Meredith Marks, a Northwestern Law School graduate and star of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, joins the discussion to navigate the intriguing crossover between law and reality TV. The conversation dives into the alarming foreign policy ambitions of Project 2025, exploring risks to national security and ethical dilemmas in military operations. Reflecting on her personal journey, Meredith shares how law school experiences shaped her reality TV persona. The episode wraps up with playful imaginings of Supreme Court justices navigating the drama of a reality show.

Julia Kaye is a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, and Fatima Goss Graves is the president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund. They delve into the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, emphasizing its severe impact on reproductive rights and healthcare access. The discussion reveals personal stories of women facing devastating medical challenges due to restrictive legislation. They highlight the pressing need for advocacy against misinformation and reflect on future challenges, underscoring the urgency for political engagement to safeguard reproductive freedoms.

Jon Lovett, a political commentator, joins notable author J.D. Vance to navigate the controversial waters of Project 2025. They humorously unpack its implications on women's rights and societal changes. Olivia Warren and Deeva Shah delve into serious judicial misconduct, exposing the troubling case against Judge Joshua Kindred and the systemic challenges in addressing harassment. The discussion highlights the need for accountability in the judiciary while reflecting on the broader political landscape and upcoming reforms.

Dylan C. Penningroth, an acclaimed author known for uncovering the hidden history of Black civil rights, joins the conversation. He discusses his book, which brings to light the often-ignored contributions of ordinary Black individuals in legal battles from the 1830s to the 1970s. The dialogue dives into how these early efforts were foundational to the civil rights movement. The team also critiques Project 2025, unraveling its radical proposals and highlighting the tension between liberty and governance in America.

Legal experts Josie Duffy Rice, Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot, and writer Kyle Barry discuss relying on state courts and state constitutional law in addressing criminal legal system challenges. They delve into the hubris and hackery of Judge Aileen Cannon's decision on the Trump classified documents case, highlighting the promises and challenges of state courts in enforcing rights against extreme punishments and shaping federal law.

Jonathan Van Ness joins the hosts to dissect Josh Hawley's book on masculinity and conservative views. They critique Hawley's controversial actions and policies, discuss biblical archetypes for men, and analyze the intersection of religious beliefs with political decisions. The conversation also touches on the attractiveness of political figures and recent Supreme Court rulings.

Reflecting on a tumultuous Supreme Court term, the hosts discuss hollowing out the administrative state, dodges on abortion, and immunity for corrupt ex-presidents. They delve into court interpretations, biased outcomes, textualism, and upcoming summer episodes.

The podcast explores SCOTUS decision granting Trump immunity for official acts as president, further hobbles the administrative state with serious government consequences. They discuss implications, ruling on presidential immunity, Justice Sotomayor's dissent, potential abuse of power, Justice Jackson's dissent on democratic accountability, challenges to agency regulations, and a case remanded to the Fifth Circuit for review.

The podcast discusses the Supreme Court's major power shift, overturning the Chevron doctrine and impacting regulatory decisions. They also cover criminalizing homelessness, charging January 6th insurrectionists, and controversial statements on abortion. A tough day at 1 First Street indeed.

Legal expert Fatima Goss-Graves joins the hosts to dissect SCOTUS dodging the emergency abortion question. They analyze the implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the administrative state, clean air, and big pharma.