Pantsuits and Lawsuits with Attorneys General Kris Mayes and Dana Nessel

State AGs Versus Lawlessness

• Attorneys General Kris Mayes & Dana Nessel

Share episode

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.

SPEAKER_00:

Hello and welcome to another uh thrilling episode of Pancits and Lawsuits, your favorite podcast to hear about from hot button topics in American law and litigation. I'm Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

SPEAKER_01:

And I am not Arizona Attorney General Chris Mace.

SPEAKER_00:

Surprise. Uh, but it's my pleasure to introduce to you today the 62nd Attorney General of the Great State of New Jersey, my friend and colleague, Matt Platkin, whose impressive career in and around public service really sets an example for us today. He's been an organizer and a policy advisor, working with members of Congress to improve the nation's job growth and economic recovery in private practice. His work frequently overlapped with the work of various state and federal agencies. And prior to his appointment as attorney general, he also served as chief counsel to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, uh advising the governor on all kinds of legal matters, including legislation, executive orders, administrative regulations, um, and other kinds of 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 lines of our legal battles against the second Trump administration, leading our coalition in so many of the important and successful cases we've filed. And uh, we welcome you to the podcast, uh, Matt. And I really look forward to talking to you about a variety of topics today. So thanks for being here.

SPEAKER_01:

I've been so excited to do this. Thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_00:

Excited to have you. Just so people know, most of the attorneys general, state attorneys general around the country are elected, but not all of them. Uh, and of course, in New Jersey, you were appointed by the governor.

SPEAKER_01:

Yep. Yeah. So New Jersey and Hawaii copied our constitution. So me and Ann Lopez, we have the same uh same situation. I get appointed, then I have once confirmed by the state senate, I have a term that um runs with the governors, but I can't be fired.

SPEAKER_00:

Okay. So uh once uh Governor Murphy put you in and you were confirmed, he was just stuck with you at that point. Is that basically how it works? I think pretty much. Yeah. Well, I uh I want to talk about your tenure as attorney general because you know, now a new governor is coming in. And like most governors, they want their own people. Uh and so I'm I'm presuming, of course, that you're gonna be replaced by whoever uh the newly elected governor decides to appoint.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, we've never had an attorney general in our state stay across administrations, 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 gonna make about that.

SPEAKER_00:

So Well, and also, I mean, you're what's fascinating is you're just on the cusp of being able to legally buy beer. And that is, I think, impressive that you could I wasn't gonna make a drinking joke on this podcast.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to that. Um, you know, that first beer. Uh that's that's gonna be a post-tenure goal of mine. Um yeah, so look, I mean, it's very it's it's standard for um uh a governor to come in and um obviously appoint his or her cabinet. In our case, governor elect Mikey Cheryl. We're really excited in New Jersey, got a new governor coming in. And um, you know, I I it's been a great, it's been an amazing job, and I'm looking forward to what the office will continue to do.

SPEAKER_00:

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 you would say you're most proud of?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I mean, you can sort of it when you come to the end of your term, you get asked this a lot. And I I've struggled because I'm proud of a lot of what we've done. I think, you know, the gun violence reduction, um, you know, I sort of got interested in going into public service in high school um following Columbine um shootings. And I I it was it was really the issue of gun violence that drove me to public service. And so to see, you know, New Jersey this year, as I sit here today, 750 fewer people were shot than were shot the year up before I took office. We've had three years running of record low numbers of shootings. And I think, frankly, especially um in, you know, I'm in a nonpartisan position, but I think Democrats typically don't talk about our success on keeping people safe, which, you know, I'll put our record up against uh anybody else in the country. So I'm really proud of that. I mean, and look, like the work we've done, you know, I just say right back at you. I mean, the coalition of Democratic Attorneys General over the past, you know, of my four-year tenure, but certainly over the last year in particular, I'm so proud of like what we've banded together, the way we've worked together. Uh, there aren't really, I can't really think of any other coalitions of public servants that have been on the front lines in this way, or private actors, frankly, that have put their money where their mouth is and stood up for things that are really core principles of this nation. And, you know, we have worked really well as a team. So I'm I'm uh I'm proud of all that, starting the first day with the birthright citizenship case, right up through last week, you know, fighting for 42 million Americans to have food. I can't even believe we had to file those suits, but we did to keep Americans from starving in the middle of the month of Thanksgiving.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah. Well, you've led a lot of those uh cases against the Trump administration. Um, and what I mean by that is you, New Jersey would be a lead state in many, many uh of those cases. Um, and uh so what I'm wondering is, I mean, how does it work in terms of your successor? Do you expect that um there'll be any interruption in those cases due to the fact that you're gonna be leaving and you were the lead?

SPEAKER_01:

I I I don't think so. And you know, we'll certainly set them up for success. And I think New Jersey, look, what we're very fortunate here. We have a big office, and we have an office that hasn't always historically played that role in multi-state cases, which are really important. I mean, nowadays, so many of the big issues, obviously the Trump stuff gets the most attention. But you think about the social media 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 the big tech companies that are causing harm. Those are actually bipartisan cases. But New Jersey, historically, we would participate, we'd actually invest a lot of resources, but we didn't really play the leadership role that I thought we should play, given the amount of uh uh energy we were putting into it. And so I'm proud that we have. And I think on the the cases, uh, you know, the cases involving the federal government, I do think there's gonna be uh generally a continuation of that work. Obviously, it'll be up to whoever comes in to make those decisions on individual cases, but I do hope New Jersey continues to play a leadership role. I think, you know, state AGs have never been more important. And if if we're not fighting for the rule of law, then I don't really know who is.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, and I will say as a side note, you know, there was a lot of concern about what would happen in the event that uh a Republican won the governor's office and appointed um, you know, somebody who was not going to participate in these lawsuits, and what would we do in the cases in which New Jersey was a lead? Um, because obviously, you know, the role that you've played has been so important and your office staff as well. So I will just say I'm very glad that I don't think that's gonna be the case now with whoever your successor is. Um, not that anybody could be as brilliant as you have been physician and done the great work that you've done. So, what's your takeaway from not just your time in office overall? But you know, obviously we're in this very precarious time uh where, you know, yourself and and you know, all the Democratic AGs have been fighting uh the good fight, trying as best we can to sort of mitigate the damage that um the Trump administration is causing to our respective states. But also the state of our democracy uh is not a healthy one right now. You know, what do you think we best need to be doing in the future to fight back against what we've seen as just a lawless regime that has, for the most part, with the exception I think of our lawsuits and some others, been able to get away with literally anything they want, all things, I would say, on a regular basis, each and every day. Uh, Donald Trump or his administration does something that would have caused people to be certainly impeached at any other time. And for some of his administration, you know, potentially prosecuted. What are your thoughts about what we need to be doing as we look forward?

SPEAKER_01:

Well, I think I say this genuinely. We need more people like you. I mean, you've been out in front. I remember early on, well before the he got re-elected, you were in our caucus and publicly highlighting the real risks to our democracy and how it was going to affect people fundamentally in their lives. And I think, you know, one of the mistakes I think that was made was we sort of let this conversation about the rule of law become really abstract. And people, I even, I mean, I'm I don't know how you feel. Sometimes like leading up to the 2024 election, my eyes rolled over. It's like, okay, yeah, democracy. Like, you know, that's not what people, that's not how people wake up every morning. Most normal people aren't like waking up thinking about the state of the democracy. They're waking up thinking about how they put food on their kids' table and or and how do they, you know, make sure their kids have a quality education and all the things that we generally worry about as parents and members of society. But like, we also can't be so mealy-mouthed about what's happening here. I mean, you look at these videos from Chicago and other jurisdictions and you see American citizens being hogtied and have their ribs broken and left on the street like for or detained for days without rights to lawyers. Like, yeah, I want a secure border too. I've I don't think that's like a controversial statement. But I also don't think it's controversial to say that like those are un-American acts and we can't just avoid talking about them because there's other things that people quote unquote care about more. It's like, well, if we don't talk about them, it goes back to the crime comment I made earlier. If we don't talk about them and we don't highlight what is happening, then why would we expect people to care? Because he's not going to be out there saying, look at all the lawless things I'm doing. You know, clearly uh folks in Congress who have enabled him aren't gonna hold him accountable for that. And I think the whole institution of Congress is a real um uh disappointment over the last year, put aside a political party. They just have not asserted their institutional oversight authority over the executive. So I do think we need more people with courage like you have. I mean, I've tried to sort of not mince words, it helps not being elected. Um, but it we are in a crisis point. It's not abstract. Like when we had 850,000 people last week who weren't eating because in New Jersey and 42 million Americans across the country because of refusal to follow the rule of law. That's what it means. We pass a law, you follow it. The law is the king, not a president. And I think we're still not quite being direct enough with the American people about the horrors that we're seeing on the streets in places across this country.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, you know, it's it's interesting. But I wonder, my question to you right now is, you know, we saw something pretty phenomenal over the course of the last weekend, and that is Marjorie Taylor Green and her spat with um Donald Trump, um, best friends forever gang, um, having a uh, you know, uh a significant breakup. And is it possible? I mean, is this the beginning of the end for the the Republican Party who, you know, in their opinion, Donald Trump could do no wrong, say no wrong, um, not act in in any way that they were willing to criticize or vote against? Are we seeing a shift, do you think?

SPEAKER_01:

Um, I don't know. Oh, I look, I've never been elected to anything other than student council uh uh body. I was the first sixth grader ever elected, just for the record. Um, but yeah, you know, I took that's my claim to fame. Um, but uh so I, you know, I I'll leave it. You you have a better sense of how it's playing politically. But I do think, you know, if this country is going to continue to have the type of government that we say we have, and um, you know, I think there's real questions about the state of our democracy and um uh how certain institutions and rights and privileges will survive. I mean, they've they've eroded over the past uh 10, 11 months at a rate that even the most of those of us who are really concerned, I think is alarming. And institutions have just folded without even a fight. You know, you think about the legal profession, uh universities, the press. Obviously, I mentioned Congress, um, who's supposed to care. I mean, that's the whole idea that Congress is supposed to care about their institutional authority and they're gonna compete. You just see them basically like saying, Oh, what the hell? Like, if he wants to disregard the money that we've spent, he can do it. Um, and I I I don't know like how this country can continue to have the system of government we have if some people don't just grow a spine. Look, I'm 39 years old, you know. I I hope this country is around in the shape that I believe in for a long time. But, you know, we look back on history and I think it's very easy to see things like linearly and expect that everything will continue. And the truth is we've had ups and downs in this country and we've gotten through them because people have had courage to stand up and fight. And broad coalitions of people have come together and fought for things that are important. And right now we're seeing too many people that just seem comfortable sort of putting their head in the sand. And that's a recipe for disaster.

SPEAKER_00:

Um so uh just a few days ago, I was out in the west side of Michigan and I was meeting with uh an immigrant immigrant rights group, and you know, they were discussing all the many ways in which um, you know, the federal government has um really been, I you just have to say, abusive to members of that community. And I'm not, I am not just talking about uh undocumented people, although undocumented people are humans too. I wish that we could know that and understand that and appreciate it. But um, it is their job to represent documented uh immigrants. Uh and they were, you know, basically relaying the parade of horrors of things that had happened to a lot of folks that they work with. And it used to be that the big law firms uh would pro voto represent many of these individuals. That's what they were used to. And now there's just a dearth of attorneys that are out there that are willing to represent people who have had their rights violated by the federal government. And I wonder, you know, understanding the capitulation that we've seen by many big law firms, what are your thoughts and perspectives? I mean, you've been a government lawyer, you've been a lawyer in private practice, you've worked for big, you know, sizably big law firms that are the kinds of firms that we're talking about. What do you think the future is in terms of the practice of law in this country and those that are willing to take the Trump administration to court?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I mean, you think about like fundamental things in any democracy, but our democracy is if your rights are violated by the government, you can go to court and have them protected. That's the most of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, like we get lost in the legalese. Most of them basically say some variation of that. Government can't take away your right to speech, your freedom of religion. Uh, they can't bust into your house without a warrant, which they're doing. They can't, you know, force military upon you. You have a right to trial, they can't set bail. All these things are basically protections 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, these things are so important that the first 10 of them, the vast majority, are essentially protecting the residents of this country from uh uh from the government itself. Even the Second Amendment, as I think it's properly understood, was about that as well.

SPEAKER_00:

I will say this. Um, you know, I've had so many cases that in some way, shape, or form uh involved the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment. But I'm just excited that it looks like we may actually be able to bring cases uh involving the Third Amendment, which again, I just not had the privilege story.

SPEAKER_01:

Didn't think we'd have a lot of Third Amendment cases. No.

SPEAKER_00:

No, but but seemingly now we might be headed in that direction. So that is exciting.

SPEAKER_01:

Um, you know, I think look, and I mean, you think about the Fourth Amendment. Like, obviously, most people think, okay, search and seizure, do they said they thought about it at all? They think about criminal context. Like these stories from Chicago, again, I'm not in the polling or public opinion business, but I suspect if you ask Americans, do they think you should be able to be have your house broken into by the government because somebody else says you might be an immigrant when you're in fact an American citizen just going to bed at night? I think most people are gonna say no. Like, I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that's probably not a popular position, but we're not saying that enough, right? We're not like trying to win this fight because we can win it. I mean, Barack Obama had broadly popular views on immigration. I think he was a Democrat. Like, you know, the the this is a winnable fight from a public uh opinion standpoint because we are so clearly right on the uh the actual merits here. This isn't even a close call whether I think you know this country would stand for something as extreme as what you're seeing. Now you have law firms and lawyers and a legal industry that has just basically been scared because the president and his attorney general and others like issued a handful, not even like hundreds of them, a handful of these blatantly unconstitutional and unlawful executive orders that said we're gonna punish lawyers for representing certain people's interests. And then a whole bunch of other people got spooked, notwithstanding that you and I and many of our colleagues stood up for those firms, firms that by 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 who we are, that if you're if the government, and I say this as somebody who files a lot of cases on behalf of the government, the government comes after you, you have a right to protect your interests in court. If we lose that, if judges are threatened, as we've seen, if they don't feel like they can be independent, if they're impeached for issuing opinions that are against the administration, or if the administration just doesn't follow it, or if you can't get a lawyer to go to your court, then those rights are meaningless. They're meaningless. That's why it makes me so proud of the coalition we have. I mean, I we have never, I have never heard once, maybe I don't know if you agree with this from any of our colleagues, like, oh, we can't do that. That's too scary. I mean, you look at what Tish James personally is going through because she's had courage. You know, you've lived it in Michigan. I mean, I'm certainly not immune to the threats that come, but it's it's like, why did we do this? Why did we do this if we weren't gonna fight for these types of what was the point of going to law school and becoming a government lawyer, but to fight for these types of core principles when you're in this moment?

SPEAKER_00:

Amen, brother. You know, obviously, I think um in the last few years, especially, we've seen what you and I would deem to be some very troubling opinions by the United States Supreme Court. And we can say that these things are unpopular, and we know that they are, uh, all day, every day. But also unpopular, I think, was the 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 to or not, but you know, signaling to the president that you can do whatever the hell it is that you want, irrespective of how illegal it is, and probably not be prosecuted for it, at least not during the time period that you are president of the United States. And that's just one of many opinions that I think so many of us were horrified by. But what are your thoughts? What do we do about a United States Supreme Court that is so out of step with what is uh, you know, popular amongst the public? And I think we should all, you know, make sure people know like the court is not there uh to be to win popularity contests, however, many of the things they are doing, um, you know, seemingly overturning what we believe to have been uh, you know, solid constitutional rights for decades. And of course, I will say that the the Dobbs decision, I think, shut shook everyone to their core, overturning 50 years of Roe v. Wade. Um, and we know from a public polling standpoint, certainly, uh Roe was popular. Um, and we're now seeing the effects of it, right? We're seeing um, you know, basically two different types of states. And one, women have um fundamental rights, and others, you know, women, you know, who can die very, very easily during childbirth or during their pregnancy, uh, where if they were one state over, they wouldn't. Uh that's pretty substantial difference. So what do you see happening in terms of like, listen, you and I could go to court, you know, all day, every day, whether we are government lawyers, whether we are lawyers in private practice that are representing plaintiffs that uh have been wronged. But if we have a Supreme Court that just seemingly doesn't care about the fundamentals of um, you know, uh of rights that most of us have taken for granted for our entire lives, what do we do with that?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, look, I mean, you rattled off a bunch of really uh upsetting opinions. I mean, obviously the immunity opinion, as someone like you who has prosecuted powerful people and believes everyone's held to the same standard, no higher nor lower than anybody else in this country, the idea that a president can't commit a crime is something that I think would have been foreign to the founders of this nation. I really do. I don't think there's any support for that in the origin story of who we are as a country, to the extent that we still actually pay some tribute to that. Uh, you know, I think about Dobbs and Bruin back to back. Bruin obviously being the decision that struck down concealed carry restrictions in many states, including New Jersey. Um, back-to-back days. On the one hand, no deference under Bruin to the judgments of law enforcement in states like New Jersey. Again, densest state in the nation, very different from, say, a state like Montana. Um, and no deference to our law enforcement officers' judgment about who could safely have a concealed firearm. But then the next day, oh, complete deference to state legislatures about whether or not they want to restrict what for half a century had been a fundamental right in this country, the right to access abortion care and reproductive health care. First time ever revoking a fundamental right. So I think, you know, on the one hand, it's it's certainly understandable why people would be cynical and dismissive of the Supreme Court. But I would just say two things. One, the Supreme Court doesn't hear that many cases. They're hearing, they're trying to take more now through this like crazy shadow docket way of getting cases up but faster than they should be. Um, but they don't hear that many. So there's still a lot of things that are going on in our courts. And I have to say, the lower courts, you got to give them credit. They have been strong. We've had judges appointed by President Trump who have have stood up for the rule of law in ways that I think is quite brave and admirable at a time when they're saying horrible things about judges. And we know a thing or two about that here in New Jersey. You know, Judge Sallas, her son, was murdered because she was a judge. Um, you know, we've this this rhetoric has consequences. You've lived it in Michigan. So that I think needs to be said. The second is look, if you look through the 250-year history of this country, the Supreme Court has 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 and screaming for most of our nation's history. The Warren Court, I think, is the one exception. But even, you know, you think about probably, and you've lived this and fought for it and are a hero in this story, and you know it, even the gay marriage fights um, you know, took decades of public opinion changing before the court was willing to um to come around on something that's so basic and fundamental. Um by the way, it looks like even now, even with everything they're doing, even now they're not like, no, we're not gonna touch that right now, which I think is is that at least a short-term relief. But I think if we're waiting for the Supreme Court to save us, um, you know, that was always a mistake. I think some of our um, not to say we don't have those fights and don't push for strategically smart cases as we're doing, but we shouldn't expect the Supreme Court is going to save us. What I think more broadly than what we're doing right now, we gotta think there's gotta be some vision. You know, okay, so the Supreme Court 2010 issues the crazy Citizens United decision, unleashes waves of money into our um democracy that I think is a huge part of the corrupting influence of that ended up here. Okay, like we're not talking about enough about, I mean, some are, but I don't think we're talking enough about amending the constitution to get money out of it. Yeah, is that right now likely to happen tomorrow? No, but we have amended the constitution. Should if we don't talk about things, we don't promote it, then it's never gonna happen. And I do think that's it should be something that's on the table. So, you know, on the one hand, they're an incredibly powerful institution, and I personally believe we owe them the respect. This is the power as the Supreme Court. I don't question their legitimacy, but the composition of the court can change, and the history of this country has not been one that the Supreme Court has been the progressive institution that I think sometimes we romanticize it to be. Look, they're the court that issued Dred Scott and plus E. V. Ferguson. So, you know, it's not like there is an assorted history there that we just need to sort of understand and then think about ways we organize to ensure that our rights are protected.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, agree. And in fact, in Michigan, we have a um a ballot proposal uh that would amend our constitution so that, you know, certain uh corporations could not be involved in political gift giving like our utilities who uh have monopolies in our state. Um, so yeah, I mean, there's uh definitely room for improvement in all sorts of ways. And I agree with you, Matt. We we can't stop fighting back just because there are great obstacles. And I think one could argue we wouldn't have a United States of America in the first place if that had been the attitude uh of the colonists and uh so many others moving forward at many times where our democracy was really threatened. I don't know what you're gonna do next, but um, I have a feeling that whatever it is, that uh you're going to remain a fighter and tenacious and to use your law degree and and all the many things that you've you've learned and um you know that you have to give still to uh to your state, to our country, to to fight back um against this incredible threat that we continue to have against our country and to make sure that we have um a nation um where we're preserving freedoms and liberties for all. And I I just have to thank you so much for the great work that you've done. It has been such an honor and uh a pleasure to be colleagues with you. And uh I have a feeling that we're we're gonna keep in touch your respective.

SPEAKER_01:

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 are incredibly brave um in the positions you've taken, and they're so principled. And that's rare, I think, today. Um, you know, it's it's somewhat easy for me because I'm not elected. You've you've been who you are, you've stayed true to yourself. Um, and you know, uh you and you're super fun too. Like, I mean, that this stuff can 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 at yourselves too. I think we sort of lost some of that. But I uh I just really have been appreciate all you. You've been an incredible when I came in as AG, I was sort of like starstruck. You had all these people who made huge names for themselves during like, you know, the 20, not always for the best reasons, but he not you, um, but you know, huge names for themselves, and they were kind of heroes across the country. And then I came in and I'm like, the hell am I doing here? Um, and everyone was just awesome to me. And we've been able to do really important things. And, you know, I don't know what I'll do, but I know I'll never be in a position where I can have the kind of impact and just it's just so pure. Being attorney general is so pure. You wake up every morning, you think 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 on what you thought was right in that moment. And um that's pretty rewarding in and of itself, and especially in this moment.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, I can say this. I mean, there's no greater privilege, honor, or joy that I have than being able to, you know, wake up and say that I'm representing the people.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. And, you know, I get to come on your podcast. I do wear pantsuits, by the way, so I think I fit in.

SPEAKER_00:

Um, that's all the time we have left for today. Uh, thanks for tuning in. And of course, thank you to Attorney General Matt Platkin for joining us. Pantsuits and lawsuits will be back soon with your favorite attorneys general, including Arizona's Chris Mays. Be sure to follow our departments on social media for the latest updates about the work we're doing each and every day on behalf of the people of our state. Until next time, have a good one.