Filter News

Where the source is based, not where the story happened.

Or choose step by step:

🏷️ Subjects tick one or more
πŸ“‘ Sources tick one or more, or none for all

Will the Blue Wave Come for SCOTUS?

πŸ“Ί Strict Scrutiny πŸ• November 9, 2026 at 12:00 AM
πŸ“ Source based in: World β€Ί Northern Hemisphere β€Ί North America β€Ί United States

Keeps playing with the screen off. The episode is played from Strict Scrutiny’s own podcast host.

Post-blue wave and on the eve of Crooked Con, Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down what went right on election night, and how the Supreme Court did its very best to prevent it by disenfranchising voters and enabling Trump’s lawlessness. Then, some executive branch news both welcome (see ya, Harmeet Dhillon) and horrifying (the ascension of Stephen Miller to chief of staff), before a breakdown of the biggest case SCOTUS heard last week. Is there a constitutional right to use public funds to discriminate against gay and trans people? Brett Kavanaugh seems to think so! Finally, Sherrilyn Ifill, founding director of the 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy at Howard University, joins to talk about one of the most important tasks for Democrats ahead: Court reform.

Favorite things:

Take the Strict Scrutiny survey.

New Strict merch available here.

You can now listen to Strict Scrutiny for CLE credits in California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon! More info at crooked.com/strict_cle

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.com

Buy Melissa’s book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader

Buy Leah’s book, Lawless, now out in paperback

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

For a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email transcripts@crooked.com

Check this story

Ask the guide

The guide explains what to check and where. It cannot see this article or recent news.

Is this AI-made?

AI checkers give a likelihood, not proof.