🚨SCOTUS Makes SECRET AGREEMENT after Trump Rulings

What this episode is about

The United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has implemented secret non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for all staff working in connection with the Court, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. Critics argue that this move reflects an overwhelming paranoia within the Court and poses potential constitutional issues, as the public deserves access to the workings of a government institution that operates on behalf of the people.

Key takeaways

• In a bizarre twist, the Supreme Court enforces NDAs, proving paranoia trumps transparency in democracy.
• Are secret NDAs at the Supreme Court the new code of silence? Who's watching the watchers?
• The Supreme Court's shift to NDAs signals a chilling erosion of democratic accountability; secrecy breeds suspicion.
• NDAs in a government institution? That's less 'justice served' and more 'privacy preserved'—for whom exactly?
• While clerks fear legal muscle from NDAs, the real issue is the Supreme Court's confidence deficit.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Ben Meiselas (Host) · 9 min speaking
• Harry Litman (Guest) · 4 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, New York Times
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Supreme Court Justice, Donald Trump, Harry Litman, Talking Feds
3. 6:00 – 9:00: Supreme Court Justice
4. 9:00 – 12:00: Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, Harry Litman, Donald Trump
5. 12:00 – 12:31: Harry Litman, Talking Feds

Notable quotes from "🚨SCOTUS Makes SECRET AGREEMENT after Trump Rulings"

• How utterly dysfunctional is the United States Supreme Court with the 6-3 right-wing majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts? Well, the New York Times reported that Justice John Roberts has been secretly enforcing.

  about John Roberts · at 0:00

• Appealed to the United States Supreme Court? What would happen then? And I, as I put in a social media post, it seems that if we had a functioning Supreme Court, one of the…

  about Supreme Court Justice · at 0:50

• Let's bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel. Harry, we know that the Supreme Court has made some horrific rulings this term using their shadow docket so that they don't really commit to the merits of their.

  about Harry Litman · at 3:51

• What's happened generally in Washington with politics, trumping, as it were, everything. Everybody, make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called…

  about Talking Feds · at 11:52

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• John Roberts — Person · Referenced public official (Chief Justice) / subject of criticism · 3 mentions · first at 0:09
  Discussed as the Chief Justice allegedly implementing NDAs for Supreme Court-related staff and as part of a broader critique of the Court’s legitimacy and use of the shadow docket.
• Harry Litman — Person · Main guest / legal analyst · 3 mentions · first at 3:51
  Brought on as an expert who clerked for two Supreme Court justices; he contextualizes NDAs as a reaction to polarization and the Dobbs draft leak, and discusses practical enforcement dynamics.
• Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political figure / focal point of legal controversy · 3 mentions · first at 4:33
  Used as the central example for claims about the Court’s shadow-docket interventions and broader politicization; also framed as an era marker for institutional norm erosion.
  District Court judges doing their job overwhelmingly ruling against Trump's stuff because it's unlawful. Justice Roberts, usually the right-wing justices, swoop in, utilize their shadow.

Companies & orgs

• Talking Feds — Company · Business focus · 2 mentions · first at 3:51
  Harry Litman's YouTube channel and podcast, mentioned as a platform for discussing legal and political issues.
• New York Times — Company · Referenced work · 2 mentions · first at 0:09
  Mentioned as the source of the expose on Supreme Court NDAs.
  States Supreme Court with the 6-3 right-wing majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts? Well, the New York Times reported that Justice John Roberts has been secretly enforcing…
• Main Justice — Company · Referenced work · 1 mention · first at 3:43
  Mentioned as a place where Harry Litman served as a lead prosecutor.
  Kennedy, someone who's been the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. and somebody who's also been a prosecutor in Maine justice, a lead prosecutor in Maine justice.

Concepts & topics

• Supreme Court Justice — Concept · Core topic · 14 mentions · first at 0:03
  Central theme of the episode, discussing the dysfunction and politicization of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts.

Places & events

• Western District of Pennsylvania — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 3:41
  Mentioned as the location where Harry Litman served as United States attorney.
  Kennedy, someone who's been the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. and somebody who's also been a prosecutor in Maine justice, a lead prosecutor in Maine justice.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 How utterly dysfunctional is the United States Supreme Court with the 6-3 right-wing majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts? Well, the New York Times reported that Justice John Roberts has been secretly enforcing secret non-disclosure agreements for everybody who works in connection with the Supreme Court from the staff to the parallegals to the clerks to the assistants. Everybody who's involved now has to sign these NDAs which say that if you in any way speak with journalists or leak information, there will be very serious legal ramifications.

0:46 Interesting. Who's going to make the ruling on that? What what if that gets appealed to the United States Supreme Court? What what would happen then? And I, as I put in a social media post, it seems that if we had a functioning Supreme Court, one of the first things they would think is that NDAs that are put forward by the United States Supreme Court is unconstitutional. I mean, after all, I mean, this is the government. This is the public, right? This is something that we the people should have access to. They work for us. And look, I certainly understand the need and desire for privacy when it comes to, for example, the drafting of Supreme Court legal opinions and, you know, the the process where the drafts are exchanged and what goes on and what's being explain explained to the clerks. I understand that there is a deliberative process privacy that is needed when it comes to uh how the sausage is made

1:55 behind the scenes before an opinion is released. But the idea that it is not enough for the law clerks and the parallegals and the Supreme Court clerks that their ethical responsibilities and the fact that it would be basically uh you'd be banished from the legal profession there would be serious ramifications without an NDA. So for me what this really speaks about is an overwhelming sense of paranoia in the Supreme Court. To me, it speaks to the fact that Justice John Roberts lacks the confidence that he has control over this court. And you know, it's it's just interesting because, you know, lots of people are very critical of NDAs in general in private companies to shield certain types of conduct. And so the fact that the Supreme Court is having secret NDAs and the fact that they didn't tell the public about it, that there had to be a New York Times expose to figure it out and find it out. I

3:02 don't know. It just seems like it's a further erosion of democracy and article three and what the public should have access to. And you know, to me, this shouldn't be a passing story. that's just like, oh, more corruption. I just think that it's important that we not accept a new normal where things like that exist. That's my view. But I want to speak with prominent lawyer who has clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Justice Marshall and Justice Kennedy, someone who's been the United States attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Um, and somebody who's also been a prosecutor in Maine justice, a lead prosecutor in Maine justice.

3:51 Let's bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel. Harry, we know that the Supreme Court has made some horrific rulings this term using their shadow docket so that they don't really um commit to the merits of their ruling, but they'll pause the rigorous analysis of district court judges from all parties. I'm talking about Trump appointed judges also to Obama to George W. Bush, to Reagan, to George HW Bush. District Court judges doing their job overwhelmingly ruling against Trump's stuff because it's unlawful. Justice Roberts, usually the right-wing justices, swoop in, utilize their shadow docket, and then say, "Well, Donald Trump claims irreparable harm." And so thank you district court judge for your rigorous analysis or the many trials that you've held or your 100page rulings. But just based on the naked assertion of irreparable harm, we're just going to say the status quo was

4:53 when Trump changed the law, not what the law existed before Donald Trump. Or I shouldn't say change, violated the law. We're just going to view what Trump did as the new status quo and then come back to us in a few years. Thanks for your analysis. And I think that people are pissed there, Harry. So you're now seeing NDAs at the Supreme Court, and you've clerked at the Supreme Court, which for everybody out there, Harry's humble, like the clerking at the Supreme Court is like getting drafted in the top 10 of the NBA draft. Like for lawyers and law schools, it's like being drafted top 10 or top 12 in the NBA draft.

5:31 That's how exclusive of a club it is. So people going into it, Harry, as clerks are not like, "Ooh, I'm going to leak it and screw over." Like, they're not going in with those intentions. And if they ever did that and they were caught, there's ramifications anyway. That should be more serious than you're going to get sued via an NDA. The whole thing is crazy, Harry. But you you're you've experienced uh clerking. And what do you make of this?

5:55 Yeah, I really have. And I think you're basically right. I kind of half agree with you. It's uh it's fun to have these discussions, Ben, when we when we uh diverge a little. It is a sign of the times that you would never have needed and it's eyepopping that we're doing NDAs. But let me go back and say that this is just it it it gets now it infects the Supreme Court the whole erosion of norms. When I clerked and I there were c certain cases that were really sensitive and if they're revealed I mean millions of dollars if there are business get so much can happen plus it can completely distort the deliberative process. So count me as one. Uh but there most of my colleagues would have been the same who think it's deadly serious never to reveal things. I had a there was a big case our term that seemed that everyone was focused on I didn't tell you know my spouse about it.

6:54 It really matters but you don't that that's what you do as a matter of norms. What has happened? The do's opinion happened and why did it happen? because of the whole political polarization of the court that also goes to clerks and the kind of Jets and Sharks atmosphere among the clerks has we don't know who yet but has uh and we may probably never will but it gave rise to someone who I think for political reasons and you could you can frame this either way did something that nobody I mean nobody uh when I was clerking would ever have considered actually circulating a draft and it was the it was the real um McCoy.

7:42 So what's happened is the whole degradation of the process because of politics because of polarization because some members of the court as part of this feel like this is a really unfair process. We're getting rolled all the time. you know, the same kinds of things you've uh mentioned and that's what that's led to it. And your basic point, by the way, is so right. If way back when uh someone I clerked with or I had revealed something like this and and it had been traced to me, I better uh start, you know, looking at jobs in uh in bookstores or abroad. That is so absolutely, you know, career ending.

8:26 It's a complete uh it's totally shameful. So that Roberts feels the need to do these things and you know you may well be right when it comes to it even though it's a strict norm. Could you really be put in jail uh for re you know there'd be a first amendment defense? Maybe. But it's something that nobody nobody nobody ever would have thought of and now they do. So there's this extra oomph of an NDA that probably many take umbrage at and say, "Of course, this would never happen." And the truth is probably won't, you know, if you're going to be like dropping drafts on reporters doorsteps, you know, I think you think you're going to get away with it anyway or it's not going to change things that you've signed an NDA, but they are in such a less upstanding credible kind of professional institution now that the chief justice has to say sign here before you enter the door. And that's just the

9:36 politization of the Supreme Court along with everybody else in Washington in the age of Trump.

9:44 Harry Litman, let me ask you this as well though. Um, you know, in terms who would enforce that NDA I mean through a judicial system, how would you would a district court judge? I mean, isn't everyone at every layer now conflicted given that the Supreme Court o overse are they going to do a binding arbit? You're going to have to go to a jams or a judicate west or AAA arbitration with justice John Roberts. Well, seriously, what what what

10:10 literally what would happen, I think, is they would refer it for criminal proceedings to a willing department. Of course, depending on whose side the person's on. We're seeing now uh unbelievable criminal conduct being ignored if it's for the Trump side and noncriminal conduct being criminalized. We just saw the Clintons now being forced to knuckle under and testify. Why is that? Because no, it never happened in in history, by the way. No president ever has unwillingly testified. Only one has ever testified, period. And that's just because it's a skewed a rigged game in the same way. Yeah, that's right.

10:48 They I don't think they could on their own bring charges, but uh you know, if they had good proof, uh they'd find a and and it was a lib uh they'd find a willing accomplice in the DOJ. But your basic point, you know, the addition to the professional shame and just train wreck that this would cause really, you know, would be a small part of it. and that they even feel we need to get people to sign an NDA. You know, it's you're probably right, ineffective, but also what a sign of the times. This is what it's come for. People feel incredibly fortunate, as you say, to clerk here. I've been drafted in the, you know, top of the NBA. I'm not going to screw this up. I'm going to, you know, act in a solid way. I clerked for a liberal. I clerked for a conservative.

11:38 I was scrupulous to play it straight with both, etc. You don't mess this up. But that's not the the norms anymore at the US Supreme Court. It's a sign of, you know, what's happened generally in Washington with politics, trumping, as it were, everything. Everybody, make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel. It's called Talking Feds. Subscribe to his Substack called Talking Feds and subscribe to his podcast called Talking Feds. Subscribe to our YouTube channel as well. Thanks, Harry.

12:14 Hey, thanks, man. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Phillipowski, add free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "🚨SCOTUS Makes SECRET AGREEMENT after Trump Rulings"?

Ben Meiselas (Host), Harry Litman (Guest).

What is "🚨SCOTUS Makes SECRET AGREEMENT after Trump Rulings" about?

The United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has implemented secret non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for all staff working in connection with the Court, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. Critics argue that this move reflects an overwhelming paranoia within the Court and poses potential constitutional issues, as the public deserves access to the…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

8 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, Harry Litman, Donald Trump, Talking Feds, New York Times. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "🚨SCOTUS Makes SECRET AGREEMENT after Trump Rulings"?

The episode runs 13 min; the transcript is about 1,940 words in 17 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch