This is a transcript of the conversation between myself, Brandi Fleck, Host of the Human Amplified podcast, and Emerson Wright, a trans law professor who is sounding the alarm on attacks to the legal system that you aren’t hearing about.

If you’d rather listen than read, you can do that here, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else you get your podcasts.

What does being human mean to you?

Brandi Fleck:

[1:49] Last time you were on the show, we talked about what being human means to you. So I would love to read back your answer and see if anything has changed in the last year. Ah, geez. Okay. You said, I think that for me, I struggle with that concept more and more as technology. And it's like we communicate more and more as people. And I think a lot of what being human means for me is just getting back in touch with some of my basic needs, stepping away from the complicated web of all the sort of unnecessary esoteria that we encounter every day, and just getting in touch with who I am as an animal.

Emerson Wright:

[2:26] That sounds like some word salad, but I think I probably feel about the same way. Okay. Yeah, because things have only gotten more swirly out there.

Brandi Fleck:

Okay. So getting back to your basic needs has been helpful?

Emerson Wright:

Yeah, for sure. I think especially since the election and the inauguration, I have struggled with coping with really rapid change, right? Because it's been breakneck speed. And one thing that has helped a lot is trying to focus on just my personal health and the signals I'm getting from my own body, because that's the one thing that we've got that other people, for the most part, can't take away from us. And so I've really found a lot of strength in getting back in touch with my health and my body and focusing on that part of being human.

Brandi Fleck:

[3:17] Everybody, today we are talking to Emerson Wright, coming to us from St. Pete, Florida. They're a law professor, fisherman, dog dad, and nerd. Their professional life has spanned from the dishwashing room at a Pizza Hut to conference rooms in city skyscrapers and everywhere in between. A diehard legal realist, Em finds hope and inspiration from their students and the members of our society who show up to make the hard decisions and do the hard work. They're also a co-host of the Talking Legal Ed podcast, so be sure to go check that out.

[3:52] And Em was on the show about a year ago where we talked all about the state of the legal system then. Today, among other things, we're diving even deeper into demystifying the role of lawyers and the vulnerabilities of the legal system now that the political climate and U.S. administration has changed.

Read Em’s first interview: Inside a Changing Legal System: Will It Take Societal Collapse?

So, Em, welcome back to the show.

Emerson Wright:

Thank you so much for having me.

Brandi Fleck:

Yeah, I'm always glad to see you, and I'm really glad that you've agreed to come back. Before we dive in, what else do you want our listeners and viewers to know about who you are?

Emerson Wright:

I don't know. I think you just described it pretty well.

[4:30] More of a dog dad than ever. So yeah.

Attacks on Trans Community and How Allies Can Help

Brandi Fleck:

[4:34] Perfect. Okay. Well, let's check in really quick. How have things changed for you as a trans person now that the new administration has taken over? And what are you or your community doing to protect yourselves?

Emerson Wright:

Um so I've been thinking about that a lot uh for obvious reasons and uh I think that the biggest change is how reluctant I am to talk in detailed terms about how things have changed for me personally. Um for example I as you mentioned I'm a law professor and I write on rhetoric and uh legal rhetoric and forms of persuasion and how they intersect and are operable within transgender issues. And so more than ever, I am on alert for attacks coming from political opponents to my academic area and my identity. And a lot of the sort of abstract threats out there have become a lot more real. And so I've become in some ways more discreet, which I don't love, but feels necessary.

[5:49] And I've tried to, before the inauguration, I went on a rush to get as much documentation as I could, which may pose its own problems down the road, but we'll see. I'll give you an example. I have jury duty coming up and I still am really unsure about how to fill out the forms because I don't want to lie about who I am as a man and as a non-binary person, as a trans person. And yet I don't want to lie on a state form and deal with, you know, quote unquote lie according to them on a state form about who I am. And so I'm nervous about real legal consequences coming up all the time.

[6:37] And one thing that's related, I think. I'm married to an immigrant who was born in Venezuela. And so neither of us are going to leave the United States on a vacation for any time soon, because we are both very much afraid that based on what's on our documents, we would not be allowed back in.

Brandi Fleck:

Oh my gosh. Okay. Yeah, that's really heavy. And I know, um, the need to be discreet, you know, as you said, has come back up. So I just want to say again, I appreciate you coming on this podcast because this is not discreet, you know, but what can allies and people who wish to be allies do to help?

Emerson Wright:

[7:21] Well, I think that leads right into, well, the answer to that comes straight from what I just said, right? Which is that allies can really, really do a lot right now in the time that I think trans folks really safely can't be out on the front lines. And so uh participating in things like direct actions like the uh 50 51 uh demonstrations yesterday. Uh, but I think most specifically and the easiest and most impactful thing that allies can do is contact your congress people uh really really just call them every day on this because issues facing trans folks really affect a very, very small number of us. And that is why demagogues use us as a scapegoat, because they think that people won't notice or there are so few of us that people won't stand up for us. And so contacting your representatives and letting them know that you're watching how they handle this and that you are not okay with the attacks on trans folks going on right now, that's the number one most helpful thing that allies can do right now.

Brandi Fleck:

[8:37] Okay. Wonderful. Thank you for that. So you guys take note, take note and let's do something. So now that we've checked in, let's pivot a little bit into the legal system.

How Society Will Never Be the Same

Brandi Fleck:

[8:54] And And here we are a year out from last time we talked.

[8:59] Is society collapsing?

Emerson Wright:

You know, I don't think society is collapsing, thank goodness, right? Yeah. I understand why folks may look around and feel that way. But I don't think we're there yet. We might be on a trajectory that doesn't look great. But I don't think we're there yet. I think there are parts of our civil society as we know it that are gone forever. Unfortunately, or fortunately we'll see, I guess. But there are, I think, parts of our civil society that will look different no matter what, and that we are never going to get back in the same form. But I don't believe that means we're never going to get those things again and that everything's gone. Okay. What parts of society are you referring to?

Brandi Fleck:

Well, yeah, well, like we're going to talk about, I'm increasingly terrified about attacks on the rule of law and on the legal profession and on our courts as an institutional check on power.

Emerson Wright:

[10:01] That's something that I think will not look the same again. But even more broadly, I would talk about just the tone and character of how we as Americans talk to each other in our politics, right? I think that we've seen a coarsening and it feels like a huge understatement to say a coarsening. It feels like people have just decided that hurting other folk, being cruel, is a totally acceptable way to serve your political ends in a way that we did not experience before, right? Attacks on service members, attacks on federal civil agents, just constant derision, degradation, just the cruelty in how we are speaking to each other about politics. And not just on the little people level, but from the very top. I think it's had an effect on our society as a whole. And we've become less civil and less polite to each other and less good to each other in a lot of ways.

Brandi Fleck:

Okay. Yeah, I agree with that.

The State of the Legal System

Brandi Fleck:

[11:15] Is the rule of law collapsing?

Emerson Wright:

That one's tougher. Sure. It really might be. And I hate to say that. I do describe myself more as a legal realist outside of legal philosophy. I'm more of an optimist, probably. I can get a little Pollyanna about things. I'm definitely not a sky is falling kind of person. But it's real bad right now. And there are some very, very scary signs.

[11:49] And I think that what makes me particularly nervous is that it's not one-dimensional.

[11:57] These threats are coming from a lot of different avenues all at once in a way that I'm not sure the American legal system is capable of warding off.

Brandi Fleck:

Okay. Okay. And what are some of these attacks?

Emerson Wright:

It ranges from the administration engaging in actions that are plainly violative of congressional statutes and the constitution in ways that are well beyond anything we've seen before. And I think a lot of folks see what is going on right now and think, well, other people have done this, right? I know I've seen folks compare current executive orders and actions to President Biden for giving student loans or various other executive orders under Democratic president, but there's not been ever before this kind of brazen adoption of plainly illegal, executive power from any president of either party in at least a hundred years in this country. And so that is in its own self, a real threat to the rule of law, because when there is so much brazen illegality, it is hard to keep up.

[13:23] Our legal system is designed to work slowly to protect the due process and civil liberty rights of all of our citizens, right? Our system was designed to kind of grind along so that people can't sweep in and make huge oppressive actions all at once. And the problem is when there's this much brazen power grabs, this much action, it's difficult for citizens and activist groups to keep up in order to bring litigation to sue in the first place. And it becomes very difficult for the court system itself to manage.

Brandi Fleck:

[14:04] Okay. That makes a lot of sense.

Emerson Wright:

Yeah. So that's one thing, just the power grab in itself. But speaking to the multi-prongedness of this attack, you've got the acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia sending letters to Georgetown University saying that they will not hire any graduates from the law school because of Georgetown's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion education. So literally engaging in actions that are brazenly violative of the First Amendment and attacking the long tradition of academic freedom, not just in universities, but in law schools in particular, which has its own major effect on the rule of law. When law schools are not able to teach and train up lawyers in a free way that's free of intervention from the state.

[15:05] We start to see a very quick erosion of new attorneys who are willing and equipped to challenge state actions. And so it goes all the way to what could happen in the future from students, these attacks on law schools. And then I think what has surprised most lawyers who have been watching all of this closely has been the reactions from some of the very fancy white shoe law firms in the country that have been targeted by specific executive orders.

[15:41] So that in itself is unprecedented. No president before has ever issued an executive order directed just at one individual law firm. That in itself is pretty wild. Let alone attacking a law firm simply for the types of legal issues it's bringing forth in court or the specific folks that those law firms are representing, right?

The ability for law firms to represent clients and for clients to get representation, no matter their political bent, is a bedrock principle of the rule of law as Americans know it. And so those executive orders targeting law firms for who they represent are really a terrifying attack on the rule of law. And I am most terrified by the fact that at least a large number of those law firms so far have acquiesced and rolled right over in the face of those executive orders, which is, I think, surprising to a lot of us and pretty terrifying.

Brandi Fleck:

Yeah. Yeah. And as you've been talking, I've been wondering, and I mean, this is probably just a gross oversimplification of how it would go, but can't people who are targeted just say no? Like, no, don't, you're not doing this. We're not going to comply.

Emerson Wright:

[17:01] They sure can. And the people with the power and ability to do that more than almost anybody else in this country are these very powerful, very wealthy, very fancy law firms. And so it's extremely disheartening that so many of them are choosing not to.

[17:19] And unfortunately, the sole, as far as I can figure it out, reason why they are choosing to acquiesce is simply that they want to continue to make as much money as possible and have been willing to abandon their ethical obligations as lawyers and their commitment to the rule of law in service of more profits, which is really disturbing to me.

To be fair, there have been a few firms that have stood up and done the right thing. Perkins Coie was the first one attacked with an executive order, and they are fighting strongly. They're represented by some other top law firms. There's some amicus briefs being filed in that case by other law firms. So there is a lot of resistance. But I think many folks were freaked out, to say the least, by several very well-known, really prominent top law firms immediately entering into these agreements with the administration, which they were under no obligation whatsoever to engage in.

Brandi Fleck:

Yeah. Okay. And if they did say no, I mean, I guess it would be a hard fight. There would be retribution and things that they had to deal with, loss of money, those things. But I don't know if that's a reason to just say yes.

Emerson Wright:

[18:45] Yeah, certainly not a good reason. I think it is the reason though, because these executive orders, I think are plainly unconstitutional, but it will take time to litigate that. And that brings me to, I think, the biggest challenge to the rule of law that's happening right now, which is that this administration has so far signaled its full intention to outright disobey orders of the federal courts. And that in itself is, I think, part of the calculation that should these executive orders be held unconstitutional, the administration will continue to blacklist them, continue to deny them security clearances, and continue to engage in this sort of targeted strongman attempts.

The Role of Lawyers in Society

Brandi Fleck:

[19:38] All right. Well, okay. So we've been talking about the attacks on the rule of law, but for just the everyday person, demystify lawyers for us a little bit. What is the actual role of lawyers in our society? What do they actually do? And it's probably not like what a lot of people see on TV, I would guess.

Emerson Wright:

You know, in some ways it is, because in some ways those lawyer shows, I think, are not terribly inaccurate. Any lawyer listening to this will probably disagree with me on that.

[20:16] But I'll say if you're a doctor and you're watching ER, lawyer shows are about as accurate as what you're going to see like that, right? So it's TV-fied, right? It's not going to be really all that accurate. They're not going to take everybody to law school, right? How to get away with murder is not really what happens. But there are elements of those shows that are pretty accurate. The problem is the popular understanding really shows just a tiny sliver of the profession.

And so folks, I think, are familiar with lawyers that practice, for example, family law, because people understand that when they get divorced, there are lawyers and, And people fight, right? And I think people are familiar with the role of lawyers in criminal law. They know that we prosecute folks and folks get defense attorneys.

[21:12] Then I think people are familiar with lawyers in terms of billboard lawyers, right? Which are usually going to be personal injury attorneys. So when you're driving down the road and you see car crash, call Mike so-and-so, those kinds of lawyers.

I think those areas of law really get most of the public's attention, but they are really a sliver of what lawyers do in our society. So for example, a huge amount of attorneys in America and across the world don't litigate at all. They never go to court. They never represent a bunch of clients. They're never before a judge.

Instead, these attorneys, we call them transactional attorneys. And what they do is in a very big overstatement and generalization, they help prevent litigation from happening later. So these are attorneys that help facilitate, for example, the purchase of real estate. If you buy a house, when you have the closing, there's usually going to be a closing attorney that's present that has drafted all of the legal documents, exchanging the ownership.

[22:28] Checking on the deed, all of that kind of stuff. And they're facilitating that real estate transaction when you buy a house. But those lawyers exist for all kinds of transactions, up to really fancy mergers and acquisitions between huge businesses, down to, for example, [22:47] lawyers that are working for local county governments to help facilitate contracting for services. [22:54] To figure out how are we going to hire a certain company to come clean up the tree debris after a natural disaster? How do we get the funds allocated? How do we draw the contracts up so that the company that we hire can't harm our residents and then leave them hanging up to dry?

So you've got lawyers that are in the courtroom. You've got lawyers that are in big fancy buildings, But lawyers really do make all of our society run on a really personal level down to, are you allowed, you know, is Verizon or AT&T going to be allowed to come plow a line through your front yard and bury a wire? And what are your property rights vis-a-vis the existence of that wire? Right.

All the way through all levels of our society, lawyers are there trying to smooth things out and trying to figure out how things can be done in a way that runs smoothly and according to the rule of law.

Brandi Fleck:

Okay. So agreements come to mind. They facilitate agreements. They protect rights.

Emerson Wright:

Absolutely. And a lot of what lawyers are are just problem solvers.

[24:12] In basically every practice area, somebody comes to an attorney and says, I have a problem. Can you figure out how to help me with it? Right? If you own a small business, you probably have engaged the services of a lawyer or a legal service in some way, because business formation and the way that businesses are run are governed by law. And so lawyers exist at all levels of nonprofit organizations as well. We're not just out there making money. We're really helping facilitate the flow of society within the rule of law and helping to solve problems, facilitate a lot of communication and agreements, and also handle it when those agreements go bad and when people break their compacts with each other or with society in the criminal sense.

Why the Rule of Law is Important

Brandi Fleck:

[25:03] Gotcha. Yeah. Well, and this might seem like an obvious answer, but why is the rule of law important so that we have lawyers that assist with making it so.

Emerson Wright:

Yeah, no, I don't think that's an obvious question at all. It's something that we talk about with our first-year law students and our second-year law students and our third-year law students. And it's something that I think about all the time as a legal scholar, right? I think it makes sense to consistently question why are we committed to the things we're committed to. And one thing that I think about that's a pretty simple example, and it kind of clicked for me. It was my very first class in law school.

[25:52] I had slung pizzas for a decade and then went back to school. So at that point, I was really hungry for knowledge. It was the first time that I didn't have to work full-time while I was in school. And so I was really nerding out. And it was in the afternoon and it was my first year torts class. And tort Tort law basically is a silly name for when somebody harms somebody else in some way and seeks compensation. So billboard lawyers, personal injury, that all falls under tort law. But so do things like defamation or intentionally interfering with somebody's business contract. So tort laws basically exist to compensate people who are harmed by an action or an omission of somebody else. And we were talking, my professor was talking about why does this area of the law exist? Why would we put this together? And we did what so many first-year law students hate, but I ate right up. We went back to feudal England because that is where a lot of our legal traditions come from. And the phrase that stuck out to me was it exists to, quote, prevent self-reporting.

[27:12] And I thought about it and I thought, well, why would we want to prevent people from helping themselves, right? Don't we want that? And then I understood that that was a fancy legal way to say so that people don't just kick each other's asses all the time. And that's exactly why it exists. Because if we don't have a rule of law, if we don't have a means for settling disputes, then people are going to take matters into their own hands and resort to violence and theft and all kinds of other conduct that really degrades our society and makes it more difficult for us to live together. And so creating a system and abiding by a system where we all agree by means of living together in this country, we all agree to settle our disputes, to settle our issues in this forum and to allow judges and our system of checks and balances to settle those disputes. It's, we can appeal if we don't like it, but once we lose at the highest level, we accept that and move on. And that in itself, I think is something that we're all really used to as people that grow up in a country that is committed to the rule of law. But imagine if it didn't exist, right? How would people handle every dispute they have?

[28:34] And imagine if going to court was optional. And otherwise, you didn't have to accept what a court did. It would be whoever has the most money, whoever has the most weapons, right? Whoever is the most powerful would win no matter what. And so the rule of law exists to prevent a lot of violence and also to help equalize us and make it so that it's not just a show of power. And there is a sense of justice that pervades our society and how we handle things.

Vulnerabilities in the System

Brandi Fleck:

Well, that makes a lot of sense, too. And so, but there are these power grabs and there are these kind of like, I don't know.[29:18] Well, these things that are happening, as you mentioned, that are not in line with the rule of law.

[29:23] So let's go back to the attacks for a minute. If people don't have a firm understanding on the role of lawyers and on the role of law in our society, or maybe they just disregard it, how does that leave the legal system vulnerable?

Emerson Wright:

Well, I'll be clear. It leaves the legal system vulnerable and in so it leaves all of us vulnerable in very real, very concrete ways. So for example, I was reading just before we started, I was reading an order that was issued by a United States district court judge denying a request by the administration to stay her previous ruling. So the administration was asking to put her previous ruling on hold. And what she had previously ruled was that the administration had to effectuate the return to the United States of an individual the administration admitted to deporting to El Salvador by mistake. So this individual had been granted what's called withholding of removal by an immigration judge back in 2019, the current administration admitted they should not have removed him to El Salvador. And the judge has ordered them to remove, or sorry, to return that individual to the United States. The administration's position that it is arguing with a straight face in the United States district court is that because that individual is no longer in the United States, no court has any power to tell the United States to return him.

[31:08] The administration is essentially arguing into a court with a straight face that it can kidnap anybody off the street without proving any connection to criminality or illegality with zero legal basis. Again, they admit that they had zero legal basis to remove this person. And in fact, it violated a previous court order not to remove this person. And the administration's answer to that is nobody can review what we did and we don't have to bring him back.

[31:38] And that in itself, if that becomes an acceptable argument, will erode all of our due process rights in any context. Because if that is what people are allowed to do, if that's the amount of power that the federal government has, they could come pluck you out of your office for recording this podcast, send you to a supermax in another country, and then tell the courts nothing you can do. And that is truly terrifying. Another example is the administration defying, by all counts, a federal judge's order to turn planes around that were headed to El Salvador and then refusing to provide information as to their compliance with his order. So the administration has really set up a system where they are openly mocking federal judges, openly threatening them, threatening them with impeachment if they rule in a way that the administration does not want. And that became so loud that Chief Justice John Roberts, who usually is quiet as a church mouse in these types of situations, it prompted him to come out and say the avenue when you don't like a court opinion is to appeal it. And that's it.

[32:59] But one thing that I think you'll hear a lot of folks talk about on the right that's a fair point is this argument that one federal judge should not have the power to issue a nationwide injunction is what it's called. And that's where one federal judge says, federal government, you cannot do this anywhere in the United States.

[33:20] Typically, a federal judge has jurisdiction that is limited to the area geographically where the court is, but they do have the power to issue these nationwide injunctions, right? When right-wing leaning judges do it on matters like abortion rights, the left gets mad about nationwide injunctions. And when left are leaning or not even left are leaning, when judges committed to the rule of law, because many of them were appointed by Republican presidents, but any judge that rules against the Trump administration does so, then they yell about these nationwide injunctions, right? But the idea that a federal judge is just one radical left person, which I've heard come up, is wild and terrifying. It dismisses the role of judges. It really erodes the public's trust in our legal system, which has untold cascading effects that are difficult to predict but could amount to a lot of the sort of societal collapse we have talked about a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

Brandi Fleck:

[34:35] This is a lot to think about.

Emerson Wright:

Yeah, sure is. It really is.

Brandi Fleck:

And so I was going to ask you what happens if the legal system is vulnerable in this type of political climate. But I think we've touched on that a little bit. This political climate is making the legal system more vulnerable.

Emerson Wright:

[35:04] That's right. Right. And it's intentional. And in my view, it's intentional because what the administration is doing is not particularly popular. If it was particularly popular, they would do it through Congress. They would pass a bill, which is how our government works, right? It's perfectly legal for Congress to, for example, dismantle USAID or any of these other agencies that DOGE is [35:37] eliminating. It's perfectly legal for Congress to do that. The problem is the people don't want to eliminate the Department of Education. And so Congress people aren't going to do that because they want to keep their jobs. And so in order to do things and circumvent our checks and balances and our separation of powers, eroding the rule of law is essential because otherwise courts are going to stop them.

There's Still Hope That Decency Will Win

Brandi Fleck:

Okay. Okay. Well... Let's talk about the win in Wisconsin recently, though.

Emerson Wright:

Yes, please.

Brandi Fleck:

[36:13] So Susan Crawford, we're recording this right after Susan Crawford won the Supreme Court election, despite the millions of dollars that Elon Musk had poured into the race against her. What do you make of that win?

Emerson Wright:

Oh, I was thrilled when I saw that because I think that soon-to-be Justice Crawford is exactly the kind of person that we need on benches. And this is not a partisan statement. For background, I clerked for a judge who was very far to the right of me. And he hired me in part as what can be called a counter clerk, which is somebody to check your priors and make sure that everything is being reasoned through impartially.

[37:01] And so I'm not committed to judges of a particular political, partisan bent. But I think that Justice Crawford is the kind of judge we need because she is measured, she has dignity, and she did not run a particularly partisan campaign. Her main campaign argument was Wisconsin is not for sale. Wisconsin's courts are not for sale. And that should be a bipartisan view. It should be a bipartisan view that our justice system is not up for sale to the highest bidder. So I was thrilled that she won. I was surprised at the margin, very pleasantly surprised. And I think that what it means is that folks have a lot of beef and fear and anxiety around what has been going on from this administration. And I think that people wanted to come out and make sure that there was some check for what could happen in Wisconsin.

[38:07] That's a state that President Trump won in the election, the general election just in November. And so Susan Crawford won by double digits, I think, is a pretty huge indication that what's been going on is not popular with swing state voters and the majority of the American people. I'll also note that the results, it's imperfect. It's difficult to actually check every single voter, but the numbers suggest that a good number of folks turned out to vote for Susan Crawford who had voted for President Trump back in November. And so I do think that there's a good amount of buyer's remorse out there because people did not really want this complete upheaval of our federal government.

Brandi Fleck:

Yeah. Okay. That makes a lot of sense, too.

[39:02] Last time we talked, well, and so, you know, that seems like a hopeful little thing that's happened, but maybe it's bigger. I don't know. But last time we talked, we left on a hopeful note. Is there still hope now?

Emerson Wright:

Yeah, I really think there is. I really do. I think, first of all, the size of the turnout at those protests yesterday all over the country was really heartening. And I think a lot of what needs to happen is people just need to get motivated and inspired. So I think that many of us that are dismayed with what's been going on have also been dismayed with the inaction from the Democratic Party. And some Democratic Party leaders began stepping up a bit and meeting the moment, which I think helped people find some hope and some fight. And I think that's helping a lot. I also think that a lot of the Tesla takedown protests have actually made a huge difference because the market value of Tesla has gone down dramatically and nobody elected Elon Musk.

[40:17] And so anything that can get him to go back and run his businesses, I think is a win for us because that would be a better place for him to be. But I also just think that Americans aren't going to take it. Americans in part, and this is part of what makes this period of time difficult because it makes us an unreliable ally, right? But we switch administrations every four or eight years. And sometimes there's a big swing in what that switch means.

[40:52] But that also, I think, indicates that Americans are pretty impatient. And when most of America starts feeling the real effects of these changes that have happened at breakneck speed, people are going to get fed up. And as long as people don't wait too darn long, which I'm seeing some inspiring signs out there that we're not, I think we can fight this off.

Brandi Fleck:

Good, good.

Emerson Wright:

And by fight it off, I mean with the rule of law or will there be other methods? No, I think we can fight it off with the rule of law. I'm a little less optimistic about that, actually. I think that non-lawyers have shown significantly more courage in this moment than lawyers have, and I've been really disappointed by that. But I know that seeing those big firms cave got a lot of people riled up. And so we might see some more robust action. And I will say there's been really robust action from, for example, the American Bar Association and lots of legal associations and organizations. And so I think folks are starting to convalesce and really put up a big defense of the rule of law. There's been a lot more action from leadership of law schools, that kind of thing. So I'm, I'm still hopeful that we can, that we can preserve that.

Brandi Fleck:

Good.

Keep Calling Your Representatives

Brandi Fleck:

[42:22] Well, Em, what else is important to share that we haven't talked about yet?

Emerson Wright:

You know, I would just emphasize the importance of being actively involved and not, I don't mean going out to protest. I just mean actually paying attention to what's going on, right? Making sure that you're using media competence, getting information that is true, reading with your eyes, actual written words rather than just consuming all of your news media in video format, I think would help. And remembering that your elected representatives work for you. And you can really make a difference by calling them a lot or better yet going to their offices. But you can make a couple of phone calls every day and make a big difference for people in this country because our elected members of Congress are, by and large, I'm generalizing, weak little daffodils. And if they get a lot of pressure, they'll move the right way. And so keep it up.

Brandi Fleck:

[43:38] Okay. Yeah. I've actually been afraid that they wouldn't. What about the representatives that aren't listening to their constituents? What do we do then?

Emerson Wright:

Well, so that's a good question, right? I think on the one hand, because you're in an awfully red state and so am I, right?

One thing that I did recently, my member of Congress just actually bucked the party a little bit on what some people might think is a…[44:10] Um, insignificant issue. Uh, but she just bucks the party by putting together a package to allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy. So vote from home when they have a new baby or a new child at home and her party, the Republican party opposed it. Uh, speaker of the house tried to fight it. Uh, but a bunch of Democrats joined with her and a handful of Republicans and they got it through and booked the party. And so I called her office and thanked her for that because it's one single thing that I agree with her on. And so I called and thanked her for it. And then also talked about issues that I think she cares about. And so what I talked about, I tied what I was saying to what she campaigned on. I'm in Florida. I'm in the Tampa Bay area where we just suffered from two hurricanes back to back last summer, and we're still trying to rebuild. And so I called her and I said, nobody voted to defund FEMA. Nobody voted to eliminate FEMA.

[45:13] So trying to target the issues that they campaigned on. There's a lot of conservative cases to be made that what's happening right now is unacceptable. And so if you've got really right-wing politicians, make that conservative case if you've got it in you. Tell them nobody wants you inspecting the genitals of little girls, right? Nobody wants you hiking taxes on all of Americans by billions and billions of dollars by raising the prices on all of our consumer goods, right? That's the kind of thing that we'll get through. Maybe not right away, but with enough folks, it'll get through.

Brandi Fleck:

Yeah. And I love that you thanked her because they get a lot of calls, you know, about like what you don't want them to do. People are angry when they call, but that is a really good strategy.

Emerson Wright:

Well, and I'll tell you, that's, if you've got democratic representatives, if you've got democratic representatives that are maybe being a little tepid, or not doing as much as you'd like, and you see them do something good, call them and thank them and tell them to do more of that.

[46:25] Point at other democratic representatives and say do that, My wife and I live in different states, so she called her two Democratic senators and said, Cory Booker just talked for 25 hours, do more of that. Yes. And we've seen over a time, some of these folks are getting a little louder and getting their minds right. And Senator Booker straight up said he had failed to meet the moment and was recognizing that and trying to get caught up. So I don't think it's too late, but we've got to emphasize to our representatives that it is not too late and that they must act now and tie it to, sadly, the thing they care about most, keeping their jobs. You're not going to vote for them again if they don't act to meet them all.

Brandi Fleck:

Well, a lot of good guidance there. So thank you for that.

[47:22] And where can people find you and your work and your podcast?

Emerson Wright:

So you can Google my name and find my boring work profile. My podcast, you can find on all of the podcast avenues, but the easiest is Apple Podcasts. Just look for Talking Legal Ed. And I'm primarily in the social media world over on Bluesky, where the cool kids that left Twitter are.

[47:48] It's the one thing I'll dead name as Twitter until I die. But yeah, so all the folks that aren't Nazis that left Twitter are now over on Bluesky, where you can find me at ProfEmersonWright.

Brandi Fleck:

Wonderful. All right, everyone. Of course, that information will be in the show notes, so you know what to do. Go find it. And thank you so much for coming on the show today.

Emerson Wright:

It was really a delight. I'm sorry to have talked about such bummer of topics, but it's always a pleasure to chat with you.