November 21, 2025 • 31 mins
A quiet revolution is happening in state courtrooms and attorney general offices across the country, and in this episode of Pantsuit and Lawsuits our guest co-host New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin pulls back the curtain on how it works. We talk about how New Jersey moved from participant to leader in multistate litigation, protected food benefits for millions, and delivered three straight years of record-low gun violence—roughly 750 fewer people shot compared with the year before he took office. The focus isn’t speeches about “the rule of law.” It’s families who feel safer, kids who get dinner, and residents whose rights still mean something when those in power become reckless.
We walk through the mechanics that keep complex cases moving through leadership transitions, why some of the most consequential fights against federal overreach happen at the state level, and how bipartisan coalitions can still form around tech accountability and consumer harms. Then we zoom out: reported abuses at the border, no-warrant intrusions, and a chilling effect on pro bono representation. Platkin reframes the Bill of Rights as a living shield—First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections that apply on real streets, to real people, right now.
We don’t dodge the Supreme Court. From Bruen to Dobbs to presidential immunity, we parse what these decisions mean for public safety, reproductive rights, and equal accountability. Yet the advice isn’t despair—it’s strategy. Lower courts remain vital. Records matter. Clear narratives win. Long-term fixes, from campaign finance reform to constitutional amendments, deserve a real push if we want a democracy that can stand up to concentrated power and money.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:05):
Hello and welcome to another uh thrilling episode of
Pancits and Lawsuits, yourfavorite podcast to hear about
from hot button topics inAmerican law and litigation.
I'm Michigan Attorney GeneralDana Nessel.
SPEAKER_01 (00:20):
And I am not Arizona Attorney General Chris Mace.
SPEAKER_00 (00:23):
Surprise.
Uh, but it's my pleasure tointroduce to you today the 62nd
Attorney General of the GreatState of New Jersey, my friend
and colleague, Matt Platkin,whose impressive career in and
around public service reallysets an example for us today.
(00:54):
He's been an organizer and apolicy advisor, working with
members of Congress to improvethe nation's job growth and
economic recovery in privatepractice.
His work frequently overlappedwith the work of various state
and federal agencies.
And prior to his appointment asattorney general, he also served
as chief counsel to New JerseyGovernor Phil Murphy, uh
(01:17):
advising the governor on allkinds of legal matters,
including legislation, executiveorders, administrative
regulations, um, and other kindsof boring litigation.
And uh during his tenure as AG,New Jersey has seen a marked
decrease in violent crime.
And he's been on the front linesof our legal battles against the
(01:38):
second Trump administration,leading our coalition in so many
of the important and successfulcases we've filed.
And uh, we welcome you to thepodcast, uh, Matt.
And I really look forward totalking to you about a variety
of topics today.
So thanks for being here.
SPEAKER_01 (01:56):
I've been so excited to do this.
Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_00 (01:58):
Excited to have you.
Just so people know, most of theattorneys general, state
attorneys general around thecountry are elected, but not all
of them.
Uh, and of course, in NewJersey, you were appointed by
the governor.
SPEAKER_01 (02:13):
Yep.
Yeah.
So New Jersey and Hawaii copiedour constitution.
So me and Ann Lopez, we have thesame uh same situation.
I get appointed, then I haveonce confirmed by the state
senate, I have a term that umruns with the governors, but I
can't be fired.
SPEAKER_00 (02:29):
Okay.
So uh once uh Governor Murphyput you in and you were
confirmed, he was just stuckwith you at that point.
Is that basically how it works?
I think pretty much.
Yeah.
Well, I uh I want to talk aboutyour tenure as attorney general
because you know, now a newgovernor is coming in.
And like most governors, theywant their own people.
Uh and so I'm I'm presuming, ofcourse, that you're gonna be
(02:52):
replaced by whoever uh the newlyelected governor decides to
appoint.
SPEAKER_01 (02:58):
Yeah, we've never had an attorney general in our
state stay acrossadministrations, and that you
know, I think makes sense.
Um and I'm believe it or not,I'm actually the longest serving
attorney general in my lifetime.
Now I know the joke you're gonnamake about that.
SPEAKER_00 (03:12):
So Well, and also, I mean, you're what's fascinating
is you're just on the cusp ofbeing able to legally buy beer.
And that is, I think, impressivethat you could I wasn't gonna
make a drinking joke on thispodcast.
SPEAKER_01 (03:27):
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that.
Um, you know, that first beer.
Uh that's that's gonna be apost-tenure goal of mine.
Um yeah, so look, I mean, it'svery it's it's standard for um
uh a governor to come in and umobviously appoint his or her
cabinet.
In our case, governor electMikey Cheryl.
We're really excited in NewJersey, got a new governor
coming in.
(03:48):
And um, you know, I I it's beena great, it's been an amazing
job, and I'm looking forward towhat the office will continue to
do.
SPEAKER_00 (03:58):
If you had to pick, you know, of all the things that
you've accomplished in office,and I know there have been many,
uh, what is the thing that youwould say you're most proud of?
SPEAKER_01 (04:10):
Yeah, I mean, you can sort of it when you come to
the end of your term, you getasked this a lot.
And I I've struggled because I'mproud of a lot of what we've
done.
I think, you know, the gunviolence reduction, um, you
know, I sort of got interestedin going into public service in
high school um followingColumbine um shootings.
And I I it was it was really theissue of gun violence that drove
(04:33):
me to public service.
And so to see, you know, NewJersey this year, as I sit here
today, 750 fewer people wereshot than were shot the year up
before I took office.
We've had three years running ofrecord low numbers of shootings.
And I think, frankly, especiallyum in, you know, I'm in a
nonpartisan position, but Ithink Democrats typically don't
talk about our success onkeeping people safe, which, you
(04:56):
know, I'll put our record upagainst uh anybody else in the
country.
So I'm really proud of that.
I mean, and look, like the workwe've done, you know, I just say
right back at you.
I mean, the coalition ofDemocratic Attorneys General
over the past, you know, of myfour-year tenure, but certainly
over the last year inparticular, I'm so proud of like
what we've banded together, theway we've worked together.
(05:17):
Uh, there aren't really, I can'treally think of any other
coalitions of public servantsthat have been on the front
lines in this way, or privateactors, frankly, that have put
their money where their mouth isand stood up for things that are
really core principles of thisnation.
And, you know, we have workedreally well as a team.
So I'm I'm uh I'm proud of allthat, starting the first day
(05:40):
with the birthright citizenshipcase, right up through last
week, you know, fighting for 42million Americans to have food.
I can't even believe we had tofile those suits, but we did to
keep Americans from starving inthe middle of the month of
Thanksgiving.
SPEAKER_00 (05:54):
Yeah.
Well, you've led a lot of thoseuh cases against the Trump
administration.
Um, and what I mean by that isyou, New Jersey would be a lead
state in many, many uh of thosecases.
Um, and uh so what I'm wonderingis, I mean, how does it work in
terms of your successor?
Do you expect that um there'llbe any interruption in those
(06:17):
cases due to the fact thatyou're gonna be leaving and you
were the lead?
SPEAKER_01 (06:21):
I I I don't think so.
And you know, we'll certainlyset them up for success.
And I think New Jersey, look,what we're very fortunate here.
We have a big office, and wehave an office that hasn't
always historically played thatrole in multi-state cases, which
are really important.
I mean, nowadays, so many of thebig issues, obviously the Trump
(06:42):
stuff gets the most attention.
But you think about the socialmedia cases we've done, and
you've been on a lot of those,Dana, you know, like uh the some
a lot of the cases against thebig tech companies that are
causing harm.
Those are actually bipartisancases.
But New Jersey, historically, wewould participate, we'd actually
invest a lot of resources, butwe didn't really play the
leadership role that I thoughtwe should play, given the amount
(07:03):
of uh uh energy we were puttinginto it.
And so I'm proud that we have.
And I think on the the cases,uh, you know, the cases
involving the federalgovernment, I do think there's
gonna be uh generally acontinuation of that work.
Obviously, it'll be up towhoever comes in to make those
decisions on individual cases,but I do hope New Jersey
(07:23):
continues to play a leadershiprole.
I think, you know, state AGshave never been more important.
And if if we're not fighting forthe rule of law, then I don't
really know who is.
SPEAKER_00 (07:35):
Yeah, and I will say as a side note, you know, there
was a lot of concern about whatwould happen in the event that
uh a Republican won thegovernor's office and appointed
um, you know, somebody who wasnot going to participate in
these lawsuits, and what wouldwe do in the cases in which New
Jersey was a lead?
Um, because obviously, you know,the role that you've played has
(07:57):
been so important and youroffice staff as well.
So I will just say I'm very gladthat I don't think that's gonna
be the case now with whoeveryour successor is.
Um, not that anybody could be asbrilliant as you have been
physician and done the greatwork that you've done.
(08:21):
So, what's your takeaway fromnot just your time in office
overall?
But you know, obviously we're inthis very precarious time uh
where, you know, yourself andand you know, all the Democratic
AGs have been fighting uh thegood fight, trying as best we
can to sort of mitigate thedamage that um the Trump
(08:42):
administration is causing to ourrespective states.
But also the state of ourdemocracy uh is not a healthy
one right now.
You know, what do you think webest need to be doing in the
future to fight back againstwhat we've seen as just a
lawless regime that has, for themost part, with the exception I
(09:03):
think of our lawsuits and someothers, been able to get away
with literally anything theywant, all things, I would say,
on a regular basis, each andevery day.
Uh, Donald Trump or hisadministration does something
that would have caused people tobe certainly impeached at any
other time.
And for some of hisadministration, you know,
(09:25):
potentially prosecuted.
What are your thoughts aboutwhat we need to be doing as we
look forward?
SPEAKER_01 (09:32):
Well, I think I say this genuinely.
We need more people like you.
I mean, you've been out infront.
I remember early on, well beforethe he got re-elected, you were
in our caucus and publiclyhighlighting the real risks to
our democracy and how it wasgoing to affect people
fundamentally in their lives.
(09:53):
And I think, you know, one ofthe mistakes I think that was
made was we sort of let thisconversation about the rule of
law become really abstract.
And people, I even, I mean, I'mI don't know how you feel.
Sometimes like leading up to the2024 election, my eyes rolled
over.
It's like, okay, yeah,democracy.
Like, you know, that's not whatpeople, that's not how people
wake up every morning.
Most normal people aren't likewaking up thinking about the
(10:15):
state of the democracy.
They're waking up thinking abouthow they put food on their kids'
table and or and how do they,you know, make sure their kids
have a quality education and allthe things that we generally
worry about as parents andmembers of society.
But like, we also can't be somealy-mouthed about what's
happening here.
I mean, you look at these videosfrom Chicago and other
(10:38):
jurisdictions and you seeAmerican citizens being hogtied
and have their ribs broken andleft on the street like for or
detained for days without rightsto lawyers.
Like, yeah, I want a secureborder too.
I've I don't think that's like acontroversial statement.
But I also don't think it'scontroversial to say that like
those are un-American acts andwe can't just avoid talking
(11:00):
about them because there's otherthings that people quote unquote
care about more.
It's like, well, if we don'ttalk about them, it goes back to
the crime comment I madeearlier.
If we don't talk about them andwe don't highlight what is
happening, then why would weexpect people to care?
Because he's not going to be outthere saying, look at all the
lawless things I'm doing.
You know, clearly uh folks inCongress who have enabled him
(11:22):
aren't gonna hold himaccountable for that.
And I think the wholeinstitution of Congress is a
real um uh disappointment overthe last year, put aside a
political party.
They just have not assertedtheir institutional oversight
authority over the executive.
So I do think we need morepeople with courage like you
have.
I mean, I've tried to sort ofnot mince words, it helps not
(11:43):
being elected.
Um, but it we are in a crisispoint.
It's not abstract.
Like when we had 850,000 peoplelast week who weren't eating
because in New Jersey and 42million Americans across the
country because of refusal tofollow the rule of law.
That's what it means.
We pass a law, you follow it.
The law is the king, not apresident.
(12:05):
And I think we're still notquite being direct enough with
the American people about thehorrors that we're seeing on the
streets in places across thiscountry.
SPEAKER_00 (12:15):
Yeah, you know, it's it's interesting.
But I wonder, my question to youright now is, you know, we saw
something pretty phenomenal overthe course of the last weekend,
and that is Marjorie TaylorGreen and her spat with um
Donald Trump, um, best friendsforever gang, um, having a uh,
you know, uh a significantbreakup.
(12:38):
And is it possible?
I mean, is this the beginning ofthe end for the the Republican
Party who, you know, in theiropinion, Donald Trump could do
no wrong, say no wrong, um, notact in in any way that they were
willing to criticize or voteagainst?
Are we seeing a shift, do youthink?
SPEAKER_01 (13:00):
Um, I don't know.
Oh, I look, I've never beenelected to anything other than
student council uh uh body.
I was the first sixth graderever elected, just for the
record.
Um, but yeah, you know, I tookthat's my claim to fame.
Um, but uh so I, you know, II'll leave it.
You you have a better sense ofhow it's playing politically.
(13:20):
But I do think, you know, ifthis country is going to
continue to have the type ofgovernment that we say we have,
and um, you know, I thinkthere's real questions about the
state of our democracy and um uhhow certain institutions and
rights and privileges willsurvive.
I mean, they've they've erodedover the past uh 10, 11 months
(13:42):
at a rate that even the most ofthose of us who are really
concerned, I think is alarming.
And institutions have justfolded without even a fight.
You know, you think about thelegal profession, uh
universities, the press.
Obviously, I mentioned Congress,um, who's supposed to care.
I mean, that's the whole ideathat Congress is supposed to
care about their institutionalauthority and they're gonna
(14:04):
compete.
You just see them basically likesaying, Oh, what the hell?
Like, if he wants to disregardthe money that we've spent, he
can do it.
Um, and I I I don't know likehow this country can continue to
have the system of government wehave if some people don't just
grow a spine.
Look, I'm 39 years old, youknow.
(14:26):
I I hope this country is aroundin the shape that I believe in
for a long time.
But, you know, we look back onhistory and I think it's very
easy to see things like linearlyand expect that everything will
continue.
And the truth is we've had upsand downs in this country and
we've gotten through thembecause people have had courage
to stand up and fight.
And broad coalitions of peoplehave come together and fought
(14:48):
for things that are important.
And right now we're seeing toomany people that just seem
comfortable sort of puttingtheir head in the sand.
And that's a recipe fordisaster.
SPEAKER_00 (14:57):
Um so uh just a few days ago, I was out in the west
side of Michigan and I wasmeeting with uh an immigrant
immigrant rights group, and youknow, they were discussing all
the many ways in which um, youknow, the federal government has
(15:23):
um really been, I you just haveto say, abusive to members of
that community.
And I'm not, I am not justtalking about uh undocumented
people, although undocumentedpeople are humans too.
I wish that we could know thatand understand that and
appreciate it.
But um, it is their job torepresent documented uh
(15:44):
immigrants.
Uh and they were, you know,basically relaying the parade of
horrors of things that hadhappened to a lot of folks that
they work with.
And it used to be that the biglaw firms uh would pro voto
represent many of theseindividuals.
That's what they were used to.
And now there's just a dearth ofattorneys that are out there
(16:05):
that are willing to representpeople who have had their rights
violated by the federalgovernment.
And I wonder, you know,understanding the capitulation
that we've seen by many big lawfirms, what are your thoughts
and perspectives?
I mean, you've been a governmentlawyer, you've been a lawyer in
private practice, you've workedfor big, you know, sizably big
(16:26):
law firms that are the kinds offirms that we're talking about.
What do you think the future isin terms of the practice of law
in this country and those thatare willing to take the Trump
administration to court?
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
Yeah, I mean, you think about like fundamental
things in any democracy, but ourdemocracy is if your rights are
violated by the government, youcan go to court and have them
protected.
That's the most of the Bill ofRights, the first 10 amendments
to the Constitution, like we getlost in the legalese.
Most of them basically say somevariation of that.
Government can't take away yourright to speech, your freedom of
(17:01):
religion.
Uh, they can't bust into yourhouse without a warrant, which
they're doing.
They can't, you know, forcemilitary upon you.
You have a right to trial, theycan't set bail.
All these things are basicallyprotections against government
intrusion on your life.
And why did we do that?
Because we were fleeing tyranny.
We were fleeing a king.
And so they were like, thesethings are so important that the
(17:22):
first 10 of them, the vastmajority, are essentially
protecting the residents of thiscountry from uh uh from the
government itself.
Even the Second Amendment, as Ithink it's properly understood,
was about that as well.
SPEAKER_00 (17:36):
I will say this.
Um, you know, I've had so manycases that in some way, shape,
or form uh involved the FirstAmendment, the Second Amendment,
the Fourth Amendment, the FifthAmendment, the Sixth Amendment.
But I'm just excited that itlooks like we may actually be
able to bring cases uh involvingthe Third Amendment, which
again, I just not had theprivilege story.
SPEAKER_01 (17:56):
Didn't think we'd have a lot of Third Amendment
cases.
No.
SPEAKER_00 (18:00):
No, but but seemingly now we might be headed
in that direction.
So that is exciting.
SPEAKER_01 (18:06):
Um, you know, I think look, and I mean, you
think about the FourthAmendment.
Like, obviously, most peoplethink, okay, search and seizure,
do they said they thought aboutit at all?
They think about criminalcontext.
Like these stories from Chicago,again, I'm not in the polling or
public opinion business, but Isuspect if you ask Americans, do
they think you should be able tobe have your house broken into
(18:26):
by the government becausesomebody else says you might be
an immigrant when you're in factan American citizen just going
to bed at night?
I think most people are gonnasay no.
Like, I'm just gonna go out on alimb and say that's probably not
a popular position, but we'renot saying that enough, right?
We're not like trying to winthis fight because we can win
it.
I mean, Barack Obama had broadlypopular views on immigration.
(18:48):
I think he was a Democrat.
Like, you know, the the this isa winnable fight from a public
uh opinion standpoint because weare so clearly right on the uh
the actual merits here.
This isn't even a close callwhether I think you know this
country would stand forsomething as extreme as what
you're seeing.
(19:09):
Now you have law firms andlawyers and a legal industry
that has just basically beenscared because the president and
his attorney general and otherslike issued a handful, not even
like hundreds of them, a handfulof these blatantly
unconstitutional and unlawfulexecutive orders that said we're
(19:31):
gonna punish lawyers forrepresenting certain people's
interests.
And then a whole bunch of otherpeople got spooked,
notwithstanding that you and Iand many of our colleagues stood
up for those firms, firms thatby the way, I've had lawsuits
against many times.
So it's it's not like you know,uh, they're always on the same
side of every issue as me.
Um, but it's fundamental to whowe are, that if you're if the
(19:54):
government, and I say this assomebody who files a lot of
cases on behalf of thegovernment, the government comes
after you, you have a right toprotect your interests in court.
If we lose that, if judges arethreatened, as we've seen, if
they don't feel like they can beindependent, if they're
impeached for issuing opinionsthat are against the
administration, or if theadministration just doesn't
follow it, or if you can't get alawyer to go to your court, then
(20:15):
those rights are meaningless.
They're meaningless.
That's why it makes me so proudof the coalition we have.
I mean, I we have never, I havenever heard once, maybe I don't
know if you agree with this fromany of our colleagues, like, oh,
we can't do that.
That's too scary.
I mean, you look at what TishJames personally is going
through because she's hadcourage.
You know, you've lived it inMichigan.
I mean, I'm certainly not immuneto the threats that come, but
(20:37):
it's it's like, why did we dothis?
Why did we do this if we weren'tgonna fight for these types of
what was the point of going tolaw school and becoming a
government lawyer, but to fightfor these types of core
principles when you're in thismoment?
SPEAKER_00 (20:48):
Amen, brother.
You know, obviously, I think umin the last few years,
especially, we've seen what youand I would deem to be some very
troubling opinions by the UnitedStates Supreme Court.
And we can say that these thingsare unpopular, and we know that
they are, uh, all day, everyday.
(21:10):
But also unpopular, I think, wasthe immunity decision that came
down last year.
Essentially, you know, I mean,it's not been fully fleshed out
in terms of what it applies toor not, but you know, signaling
to the president that you can dowhatever the hell it is that you
want, irrespective of howillegal it is, and probably not
be prosecuted for it, at leastnot during the time period that
(21:33):
you are president of the UnitedStates.
And that's just one of manyopinions that I think so many of
us were horrified by.
But what are your thoughts?
What do we do about a UnitedStates Supreme Court that is so
out of step with what is uh, youknow, popular amongst the
public?
And I think we should all, youknow, make sure people know like
(21:56):
the court is not there uh to beto win popularity contests,
however, many of the things theyare doing, um, you know,
seemingly overturning what webelieve to have been uh, you
know, solid constitutionalrights for decades.
And of course, I will say thatthe the Dobbs decision, I think,
(22:16):
shut shook everyone to theircore, overturning 50 years of
Roe v.
Wade.
Um, and we know from a publicpolling standpoint, certainly,
uh Roe was popular.
Um, and we're now seeing theeffects of it, right?
We're seeing um, you know,basically two different types of
states.
And one, women have umfundamental rights, and others,
(22:38):
you know, women, you know, whocan die very, very easily during
childbirth or during theirpregnancy, uh, where if they
were one state over, theywouldn't.
Uh that's pretty substantialdifference.
So what do you see happening interms of like, listen, you and I
could go to court, you know, allday, every day, whether we are
government lawyers, whether weare lawyers in private practice
(22:59):
that are representing plaintiffsthat uh have been wronged.
But if we have a Supreme Courtthat just seemingly doesn't care
about the fundamentals of um,you know, uh of rights that most
of us have taken for granted forour entire lives, what do we do
with that?
SPEAKER_01 (23:17):
Yeah, look, I mean, you rattled off a bunch of
really uh upsetting opinions.
I mean, obviously the immunityopinion, as someone like you who
has prosecuted powerful peopleand believes everyone's held to
the same standard, no higher norlower than anybody else in this
country, the idea that apresident can't commit a crime
is something that I think wouldhave been foreign to the
(23:40):
founders of this nation.
I really do.
I don't think there's anysupport for that in the origin
story of who we are as acountry, to the extent that we
still actually pay some tributeto that.
Uh, you know, I think aboutDobbs and Bruin back to back.
Bruin obviously being thedecision that struck down
concealed carry restrictions inmany states, including New
(24:01):
Jersey.
Um, back-to-back days.
On the one hand, no deferenceunder Bruin to the judgments of
law enforcement in states likeNew Jersey.
Again, densest state in thenation, very different from,
say, a state like Montana.
Um, and no deference to our lawenforcement officers' judgment
about who could safely have aconcealed firearm.
(24:22):
But then the next day, oh,complete deference to state
legislatures about whether ornot they want to restrict what
for half a century had been afundamental right in this
country, the right to accessabortion care and reproductive
health care.
First time ever revoking afundamental right.
So I think, you know, on the onehand, it's it's certainly
understandable why people wouldbe cynical and dismissive of the
(24:44):
Supreme Court.
But I would just say two things.
One, the Supreme Court doesn'thear that many cases.
They're hearing, they're tryingto take more now through this
like crazy shadow docket way ofgetting cases up but faster than
they should be.
Um, but they don't hear thatmany.
So there's still a lot of thingsthat are going on in our courts.
And I have to say, the lowercourts, you got to give them
credit.
They have been strong.
We've had judges appointed byPresident Trump who have have
(25:07):
stood up for the rule of law inways that I think is quite brave
and admirable at a time whenthey're saying horrible things
about judges.
And we know a thing or two aboutthat here in New Jersey.
You know, Judge Sallas, her son,was murdered because she was a
judge.
Um, you know, we've this thisrhetoric has consequences.
You've lived it in Michigan.
So that I think needs to besaid.
The second is look, if you lookthrough the 250-year history of
(25:28):
this country, the Supreme Courthas never actually been an
institution, with one exception,that sort of uh was on the front
lines of pushing for new rights.
Um it kind of came kicking andscreaming for most of our
nation's history.
The Warren Court, I think, isthe one exception.
But even, you know, you thinkabout probably, and you've lived
(25:50):
this and fought for it and are ahero in this story, and you know
it, even the gay marriage fightsum, you know, took decades of
public opinion changing beforethe court was willing to um to
come around on something that'sso basic and fundamental.
Um by the way, it looks likeeven now, even with everything
they're doing, even now they'renot like, no, we're not gonna
touch that right now, which Ithink is is that at least a
(26:13):
short-term relief.
But I think if we're waiting forthe Supreme Court to save us,
um, you know, that was always amistake.
I think some of our um, not tosay we don't have those fights
and don't push for strategicallysmart cases as we're doing, but
we shouldn't expect the SupremeCourt is going to save us.
What I think more broadly thanwhat we're doing right now, we
gotta think there's gotta besome vision.
You know, okay, so the SupremeCourt 2010 issues the crazy
(26:35):
Citizens United decision,unleashes waves of money into
our um democracy that I think isa huge part of the corrupting
influence of that ended up here.
Okay, like we're not talkingabout enough about, I mean, some
are, but I don't think we'retalking enough about amending
the constitution to get moneyout of it.
Yeah, is that right now likelyto happen tomorrow?
No, but we have amended theconstitution.
(26:56):
Should if we don't talk aboutthings, we don't promote it,
then it's never gonna happen.
And I do think that's it shouldbe something that's on the
table.
So, you know, on the one hand,they're an incredibly powerful
institution, and I personallybelieve we owe them the respect.
This is the power as the SupremeCourt.
I don't question theirlegitimacy, but the composition
of the court can change, and thehistory of this country has not
(27:18):
been one that the Supreme Courthas been the progressive
institution that I thinksometimes we romanticize it to
be.
Look, they're the court thatissued Dred Scott and plus E.
V.
Ferguson.
So, you know, it's not likethere is an assorted history
there that we just need to sortof understand and then think
about ways we organize to ensurethat our rights are protected.
SPEAKER_00 (27:41):
Yeah, agree.
And in fact, in Michigan, wehave a um a ballot proposal uh
that would amend ourconstitution so that, you know,
certain uh corporations couldnot be involved in political
gift giving like our utilitieswho uh have monopolies in our
state.
Um, so yeah, I mean, there's uhdefinitely room for improvement
(28:01):
in all sorts of ways.
And I agree with you, Matt.
We we can't stop fighting backjust because there are great
obstacles.
And I think one could argue wewouldn't have a United States of
America in the first place ifthat had been the attitude uh of
the colonists and uh so manyothers moving forward at many
times where our democracy wasreally threatened.
(28:36):
I don't know what you're gonnado next, but um, I have a
feeling that whatever it is,that uh you're going to remain a
fighter and tenacious and to useyour law degree and and all the
many things that you've you'velearned and um you know that you
have to give still to uh to yourstate, to our country, to to
(28:59):
fight back um against thisincredible threat that we
continue to have against ourcountry and to make sure that we
have um a nation um where we'represerving freedoms and
liberties for all.
And I I just have to thank youso much for the great work that
you've done.
It has been such an honor and uha pleasure to be colleagues with
(29:21):
you.
And uh I have a feeling thatwe're we're gonna keep in touch
your respective.
SPEAKER_01 (29:27):
Uh you don't have a choice.
And and all seriousness, I mean,if anybody's in Michigan
watching, you guys are so lucky.
Uh Dana, you are you areincredibly brave um in the
positions you've taken, andthey're so principled.
And that's rare, I think, today.
Um, you know, it's it's somewhateasy for me because I'm not
elected.
(29:47):
You've you've been who you are,you've stayed true to yourself.
Um, and you know, uh you andyou're super fun too.
Like, I mean, that this stuffcan be really all I care about
is the fun part.
This stuff can be a downer.
Look, I mean, we're Dark period.
You gotta laugh a little bit.
Um, and you gotta laugh atyourselves too.
I think we sort of lost some ofthat.
But I uh I just really have beenappreciate all you.
(30:08):
You've been an incredible when Icame in as AG, I was sort of
like starstruck.
You had all these people whomade huge names for themselves
during like, you know, the 20,not always for the best reasons,
but he not you, um, but youknow, huge names for themselves,
and they were kind of heroesacross the country.
And then I came in and I'm like,the hell am I doing here?
Um, and everyone was justawesome to me.
(30:28):
And we've been able to do reallyimportant things.
And, you know, I don't know whatI'll do, but I know I'll never
be in a position where I canhave the kind of impact and just
it's just so pure.
Being attorney general is sopure.
You wake up every morning, youthink about, you know, people
can disagree with our decisions,but I literally have not seen
our colleagues, you especially,take a position that's not based
(30:49):
on what you thought was right inthat moment.
And um that's pretty rewardingin and of itself, and especially
in this moment.
SPEAKER_00 (30:56):
Yeah, I can say this.
I mean, there's no greaterprivilege, honor, or joy that I
have than being able to, youknow, wake up and say that I'm
representing the people.
SPEAKER_01 (31:07):
Yeah.
And, you know, I get to come onyour podcast.
I do wear pantsuits, by the way,so I think I fit in.
SPEAKER_00 (31:13):
Um, that's all the time we have left for today.
Uh, thanks for tuning in.
And of course, thank you toAttorney General Matt Platkin
for joining us.
Pantsuits and lawsuits will beback soon with your favorite
attorneys general, includingArizona's Chris Mays.
(31:36):
Be sure to follow ourdepartments on social media for
the latest updates about thework we're doing each and every
day on behalf of the people ofour state.
Until next time, have a goodone.
Hello and welcome to another uh thrilling episode of
Pancits and Lawsuits, yourfavorite podcast to hear about
from hot button topics inAmerican law and litigation.
I'm Michigan Attorney GeneralDana Nessel.
SPEAKER_01 (00:20):
And I am not Arizona Attorney General Chris Mace.
SPEAKER_00 (00:23):
Surprise.
Uh, but it's my pleasure tointroduce to you today the 62nd
Attorney General of the GreatState of New Jersey, my friend
and colleague, Matt Platkin,whose impressive career in and
around public service reallysets an example for us today.
(00:54):
He's been an organizer and apolicy advisor, working with
members of Congress to improvethe nation's job growth and
economic recovery in privatepractice.
His work frequently overlappedwith the work of various state
and federal agencies.
And prior to his appointment asattorney general, he also served
as chief counsel to New JerseyGovernor Phil Murphy, uh
(01:17):
advising the governor on allkinds of legal matters,
including legislation, executiveorders, administrative
regulations, um, and other kindsof boring litigation.
And uh during his tenure as AG,New Jersey has seen a marked
decrease in violent crime.
And he's been on the front linesof our legal battles against the
(01:38):
second Trump administration,leading our coalition in so many
of the important and successfulcases we've filed.
And uh, we welcome you to thepodcast, uh, Matt.
And I really look forward totalking to you about a variety
of topics today.
So thanks for being here.
SPEAKER_01 (01:56):
I've been so excited to do this.
Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_00 (01:58):
Excited to have you.
Just so people know, most of theattorneys general, state
attorneys general around thecountry are elected, but not all
of them.
Uh, and of course, in NewJersey, you were appointed by
the governor.
SPEAKER_01 (02:13):
Yep.
Yeah.
So New Jersey and Hawaii copiedour constitution.
So me and Ann Lopez, we have thesame uh same situation.
I get appointed, then I haveonce confirmed by the state
senate, I have a term that umruns with the governors, but I
can't be fired.
SPEAKER_00 (02:29):
Okay.
So uh once uh Governor Murphyput you in and you were
confirmed, he was just stuckwith you at that point.
Is that basically how it works?
I think pretty much.
Yeah.
Well, I uh I want to talk aboutyour tenure as attorney general
because you know, now a newgovernor is coming in.
And like most governors, theywant their own people.
Uh and so I'm I'm presuming, ofcourse, that you're gonna be
(02:52):
replaced by whoever uh the newlyelected governor decides to
appoint.
SPEAKER_01 (02:58):
Yeah, we've never had an attorney general in our
state stay acrossadministrations, and that you
know, I think makes sense.
Um and I'm believe it or not,I'm actually the longest serving
attorney general in my lifetime.
Now I know the joke you're gonnamake about that.
SPEAKER_00 (03:12):
So Well, and also, I mean, you're what's fascinating
is you're just on the cusp ofbeing able to legally buy beer.
And that is, I think, impressivethat you could I wasn't gonna
make a drinking joke on thispodcast.
SPEAKER_01 (03:27):
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that.
Um, you know, that first beer.
Uh that's that's gonna be apost-tenure goal of mine.
Um yeah, so look, I mean, it'svery it's it's standard for um
uh a governor to come in and umobviously appoint his or her
cabinet.
In our case, governor electMikey Cheryl.
We're really excited in NewJersey, got a new governor
coming in.
(03:48):
And um, you know, I I it's beena great, it's been an amazing
job, and I'm looking forward towhat the office will continue to
do.
SPEAKER_00 (03:58):
If you had to pick, you know, of all the things that
you've accomplished in office,and I know there have been many,
uh, what is the thing that youwould say you're most proud of?
SPEAKER_01 (04:10):
Yeah, I mean, you can sort of it when you come to
the end of your term, you getasked this a lot.
And I I've struggled because I'mproud of a lot of what we've
done.
I think, you know, the gunviolence reduction, um, you
know, I sort of got interestedin going into public service in
high school um followingColumbine um shootings.
And I I it was it was really theissue of gun violence that drove
(04:33):
me to public service.
And so to see, you know, NewJersey this year, as I sit here
today, 750 fewer people wereshot than were shot the year up
before I took office.
We've had three years running ofrecord low numbers of shootings.
And I think, frankly, especiallyum in, you know, I'm in a
nonpartisan position, but Ithink Democrats typically don't
talk about our success onkeeping people safe, which, you
(04:56):
know, I'll put our record upagainst uh anybody else in the
country.
So I'm really proud of that.
I mean, and look, like the workwe've done, you know, I just say
right back at you.
I mean, the coalition ofDemocratic Attorneys General
over the past, you know, of myfour-year tenure, but certainly
over the last year inparticular, I'm so proud of like
what we've banded together, theway we've worked together.
(05:17):
Uh, there aren't really, I can'treally think of any other
coalitions of public servantsthat have been on the front
lines in this way, or privateactors, frankly, that have put
their money where their mouth isand stood up for things that are
really core principles of thisnation.
And, you know, we have workedreally well as a team.
So I'm I'm uh I'm proud of allthat, starting the first day
(05:40):
with the birthright citizenshipcase, right up through last
week, you know, fighting for 42million Americans to have food.
I can't even believe we had tofile those suits, but we did to
keep Americans from starving inthe middle of the month of
Thanksgiving.
SPEAKER_00 (05:54):
Yeah.
Well, you've led a lot of thoseuh cases against the Trump
administration.
Um, and what I mean by that isyou, New Jersey would be a lead
state in many, many uh of thosecases.
Um, and uh so what I'm wonderingis, I mean, how does it work in
terms of your successor?
Do you expect that um there'llbe any interruption in those
(06:17):
cases due to the fact thatyou're gonna be leaving and you
were the lead?
SPEAKER_01 (06:21):
I I I don't think so.
And you know, we'll certainlyset them up for success.
And I think New Jersey, look,what we're very fortunate here.
We have a big office, and wehave an office that hasn't
always historically played thatrole in multi-state cases, which
are really important.
I mean, nowadays, so many of thebig issues, obviously the Trump
(06:42):
stuff gets the most attention.
But you think about the socialmedia cases we've done, and
you've been on a lot of those,Dana, you know, like uh the some
a lot of the cases against thebig tech companies that are
causing harm.
Those are actually bipartisancases.
But New Jersey, historically, wewould participate, we'd actually
invest a lot of resources, butwe didn't really play the
leadership role that I thoughtwe should play, given the amount
(07:03):
of uh uh energy we were puttinginto it.
And so I'm proud that we have.
And I think on the the cases,uh, you know, the cases
involving the federalgovernment, I do think there's
gonna be uh generally acontinuation of that work.
Obviously, it'll be up towhoever comes in to make those
decisions on individual cases,but I do hope New Jersey
(07:23):
continues to play a leadershiprole.
I think, you know, state AGshave never been more important.
And if if we're not fighting forthe rule of law, then I don't
really know who is.
SPEAKER_00 (07:35):
Yeah, and I will say as a side note, you know, there
was a lot of concern about whatwould happen in the event that
uh a Republican won thegovernor's office and appointed
um, you know, somebody who wasnot going to participate in
these lawsuits, and what wouldwe do in the cases in which New
Jersey was a lead?
Um, because obviously, you know,the role that you've played has
(07:57):
been so important and youroffice staff as well.
So I will just say I'm very gladthat I don't think that's gonna
be the case now with whoeveryour successor is.
Um, not that anybody could be asbrilliant as you have been
physician and done the greatwork that you've done.
(08:21):
So, what's your takeaway fromnot just your time in office
overall?
But you know, obviously we're inthis very precarious time uh
where, you know, yourself andand you know, all the Democratic
AGs have been fighting uh thegood fight, trying as best we
can to sort of mitigate thedamage that um the Trump
(08:42):
administration is causing to ourrespective states.
But also the state of ourdemocracy uh is not a healthy
one right now.
You know, what do you think webest need to be doing in the
future to fight back againstwhat we've seen as just a
lawless regime that has, for themost part, with the exception I
(09:03):
think of our lawsuits and someothers, been able to get away
with literally anything theywant, all things, I would say,
on a regular basis, each andevery day.
Uh, Donald Trump or hisadministration does something
that would have caused people tobe certainly impeached at any
other time.
And for some of hisadministration, you know,
(09:25):
potentially prosecuted.
What are your thoughts aboutwhat we need to be doing as we
look forward?
SPEAKER_01 (09:32):
Well, I think I say this genuinely.
We need more people like you.
I mean, you've been out infront.
I remember early on, well beforethe he got re-elected, you were
in our caucus and publiclyhighlighting the real risks to
our democracy and how it wasgoing to affect people
fundamentally in their lives.
(09:53):
And I think, you know, one ofthe mistakes I think that was
made was we sort of let thisconversation about the rule of
law become really abstract.
And people, I even, I mean, I'mI don't know how you feel.
Sometimes like leading up to the2024 election, my eyes rolled
over.
It's like, okay, yeah,democracy.
Like, you know, that's not whatpeople, that's not how people
wake up every morning.
Most normal people aren't likewaking up thinking about the
(10:15):
state of the democracy.
They're waking up thinking abouthow they put food on their kids'
table and or and how do they,you know, make sure their kids
have a quality education and allthe things that we generally
worry about as parents andmembers of society.
But like, we also can't be somealy-mouthed about what's
happening here.
I mean, you look at these videosfrom Chicago and other
(10:38):
jurisdictions and you seeAmerican citizens being hogtied
and have their ribs broken andleft on the street like for or
detained for days without rightsto lawyers.
Like, yeah, I want a secureborder too.
I've I don't think that's like acontroversial statement.
But I also don't think it'scontroversial to say that like
those are un-American acts andwe can't just avoid talking
(11:00):
about them because there's otherthings that people quote unquote
care about more.
It's like, well, if we don'ttalk about them, it goes back to
the crime comment I madeearlier.
If we don't talk about them andwe don't highlight what is
happening, then why would weexpect people to care?
Because he's not going to be outthere saying, look at all the
lawless things I'm doing.
You know, clearly uh folks inCongress who have enabled him
(11:22):
aren't gonna hold himaccountable for that.
And I think the wholeinstitution of Congress is a
real um uh disappointment overthe last year, put aside a
political party.
They just have not assertedtheir institutional oversight
authority over the executive.
So I do think we need morepeople with courage like you
have.
I mean, I've tried to sort ofnot mince words, it helps not
(11:43):
being elected.
Um, but it we are in a crisispoint.
It's not abstract.
Like when we had 850,000 peoplelast week who weren't eating
because in New Jersey and 42million Americans across the
country because of refusal tofollow the rule of law.
That's what it means.
We pass a law, you follow it.
The law is the king, not apresident.
(12:05):
And I think we're still notquite being direct enough with
the American people about thehorrors that we're seeing on the
streets in places across thiscountry.
SPEAKER_00 (12:15):
Yeah, you know, it's it's interesting.
But I wonder, my question to youright now is, you know, we saw
something pretty phenomenal overthe course of the last weekend,
and that is Marjorie TaylorGreen and her spat with um
Donald Trump, um, best friendsforever gang, um, having a uh,
you know, uh a significantbreakup.
(12:38):
And is it possible?
I mean, is this the beginning ofthe end for the the Republican
Party who, you know, in theiropinion, Donald Trump could do
no wrong, say no wrong, um, notact in in any way that they were
willing to criticize or voteagainst?
Are we seeing a shift, do youthink?
SPEAKER_01 (13:00):
Um, I don't know.
Oh, I look, I've never beenelected to anything other than
student council uh uh body.
I was the first sixth graderever elected, just for the
record.
Um, but yeah, you know, I tookthat's my claim to fame.
Um, but uh so I, you know, II'll leave it.
You you have a better sense ofhow it's playing politically.
(13:20):
But I do think, you know, ifthis country is going to
continue to have the type ofgovernment that we say we have,
and um, you know, I thinkthere's real questions about the
state of our democracy and um uhhow certain institutions and
rights and privileges willsurvive.
I mean, they've they've erodedover the past uh 10, 11 months
(13:42):
at a rate that even the most ofthose of us who are really
concerned, I think is alarming.
And institutions have justfolded without even a fight.
You know, you think about thelegal profession, uh
universities, the press.
Obviously, I mentioned Congress,um, who's supposed to care.
I mean, that's the whole ideathat Congress is supposed to
care about their institutionalauthority and they're gonna
(14:04):
compete.
You just see them basically likesaying, Oh, what the hell?
Like, if he wants to disregardthe money that we've spent, he
can do it.
Um, and I I I don't know likehow this country can continue to
have the system of government wehave if some people don't just
grow a spine.
Look, I'm 39 years old, youknow.
(14:26):
I I hope this country is aroundin the shape that I believe in
for a long time.
But, you know, we look back onhistory and I think it's very
easy to see things like linearlyand expect that everything will
continue.
And the truth is we've had upsand downs in this country and
we've gotten through thembecause people have had courage
to stand up and fight.
And broad coalitions of peoplehave come together and fought
(14:48):
for things that are important.
And right now we're seeing toomany people that just seem
comfortable sort of puttingtheir head in the sand.
And that's a recipe fordisaster.
SPEAKER_00 (14:57):
Um so uh just a few days ago, I was out in the west
side of Michigan and I wasmeeting with uh an immigrant
immigrant rights group, and youknow, they were discussing all
the many ways in which um, youknow, the federal government has
(15:23):
um really been, I you just haveto say, abusive to members of
that community.
And I'm not, I am not justtalking about uh undocumented
people, although undocumentedpeople are humans too.
I wish that we could know thatand understand that and
appreciate it.
But um, it is their job torepresent documented uh
(15:44):
immigrants.
Uh and they were, you know,basically relaying the parade of
horrors of things that hadhappened to a lot of folks that
they work with.
And it used to be that the biglaw firms uh would pro voto
represent many of theseindividuals.
That's what they were used to.
And now there's just a dearth ofattorneys that are out there
(16:05):
that are willing to representpeople who have had their rights
violated by the federalgovernment.
And I wonder, you know,understanding the capitulation
that we've seen by many big lawfirms, what are your thoughts
and perspectives?
I mean, you've been a governmentlawyer, you've been a lawyer in
private practice, you've workedfor big, you know, sizably big
(16:26):
law firms that are the kinds offirms that we're talking about.
What do you think the future isin terms of the practice of law
in this country and those thatare willing to take the Trump
administration to court?
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
Yeah, I mean, you think about like fundamental
things in any democracy, but ourdemocracy is if your rights are
violated by the government, youcan go to court and have them
protected.
That's the most of the Bill ofRights, the first 10 amendments
to the Constitution, like we getlost in the legalese.
Most of them basically say somevariation of that.
Government can't take away yourright to speech, your freedom of
(17:01):
religion.
Uh, they can't bust into yourhouse without a warrant, which
they're doing.
They can't, you know, forcemilitary upon you.
You have a right to trial, theycan't set bail.
All these things are basicallyprotections against government
intrusion on your life.
And why did we do that?
Because we were fleeing tyranny.
We were fleeing a king.
And so they were like, thesethings are so important that the
(17:22):
first 10 of them, the vastmajority, are essentially
protecting the residents of thiscountry from uh uh from the
government itself.
Even the Second Amendment, as Ithink it's properly understood,
was about that as well.
SPEAKER_00 (17:36):
I will say this.
Um, you know, I've had so manycases that in some way, shape,
or form uh involved the FirstAmendment, the Second Amendment,
the Fourth Amendment, the FifthAmendment, the Sixth Amendment.
But I'm just excited that itlooks like we may actually be
able to bring cases uh involvingthe Third Amendment, which
again, I just not had theprivilege story.
SPEAKER_01 (17:56):
Didn't think we'd have a lot of Third Amendment
cases.
No.
SPEAKER_00 (18:00):
No, but but seemingly now we might be headed
in that direction.
So that is exciting.
SPEAKER_01 (18:06):
Um, you know, I think look, and I mean, you
think about the FourthAmendment.
Like, obviously, most peoplethink, okay, search and seizure,
do they said they thought aboutit at all?
They think about criminalcontext.
Like these stories from Chicago,again, I'm not in the polling or
public opinion business, but Isuspect if you ask Americans, do
they think you should be able tobe have your house broken into
(18:26):
by the government becausesomebody else says you might be
an immigrant when you're in factan American citizen just going
to bed at night?
I think most people are gonnasay no.
Like, I'm just gonna go out on alimb and say that's probably not
a popular position, but we'renot saying that enough, right?
We're not like trying to winthis fight because we can win
it.
I mean, Barack Obama had broadlypopular views on immigration.
(18:48):
I think he was a Democrat.
Like, you know, the the this isa winnable fight from a public
uh opinion standpoint because weare so clearly right on the uh
the actual merits here.
This isn't even a close callwhether I think you know this
country would stand forsomething as extreme as what
you're seeing.
(19:09):
Now you have law firms andlawyers and a legal industry
that has just basically beenscared because the president and
his attorney general and otherslike issued a handful, not even
like hundreds of them, a handfulof these blatantly
unconstitutional and unlawfulexecutive orders that said we're
(19:31):
gonna punish lawyers forrepresenting certain people's
interests.
And then a whole bunch of otherpeople got spooked,
notwithstanding that you and Iand many of our colleagues stood
up for those firms, firms thatby the way, I've had lawsuits
against many times.
So it's it's not like you know,uh, they're always on the same
side of every issue as me.
Um, but it's fundamental to whowe are, that if you're if the
(19:54):
government, and I say this assomebody who files a lot of
cases on behalf of thegovernment, the government comes
after you, you have a right toprotect your interests in court.
If we lose that, if judges arethreatened, as we've seen, if
they don't feel like they can beindependent, if they're
impeached for issuing opinionsthat are against the
administration, or if theadministration just doesn't
follow it, or if you can't get alawyer to go to your court, then
(20:15):
those rights are meaningless.
They're meaningless.
That's why it makes me so proudof the coalition we have.
I mean, I we have never, I havenever heard once, maybe I don't
know if you agree with this fromany of our colleagues, like, oh,
we can't do that.
That's too scary.
I mean, you look at what TishJames personally is going
through because she's hadcourage.
You know, you've lived it inMichigan.
I mean, I'm certainly not immuneto the threats that come, but
(20:37):
it's it's like, why did we dothis?
Why did we do this if we weren'tgonna fight for these types of
what was the point of going tolaw school and becoming a
government lawyer, but to fightfor these types of core
principles when you're in thismoment?
SPEAKER_00 (20:48):
Amen, brother.
You know, obviously, I think umin the last few years,
especially, we've seen what youand I would deem to be some very
troubling opinions by the UnitedStates Supreme Court.
And we can say that these thingsare unpopular, and we know that
they are, uh, all day, everyday.
(21:10):
But also unpopular, I think, wasthe immunity decision that came
down last year.
Essentially, you know, I mean,it's not been fully fleshed out
in terms of what it applies toor not, but you know, signaling
to the president that you can dowhatever the hell it is that you
want, irrespective of howillegal it is, and probably not
be prosecuted for it, at leastnot during the time period that
(21:33):
you are president of the UnitedStates.
And that's just one of manyopinions that I think so many of
us were horrified by.
But what are your thoughts?
What do we do about a UnitedStates Supreme Court that is so
out of step with what is uh, youknow, popular amongst the
public?
And I think we should all, youknow, make sure people know like
(21:56):
the court is not there uh to beto win popularity contests,
however, many of the things theyare doing, um, you know,
seemingly overturning what webelieve to have been uh, you
know, solid constitutionalrights for decades.
And of course, I will say thatthe the Dobbs decision, I think,
(22:16):
shut shook everyone to theircore, overturning 50 years of
Roe v.
Wade.
Um, and we know from a publicpolling standpoint, certainly,
uh Roe was popular.
Um, and we're now seeing theeffects of it, right?
We're seeing um, you know,basically two different types of
states.
And one, women have umfundamental rights, and others,
(22:38):
you know, women, you know, whocan die very, very easily during
childbirth or during theirpregnancy, uh, where if they
were one state over, theywouldn't.
Uh that's pretty substantialdifference.
So what do you see happening interms of like, listen, you and I
could go to court, you know, allday, every day, whether we are
government lawyers, whether weare lawyers in private practice
(22:59):
that are representing plaintiffsthat uh have been wronged.
But if we have a Supreme Courtthat just seemingly doesn't care
about the fundamentals of um,you know, uh of rights that most
of us have taken for granted forour entire lives, what do we do
with that?
SPEAKER_01 (23:17):
Yeah, look, I mean, you rattled off a bunch of
really uh upsetting opinions.
I mean, obviously the immunityopinion, as someone like you who
has prosecuted powerful peopleand believes everyone's held to
the same standard, no higher norlower than anybody else in this
country, the idea that apresident can't commit a crime
is something that I think wouldhave been foreign to the
(23:40):
founders of this nation.
I really do.
I don't think there's anysupport for that in the origin
story of who we are as acountry, to the extent that we
still actually pay some tributeto that.
Uh, you know, I think aboutDobbs and Bruin back to back.
Bruin obviously being thedecision that struck down
concealed carry restrictions inmany states, including New
(24:01):
Jersey.
Um, back-to-back days.
On the one hand, no deferenceunder Bruin to the judgments of
law enforcement in states likeNew Jersey.
Again, densest state in thenation, very different from,
say, a state like Montana.
Um, and no deference to our lawenforcement officers' judgment
about who could safely have aconcealed firearm.
(24:22):
But then the next day, oh,complete deference to state
legislatures about whether ornot they want to restrict what
for half a century had been afundamental right in this
country, the right to accessabortion care and reproductive
health care.
First time ever revoking afundamental right.
So I think, you know, on the onehand, it's it's certainly
understandable why people wouldbe cynical and dismissive of the
(24:44):
Supreme Court.
But I would just say two things.
One, the Supreme Court doesn'thear that many cases.
They're hearing, they're tryingto take more now through this
like crazy shadow docket way ofgetting cases up but faster than
they should be.
Um, but they don't hear thatmany.
So there's still a lot of thingsthat are going on in our courts.
And I have to say, the lowercourts, you got to give them
credit.
They have been strong.
We've had judges appointed byPresident Trump who have have
(25:07):
stood up for the rule of law inways that I think is quite brave
and admirable at a time whenthey're saying horrible things
about judges.
And we know a thing or two aboutthat here in New Jersey.
You know, Judge Sallas, her son,was murdered because she was a
judge.
Um, you know, we've this thisrhetoric has consequences.
You've lived it in Michigan.
So that I think needs to besaid.
The second is look, if you lookthrough the 250-year history of
(25:28):
this country, the Supreme Courthas never actually been an
institution, with one exception,that sort of uh was on the front
lines of pushing for new rights.
Um it kind of came kicking andscreaming for most of our
nation's history.
The Warren Court, I think, isthe one exception.
But even, you know, you thinkabout probably, and you've lived
(25:50):
this and fought for it and are ahero in this story, and you know
it, even the gay marriage fightsum, you know, took decades of
public opinion changing beforethe court was willing to um to
come around on something that'sso basic and fundamental.
Um by the way, it looks likeeven now, even with everything
they're doing, even now they'renot like, no, we're not gonna
touch that right now, which Ithink is is that at least a
(26:13):
short-term relief.
But I think if we're waiting forthe Supreme Court to save us,
um, you know, that was always amistake.
I think some of our um, not tosay we don't have those fights
and don't push for strategicallysmart cases as we're doing, but
we shouldn't expect the SupremeCourt is going to save us.
What I think more broadly thanwhat we're doing right now, we
gotta think there's gotta besome vision.
You know, okay, so the SupremeCourt 2010 issues the crazy
(26:35):
Citizens United decision,unleashes waves of money into
our um democracy that I think isa huge part of the corrupting
influence of that ended up here.
Okay, like we're not talkingabout enough about, I mean, some
are, but I don't think we'retalking enough about amending
the constitution to get moneyout of it.
Yeah, is that right now likelyto happen tomorrow?
No, but we have amended theconstitution.
(26:56):
Should if we don't talk aboutthings, we don't promote it,
then it's never gonna happen.
And I do think that's it shouldbe something that's on the
table.
So, you know, on the one hand,they're an incredibly powerful
institution, and I personallybelieve we owe them the respect.
This is the power as the SupremeCourt.
I don't question theirlegitimacy, but the composition
of the court can change, and thehistory of this country has not
(27:18):
been one that the Supreme Courthas been the progressive
institution that I thinksometimes we romanticize it to
be.
Look, they're the court thatissued Dred Scott and plus E.
V.
Ferguson.
So, you know, it's not likethere is an assorted history
there that we just need to sortof understand and then think
about ways we organize to ensurethat our rights are protected.
SPEAKER_00 (27:41):
Yeah, agree.
And in fact, in Michigan, wehave a um a ballot proposal uh
that would amend ourconstitution so that, you know,
certain uh corporations couldnot be involved in political
gift giving like our utilitieswho uh have monopolies in our
state.
Um, so yeah, I mean, there's uhdefinitely room for improvement
(28:01):
in all sorts of ways.
And I agree with you, Matt.
We we can't stop fighting backjust because there are great
obstacles.
And I think one could argue wewouldn't have a United States of
America in the first place ifthat had been the attitude uh of
the colonists and uh so manyothers moving forward at many
times where our democracy wasreally threatened.
(28:36):
I don't know what you're gonnado next, but um, I have a
feeling that whatever it is,that uh you're going to remain a
fighter and tenacious and to useyour law degree and and all the
many things that you've you'velearned and um you know that you
have to give still to uh to yourstate, to our country, to to
(28:59):
fight back um against thisincredible threat that we
continue to have against ourcountry and to make sure that we
have um a nation um where we'represerving freedoms and
liberties for all.
And I I just have to thank youso much for the great work that
you've done.
It has been such an honor and uha pleasure to be colleagues with
(29:21):
you.
And uh I have a feeling thatwe're we're gonna keep in touch
your respective.
SPEAKER_01 (29:27):
Uh you don't have a choice.
And and all seriousness, I mean,if anybody's in Michigan
watching, you guys are so lucky.
Uh Dana, you are you areincredibly brave um in the
positions you've taken, andthey're so principled.
And that's rare, I think, today.
Um, you know, it's it's somewhateasy for me because I'm not
elected.
(29:47):
You've you've been who you are,you've stayed true to yourself.
Um, and you know, uh you andyou're super fun too.
Like, I mean, that this stuffcan be really all I care about
is the fun part.
This stuff can be a downer.
Look, I mean, we're Dark period.
You gotta laugh a little bit.
Um, and you gotta laugh atyourselves too.
I think we sort of lost some ofthat.
But I uh I just really have beenappreciate all you.
(30:08):
You've been an incredible when Icame in as AG, I was sort of
like starstruck.
You had all these people whomade huge names for themselves
during like, you know, the 20,not always for the best reasons,
but he not you, um, but youknow, huge names for themselves,
and they were kind of heroesacross the country.
And then I came in and I'm like,the hell am I doing here?
Um, and everyone was justawesome to me.
(30:28):
And we've been able to do reallyimportant things.
And, you know, I don't know whatI'll do, but I know I'll never
be in a position where I canhave the kind of impact and just
it's just so pure.
Being attorney general is sopure.
You wake up every morning, youthink about, you know, people
can disagree with our decisions,but I literally have not seen
our colleagues, you especially,take a position that's not based
(30:49):
on what you thought was right inthat moment.
And um that's pretty rewardingin and of itself, and especially
in this moment.
SPEAKER_00 (30:56):
Yeah, I can say this.
I mean, there's no greaterprivilege, honor, or joy that I
have than being able to, youknow, wake up and say that I'm
representing the people.
SPEAKER_01 (31:07):
Yeah.
And, you know, I get to come onyour podcast.
I do wear pantsuits, by the way,so I think I fit in.
SPEAKER_00 (31:13):
Um, that's all the time we have left for today.
Uh, thanks for tuning in.
And of course, thank you toAttorney General Matt Platkin
for joining us.
Pantsuits and lawsuits will beback soon with your favorite
attorneys general, includingArizona's Chris Mays.
(31:36):
Be sure to follow ourdepartments on social media for
the latest updates about thework we're doing each and every
day on behalf of the people ofour state.
Until next time, have a goodone.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.