Chris Hayes Covers His Wife’s Tense Exchange With Josh Hawley

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was in the unusual position on Wednesday of covering a newsworthy nugget involving constitutional law professor Kate Shaw, who happens to be his wife.

Shaw, a co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, where Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) pressed her on the slew of nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges during President Donald Trump’s tenure. Those injunctions enjoined the administration from taking action on a variety of fronts until they are resolved via the appeals process.

“There’s a fun moment in the United States Senate yesterday I’d love to share with you, mostly because it features the amazing constitutional law professor/podcast host/New York Times contributor Kate Shaw, who’s also my wife,” Hayes said on Wednesday’s All In. “And it also features Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who is amazing in his own way, I guess.”

Hayes said the senator “has been going to ridiculous lengths to defend the lawlessness of boss Trump.” That included a chart of nationwide injunctions issued during recent presidencies. Those issued in the Trump era far outweigh those of other presidents.

“Hawley had printed out a big gotcha chart, which he seemed to think proved that Donald Trump is a victim of a vast network of biased judges from across the ideological spectrum,” the host continued. “Professor Shaw suggested there might be a more simple explanation.”

Hayes then played the clip in question:

HAWLEY: What’s the principle of when an injunction binding non-parties, which was never done in this country before the 1960s? And let’s see the chart, the Trump chart, which was done, really, only once Trump came into office for the first time. Now, you don’t think this is a little bit anomalous? You don’t think that’s a little

SHAW: A very plausible explanation, Senator, you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right?

[CROSSTALK]

HAWLEY: This was never used before the 1960s, and suddenly, Democrat judges decide, “We love the nationwide injunction,” and then when Biden comes to office, “No, no, actually.”

SHAW: It’s Republican appointees as well, Senator. And the 1960s is where some scholars begin, sort of locate the beginning of this–

HAWLEY: Can you identify them?

SHAW: Mila Sohoni, who’s another scholar of universal injunction, suggests 1913 is actually the first, and others in the 20s.

HAWLEY: Oh, the republic endured for 150 years before there was a nationwide injunction.

SHAW: Well, the federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago. So, you know, there’s many things that have changed in the last 100 or the last 50 years.

HAWLEY: So, so long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions? If it’s a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted, and called for.

SHAW: That is not–

HAWLEY: How can our system of law survive on those principles, Professor?

SHAW: I think a system in which there are no meaningful constraints on the president is a very dangerous system.

Hayes reacted by quoting his wife’s testimony.

“A very plausible explanation you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activities than other presidents,” he echoed.

Watch above via MSNBC.