Justice Kagan's critique of outdated precedents in an evolving society and the culture wars surrounding pornography. The podcast discusses how recent laws reflect anti-LGBTQ sentiments, impacting free speech and individual rights. With humor, it also takes on the complexities of legal figures like Clarence Thomas and teases future topics, like the National Guard's role in L.A.

29 snips
Jul 22, 2025 • 1h 2min
Mahmoud v. Taylor
The podcast dives into the chilling tensions surrounding the Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court case, where parental rights clash with the inclusion of LGBTQ-themed literature in schools. It critiques the convoluted relationship between religion and education, highlighting the dangers of prioritizing personal beliefs over scientific teachings. The conversation also touches on the absurdities of political integrity, the implications of Citizens United, and the troubling dynamics between wealth, speech, and equal rights, all while maintaining a humorous tone.

Jul 15, 2025 • 5min
Portrait of a John Roberts on Fire [TEASER]
Dive into the absurdities of the Supreme Court's latest term, showcasing how rulings align with a right-wing agenda. With sharp humor, the hosts critique its influence on the Trump administration. They also explore the complications of racial identity in college admissions, raising questions about equity and access. Tune in for a mix of satire and insightful commentary that uncovers the underlying issues in contemporary legal landscapes.

36 snips
Jul 8, 2025 • 1h 3min
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Dive into the legal battle surrounding an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. Discover the implications of nationwide injunctions and the role of the 14th Amendment in shaping citizenship rights. Explore the contentious relationship between judicial authority and executive power, as well as the potential dangers of statelessness. Finally, reflect on how these legal decisions could shape future governance and civil rights amid complex immigration debates.

36 snips
Jul 1, 2025 • 1h 9min
United States v. Skrmetti
The Supreme Court's ruling on a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors raises serious concerns for trans youth. The discussion criticizes the implications of this decision and its real-life impact on families. Insights into equal protection laws reveal shortcomings in safeguarding marginalized groups. The dialogue also critiques judicial interpretations that conflict with expert medical opinions on trans healthcare. Unexpected shifts in judicial support are examined, highlighting the complexities of navigating legal and political landscapes for trans rights.

18 snips
Jun 17, 2025 • 54min
The DOGE Cases
Join Jay Willis, a legal expert from Balls and Strikes, and journalist Josie Duffy Rice as they delve into the controversial Supreme Court decisions surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency's access to Social Security data. They humorously navigate the absurdities of the situation while highlighting serious privacy concerns. The duo critiques the prioritization of government efficiency over democratic values and discusses the urgent need for long-term thinking in data governance. Expect insights and laughs as they unpack the perilous implications of these legal decisions.

21 snips
Jun 10, 2025 • 42min
Trump v. Wilcox
The podcast dives into a Supreme Court case that bolster Trump’s authority to fire independent agency leaders, raising eyebrows about civil rights and executive power. It humorously examines the quirkiness of legal education and law reviews. Discussions highlight Justice Kagan's dissent against increasing executive dominance, alongside concerns about the Court's conservative shift and its impact on labor rights. The hosts also critique political strategies and preview upcoming legal battles, including a notable Supreme Court decision on Dogecoin.

Jun 3, 2025 • 5min
Copaganda with Alec Karakatsanis [TEASER]
Despite crime rates hitting historic lows, many people feel increasingly unsafe. This is largely due to the media's portrayal of crime, shaped by corporate and law enforcement interests. A civil rights lawyer dives into these themes in his new book, exploring how narratives are manipulated to influence public perception. The discussion also reflects on the impact of significant events like the George Floyd protests, shedding light on the deep connections between media, policing, and community fear.

6 snips
May 27, 2025 • 43min
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union
The podcast dives into the pivotal Supreme Court case addressing inmates' rights to unionize. It discusses the origins of prison labor unions and the historical context of prisoner activism, influenced by movements like Black Power. The show critiques political elders' reluctance to share power and examines the implications of denying prisoners' rights based on unfounded fears. It highlights the significance of collective action among incarcerated individuals and their struggle for dignity and autonomy, underscoring hunger strikes as forms of powerful protest.