Episode
Court Therapy
- Podcast
- Serious Trouble
- Published
- Feb 7, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 1441
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/court-therapy
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/serious-trouble-5498851/episodes/court-therapy/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/serious-trouble-5498851/court-therapy.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.show This week, Ken and Josh discuss Julie Le, the DOJ lawyer who vented in court that it "sucks" to represent this government. They cover what you should do if you’re a lawyer whose client is frustratingly non-compliant and taking actions that bother you; venting to the judge is the wrong course of action, but there are other options available. That’s for all subscribers. Paying subscribers will also get our takes on other topics, including: * Judge Kate Menendez’s ruling that denied Minnesota the preliminary injunction it sought against Operation Metro Surge. As we expected, the state’s novel theory that federal government’s actions are a 10th Amendment violation was a bridge too far, even for a judge who seemed to be looking for some avenue to rein in the operation. * Judge Ana Reyes’s grant of a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the Trump Administration may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by revoking Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, and the limits of using the APA to litigate substantive questions about immigration policy. * Bill and Hillary Clinton’s emerging deal to testify before the House Oversight Committee and avoid the otherwise-likely prospect of contempt of congress prosecutions. * Former Minnesota Vikings offensive tackle Matt Kalil’s lawsuit against his ex-wife Haley, over her disclosure on a podcast that his incredibly large penis made their sex life impractical and was a major driver of their divorce. He says this was an invasion of privacy; she argues in a motion to dismiss that the story is about her sex life too and she’s free to tell whoever she wants. Is this the first case of a reverse Streisand Effect, wh…