Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

Democracy had a pretty rough ride at the Supreme Court last term. Presidents have criminal immunity now! Agency experts aren’t the experts anymore! Sure, you can convert that rifle into an automatic weapon! And guess what? More horrors await us this term. But we are not going to spend this last episode before the start of a new term dispassionately picking over a smattering of cases for a lawyerly preview, or helplessly doom spiraling. Instead, we will hear from two women who refuse to blithely accept what the High Court is handing down—two women who have decided to do something, in very different ways. You’re going to find out why one of these women will head to SCOTUS on Monday in the suit she wore to argue before the High Court 44 years ago. Dahlia Lithwick will ask the other woman, Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward, about the legal theories, doctrine tracking, and litigation strategies her organization is deploying to fight for democracy in the courts –– even (and especially) in courthouses and cases far from One First Street, where until now, the conservative legal movement has had almost free reign. Because any honest preview of the new Supreme Court term needs to look wider and deeper than the handful of cases docketed for the coming weeks. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

State Supreme Courts are vital to the functioning of American democracy. They are also where voting rights are enforced or eviscerated. This is especially true of North Carolina’s State Supreme Court, a battleground court in a battleground state. On a special bonus episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Stern (your Amicus Plus dream team) are joined by Justice Allison Riggs of North Carolina’s State Supreme Court for an in-depth interview on what’s at stake in North Carolina this year, and the path forward for progressive priorities and jurists in state courthouses.This episode is member- exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's Amicus, Mark Joseph Stern steps in for Dahlia Lithwick to preview the upcoming Supreme Court term and dive into the high-stakes case of Garland v. VanDerStok. This critical case examines the legality of 'ghost guns'—untraceable firearms that can be assembled at home from kits bought online. Stern talks with Eric Tirschwell, executive director and chief litigation counsel of Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety. Stern and Tirschwell discuss the profound public safety implications of this case and the dramatic decrease in ghost gun-related crimes following the Biden administration’s introduction of the rule at the heart of the case. They also uncover the role of dark money in funding lawsuits aimed at eroding gun safety laws, and how it compares to the anti-abortion legal strategies of the Christian right.Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chief Justice John Roberts has been labeled by some as the serious centrist at the court, and he seemed to embrace and internalize that. But the New York Times’ revelations about behind-the-scenes maneuvers favoring Trump in last term's insurrection cases shattered that illusion once and for all. The Chief’s stance in these cases surprised the Roberts-as-twinkly-eyed-institutionalist brigade, but did not, apparently, shock this week’s guest, Linda Greenhouse. Greenhouse was the New York Times Supreme Court correspondent for 30 years, and is the author of Justice on the Brink: A Requiem for the Supreme Court. As we head into another pivotal Supreme Court term, Dahlia Lithwick and Greenhouse turn their expert SCOTUS watching lens on how the High Court got so leaky, why the Chief was so unprepared for the public backlash to his decision in the immunity case, and whether the Chief is so much Team Trump that we should worry about the election cases inevitably headed his way. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Republicans from Ohio to Arkansas, from South Dakota to Florida and from Nebraska to Missouri have been throwing everything at trying to keep abortion ballot measures from actually reaching voters. In this week’s Amicus - a deep look at efforts to stifle and chill direct democracy in the states, post Dobbs. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Jessica Valenti, the author of Abortion: Our Bodies, Their Lies, and the Truths We Use to Win, and Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director for Yes on 4 in Florida, about the playbook that’s being used to threaten ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights in states around the nation. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 2024 election is already underway, with some states already sending out ballots for mail-in voting. But as democrats are basking in the waning glow of their brat summer, the republican party spent the summer on a “protect the vote” tour, spearheaded by RNC co-chair and DJT daughter-in-law Lara Trump. It’s a pretty clever step — from “Stop the Steal” to “Protect the Vote” — and it’s just one of the lessons the MAGA party learned from the failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election. This week on Amicus: what’s changed in election law since 2020, and what it means for the vote in 2024. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent and author of Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People―and the Fight to Resist It. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the last episode of our series The Law According to Trump, we try to figure out what it all means. In the months since SCOTUS gave Trump even more immunity than he asked for, the people prosecuting the former president are finding themselves in uncharted waters. How are they doing? Slate’s Jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl talks with host Andrea Bernstein about how Jack Smith has tweaked the election interference cases, as well as how Trump’s legal approach has changed since the Supreme Court ruled for him in Trump v. U.S..Listen to Andrea Bernstein on We Don’t Talk About Leonard, Trump Inc., and Will Be Wild. Andrea is also the author of American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former President Donald J Trump keeps figuring out ways to escape criminal liability. The Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into the insurrection case and delayed sentencing in the campaign finance hush money case, while a Florida judge helped him slip out from under charges of recklessly mishandling classified documents… at least, for now.But Trump has seen less success defending himself in civil courtrooms - including two judgments against him in defamation cases brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump owes tens of millions of dollars.On this episode of our series “The Law According to Trump,” is the civil court path to holding Trump to account in a way that actually sticks? Damon Hewitt, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, speaks with host Andrea Bernstein about his case that uses the 150-year-old KKK Act to make Trump face consequences for his actions on January 6th.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The power of the presidential pardon is a holdover from America’s colonial roots. But no one had used it like former President Trump. Over and over he kept pardoning his allies, and then, he’d welcome them back into the fold. . It seemed like he was rewarding these criminals for their loyalty, and belittling whole categories of crime, like fraud, campaign finance violations, and corruption. Is that what was really happening?This week in our series called The Law According to Trump, we go deeper into Trump’s use of the pardon with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. Torres-Spelliscy is a professor of law at Stetson University and the author of Corporate Citizen?: An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State and Political Brands. Torres-Spelliscy speaks with host Andrea Bernstein about how Trump’s pardoning has hurt democracy, and what it means for the future of the country. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Even before he was president, Donald Trump was known for stiffing his lawyers. But considering how the stakes changed once he took the Oval Office, not getting paid seemed like a pleasant option. During and after his presidency, lawyers who represented Trump have pleaded guilty in election fraud cases, campaign finance cases and more. So why do they keep representing him? Is this risk of jailtime worth the reward of…well, what is the reward?In this next installment of The Law According to Trump, another lawyer speaks with us about representing Donald Trump. Danya Perry is Michael Cohen’s attorney (yes, that Michael Cohen). She offers insight into why lawyers still want to represent Trump, and what the ethical implications are - personally and professionally. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the first in a new series, The Law According to Trump, Amicus begins an extensive exploration of Donald Trump's tumultuous relationship with the courts and legal system, focusing on Trump's use of lawyers and lawsuits to enhance his brand, wealth, and power. In the past few months, attention has rightly been on several blockbuster federal cases involving former President Trump, all the way up to and including his immunity case at the Supreme Court, but Trump’s history with the law goes back much further and is much broader than the election subversion cases. While Dahlia Lithwick takes a well-deserved break, Amicus is very lucky to have award-winning investigative journalist Andrea Bernstein in the host chair. Andrea has covered five trials against Trump or his company for NPR, is the author of American Oligarchs: the Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power, and she has also hosted three podcasts that touch on Trump and the law, including, most recently “We Don’t Talk About Leonard.”This episode delves into Trump's history of litigation with a close eye on how he has used nuisance lawsuits. Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl joins Andrea to outline the many people and organizations the former President has sued since leaving office. Then, former US Attorney Jim Zirin, author of Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3500 Lawsuits, fills us in on the history of Trump’s love of litigation.Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s not just us feeling exhausted right? It’s been a totally wild past few weeks. That’s why we are taking off the next few weeks to bring you a special series we’re calling “The Law According to Trump.” Andrea Bernstein, the host of WNYC’s Trump Inc., will be stepping into the host chair for Dahlia Lithwick in the month of August to explain how the former president uses the law to his advantage, and how he has gamed the judicial system to his advantage for decades before he entered political life. Andrea joins Dahlia to preview the series.Later in the show, Dahlia talks with Judge David S. Tatel. Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and became prominent for both his jurisprudence and his blindness. His new memoir, Vision, was published last month and every young lawyer should read it. On this week’s show Judge Tatel discusses the book, which details his experience on the federal appeals court and his blindness. They also talk about his concerns for the current Supreme Court and its recent approach to the law. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So President Biden finally signaled an openness to maybe possibly thinking about Supreme Court reform. Too little, too late, perhaps - but also, desperately needed, certainly. The US Supreme Court views itself as separate and apart from all other courts - including international counterparts. What could Americans learn from other courts? One of the world’s most respected jurists, retired Canadian Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, joins Dahlia Lithwick on this week’s Amicus for a very special conversation about the role of constitutional courts in democracy, and where SCOTUS may be veering off track. Without Precedent: The Supreme Life of Rosie AbellaWant more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The judge overseeing the stolen classified documents case at former President Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Club has dismissed the case, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. This decision will likely be appealed. It’s a big swing, on a Trump trial question that’s very possibly heading on a fast track up to the United States Supreme Court. That sinking feeling is becoming pretty familiar, huh? In a special episode of Amicus for our Slate Plus subscribers, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Matthew Seligman who had argued for the constitutionality of the special counsel last month in Judge Cannon’s courtroom in Florida. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to the full version now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Administrative law may not sound sexy. And maybe that’s because it truly isn’t sexy. But it is at the very center of the biggest decisions this past Supreme Court term, and also widely misunderstood. In this week’s show, we asked Georgetown Law School’s Professor Lisa Heinzerling to come back to help hack through the thorny thicket of administrative law so we can more fully understand the ramifications of a clutch of cases handed down this term that – taken together – rearrange the whole project of modern government. The Supreme Court’s biggest power grab for a generation isn’t just about bestowing new and huge powers upon itself, it’s also about shifting power from agencies established in the public interest to corporations, industry and billionaires. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What just happened??? Despite going into June clear-eyed and well informed about the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, the number of huge cases before it, and the alarming stakes in so many of those cases…we are, nonetheless, shocked. The October 2023 term came to a shuddering end on Monday July 1st and Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Steve Vladeck and Mary Anne Franks are here to help parse some monumental decisions, some smaller cases with big ramifications, and what we can understand about the Justices who made those decisions for the rest of us, and the Justices who dissented. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority rounded out the term by gifting massive unprecedented power to commit criminal wrongdoing to presidents. A court that already put a thumb on the scale for former President Donald J Trump by slow talking and slow walking the immunity case in exactly the way he hoped, has now thrown out the scale in favor of a brand new sweeping, monarchic immunity ruling in favor of the former president and any future insurrection-prone presidents. Trump v United States provides that US Presidents may enjoy wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution because coups are constitutional as long as you make them official. This episode delves into the decision’s implications for democracy, and for presidential power, while also providing historical context. We also look ahead to the legal battles looming in the various Trump trials at all their various stages. What does this do to the Georgia indictments? The classified documents case? And the felony counts for which Trump will be sentenced next week? Host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer on the courts and the law, and Professor Corey Brettshnieder, who teaches constitutional law and political theory at Brown University and is the author of the new book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

While most everyone was reacting to Thursday’s Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care. This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts). Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday’s rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable.Listen to an interview with a doctor helping unhoused people in Grants Pass, OR.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What’s this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That’s right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders’) long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency’s ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in its traditional fashion: a box of printed copies for those journalists in the press room, and furious SCOTUS website refreshing for those who were not. Murthy v Missouri was one of the closely watched social media cases of the term, about “jawboning” or when and if the government can ask/prod/urge private social media companies to moderate content in the interest of things like public health or election integrity, or whether such conduct constitutes censorship. Snyder v US concerned corruption and the difference between bribes and gratuities under a federal corruption law. Somewhere in between the publishing of these opinions, however, the court inadvertently and very briefly published what may or may not be its opinion in a pair of emergency abortion cases, Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States. The Court spokeswoman urged us all to pay no attention to the early draft. Chaos ensued. On this extra, members-only episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to get our arms around a day of big news, including the “now you see it, now you don’t” abortion news at the highest court in the land. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Another major case for the “not a loss/not exactly a win” pile this term at SCOTUS. A majority of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said what we knew all along - adjudicated domestic abusers shouldn’t hold onto second amendment rights and the guns that they are statistically, horrifyingly, apt to use to harm their intimate partners. In an 8-1 decision in United States v Rahimi, the Roberts Court looked frantically for a way to reverse out of – while still technically upholding – its bonkers extreme originalism-fueled Bruen decision from two terms ago. This week Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Kelly Roskam, the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.Later in the show, Mark and Dahlia look under the hood of Department of State v Munoz - an immigration case decided this week that Justice Sotomayor says is sewing seeds for the end of marriage equality as we know it. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A bump stock is an attachment that converts a semi automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire as many as 800 rounds per minute - an intensity of gunfire matched by machine guns. The deadliest mass shooting carried out by a single shooter in US history - the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre - was enabled by a bump stock. On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era bump stock ban introduced in the wake of that tragedy, in which 60 people were killed and hundreds more injured. Writing for a perfectly partisan six to three majority, gun enthusiast and ultra conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, decided the administration had overstepped its authority enacting the ban, and based the decision in a very technical, very weird reading of the statute. On this Opinionpalooza edition of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s senior writer on the courts and the law - Mark Stern, and David Pucino, Legal Director & Deputy Chief Counsel of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Together, they discuss the careful reasoning and research behind the ban, Justice Thomas’ self-appointment as a bigger gun expert than the agency charged with regulating guns - the ATF, how the gun industry used its own “amicus flotilla” from extreme groups to undermine the agency, and how the industry will use this roadmap again. But, please don’t despair entirely, you’ll also hear from David about hope for the future of gun safety rules. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Plus listeners have access to all our Opinionpalooza emergency episodes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What do you call a case where there’s no standing and yet the lawsuit is still standing? FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine AKA the mifepristone case, AKA the case that tried to raise a zombie law from the dead, and will now continue to roam the lower courts in search of a national abortion ban. While the Comstock Act was not mentioned in the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to maintain the legal status quo on abortion pills, the overton window just got wedged open a little wider.In this Opinionpalooza extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss SCOTUS’ abortion pill decision in depth and explore the consequences of a case that was doomed to fail before even this Supreme Court, but is also doomed to return to haunt us.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the past 15 years, the journalist and author Katherine Stewart has been charting the rise of Christian Nationalism in the United States. On this week’s Amicus, Stewart joins Dahlia Lithwick and Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to discuss the worrying signs of the growing power of extremist christian ideologies at the highest court in the land. Together, they trace shifts in jurisprudence that have emboldened and empowered some of the most extreme fringes of the extreme Christian right, and explain how the changing legal landscape is enabling right wing religious fever dreams to become explicit policy in a document like Project 2025. They all agree on this one thing: This is an episode about much more than flags. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As a jury in Lower Manhattan responded with “guilty” to all 34 felony counts in former President and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s hush money trial on Thursday, dozens and dozens more questions began to swirl. Will Trump appeal? On what grounds? Will Justice Juan Merchan sentence Trump to jail time? Will the US Supreme Court intervene? Is the gag order still active and in place? Luckily, we have the perfect guest on Amicus to answer all those questions to the extent that it is humanly and expert lawyerly possible. Ryan Goodman is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16). He is also the founding co-editor-in-chief of the national security online forum, Just Security, a vital resource if you are trying to follow the many trials and appeals of Donald J Trump.Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Business as usual at the Supreme Court is the institutional response to the unusual business of Justice Samuel Alito’s letter writing about his flag-flying wife. In this bonus episode for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern knit together the yarns of jurisprudence with injudicious symbolic support for insurrection and christian nationalism - so you don’t get lost in this tangle. As the justices hand down cases and turn down congressional requests for recusal, Dahlia and Mark trace the link between bending the facts and discarding the record to suit Justice Alito’s narrative in his opinions, in his non application of the ethics code, and in his lack of humility in the flag fiasco.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After six weeks of arguments and testimony and a little under 12 hours of deliberation, a Manhattan jury voted to convict former President Trump of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl, who was in court for the historic guilty verdict and has followed the case over the past six weeks, to talk about how the verdict was reached, what comes next, and why the former President is unlikely to be headed to jail any time soon.Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As we stand poised at the threshold of June, we brace ourselves for the fire hose of opinions headed our way in the next four or so weeks. But why? Why –even as the Court is taking on fewer cases – is there an absolute dogpile of decisions, with no map for what will come down or when, beyond a SCOTUS-adjacent cottage industry in soothsaying and advance-panic and guessing? Dahlia Lithwick takes us through a whirlwind of Supreme Court decisions and controversies, expertly assisted by Professor Steve Vladeck (whose New York Times bestseller The Shadow Docket came out in paperback this week) and Mark Joseph Stern in untangling the complex web of legal, political, and personal dramas enveloping the nation's highest court. From Justice Alito's flag-flying fiasco, to the forces shaping the court’s docket, to its divisive rulings, this episode could well be titled “Why Are They Like This?” As the court's term hurtles towards its frenetic close, Dahlia and her guests dissect the legal and ethical ramifications of the justices' actions, both on and off the bench. Tune in to this must-listen episode of Amicus for an eye-opening exploration of the Supreme Court's turbulent session, the ideological battles at play, and what it all could mean for the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. Whether you're a legal aficionado or simply concerned about the direction of the country, this episode is the end-of-term preview you really need to understand what the heck is happening over the next few weeks. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy.This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the third and final part of our How Originalism Ate the Law series, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Justice Todd Eddins of the Hawaii Supreme Court and Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap. Being trapped by originalism is a choice, one that judges, lawyers, and the American people do not have to accede to. Our expert panel offers ideas and action points for pushing back against a mode of constitutional interpretation that has had deadly consequences. And they answer questions from our listeners. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Justice Samuel Alito’s wife didn’t attend the January 6th 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally (unlike fellow SCOTUS spouse Ginni Thomas), but in January 2021, in a leafy Alexandria, Virginia cul-de-sac, the New York Times reports that the Alito household was engaged in a MAGA-infused front yard spat with the neighbors, even as the Justice was deciding cases regarding that very election at the highest court in the land. Justice Alito told the New York Times his wife was responsible for the upside down stars and stripes flying from their flagpole and that it was in retaliation for an an anti-Trump sign. It’s unseemly. Undoubtedly unethical. But this intra-suburban squabble, and the very clear implications it has for a public already aware of the Supreme Court’s dwindling legitimacy, is unlikely to evoke shame, amends, or recusal from Justice Alito. On this week’s Amicus, American legal exceptionalism sliced three ways: Dahlia Lithwick on the Justice and the Flag, Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl on how Donald J. Trump’s criminal hush money trial ends, and Congressman Jamie Raskin on concrete steps to supreme court reform, how to get back the rights the Supreme Court has taken away, and what a binding ethics code would look like. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here. In the second part of our series on Amicus and at Slate.com, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are back on the originalism beat. This week they’re trying to understand the mechanisms of what Professor Saul Cornell calls “the originalism industrial complex” and how those mechanisms plug into the highest court in the land. They’re also asking how and why liberals failed to find an effective answer to originalism, even as the various “originalist” ways of deciding who’s history counts, what constitutional law counts, which people count, were supercharged by Trump’s SCOTUS picks. Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap, highlights how the Supreme Court turned to originalism to gut voting rights. In 2022, the US Supreme Court’s originalism binge ran roughshod over precedent and unleashed Dobbs and Bruen on the American people - Mark and Dahlia talk to a state Supreme Court justice about what it’s like trying to apply the law amid these constitutional earthquakes. In today’s Slate Plus bonus episode, Dahlia talks to AJ Jacobs about his year of living constitutionally, and she confesses to an attempt to smuggle contraband into One, First Street. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.In this, the first part of a special series on Amicus and at Slate.com, we are lifting the lid on an old-timey sounding method of constitutional interpretation that has unleashed a revolution in our courts, and an assault on our rights. But originalism’s origins are much more recent than you suppose, and its effects much more widespread than the constitutional earthquakes of overturning settled precedent like Roe v Wade or supercharging gun rights as in Heller and Bruen. Originalism’s aftershocks are being felt throughout the courts, the law, politics and our lives, and we haven’t talked about it enough. On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explore the history of originalism. They talk to Professor Jack Balkin about its religious valence, and Saul Cornell about originalism’s first major constitutional triumph in Heller. And they’ll tell you how originalism’s first big public outing fell flat, thanks in part to Senator Ted Kennedy’s ability to envision the future, as well as the past. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here. This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump’s many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate’s senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States.In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump’s hush money trial. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Listen to a preview of this urgent extra episode of Amicus. The full episode is available to our Slate Plus members. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Wednesday morning, the court heard arguments in Moyle v. United States, the consolidated case tackling what levels of care pregnant patients can be provided in emergency rooms in states with draconian anti-abortion laws. And on Thursday morning, the High Court will hear Trump v. United States, the case in which the former president - who is currently spending much of his time slouched at the defendant’s table in New York City - will claim a kind of vast sweeping theory of immunity that roughly translates as - “when you’re president, they let you do it. You can do anything”. In an extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern dig into what happened in the EMTALA arguments Wednesday morning and then look ahead to Thursday’s arguments in the immunity case. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here. The first criminal trial of Donald Trump is finally here. This week, hundreds of possible jurors filed through Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom in lower Manhattan. The selection process was a preview of some of the challenges and pitfalls in the first ever criminal trial of a sitting or former President. On this week’s show, Slate’s senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern sits down with Slate jurisprudence editor and Chief Law of Trump™ correspondent Jeremy Stahl to discuss what we learned this week, and what we can expect when the trial truly gets underway next week. In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern welcome Justice Clarence Thomas back from his long weekend, with a close listen to the January 6th case that was argued before the court on Tuesday. Fischer v United States is raising more alarm bells about the conservative justices’ posture toward armed insurrection. They also dig into Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion in a potentially tricky TitleVII case that, miraculously for this court, went pretty well in terms of civil rights protections in the workplace. Listen now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 14th here.We shouldn’t be surprised that we have to keep saying it, but here we are: the Supreme Court (notably trained as lawyers) will soon make decisions about how doctors (notably trained as doctors) can treat pregnant patients in the emergency room. Moyle v. United States - consolidated with Idaho v. United States - is the result of an Idaho lawsuit challenging EMTALA, a federal law requiring hospitals to do whatever they can to stabilize whoever comes through their ER doors with a medical emergency. Sometimes this requires abortion care, and for a faction of conservative advocates, this cannot stand.Ahead of oral arguments the week after next, we wanted to get a sense of what healthcare looks like for pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies now, and how this case threatens to undermine that care in the future. This week, Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Dr. Dara Kass, an emergency medicine physician, about what EMTALA was built to do, what ER physicians are being asked to do, and what will happen should Idaho prevail in this case.Later in the show, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the hullabaloo over when, if, and how Justice Sotomayor should be made to retire and the very gendered work of keeping SCOTUS from going off the rails (any more than it already has).In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members Dahlia and Mark discuss the outrageous ruling that creates (but really, revives) a de facto total ban on abortions in Arizona. They also explain why the EMTALA case from the show isn’t being talked about as much as the recent mifepristone case was. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After weeks of the Trump trials (and the run-up to the Trump trials) becoming ever more engrossing spectator sports, both the public and the media may have lost sight of some of the stakes. They also may have lost sight of the truth of what the legal system can actually deliver in terms of protecting democracy from Donald J Trump. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Juliette Kayyem to dissect Trump's impact on legal, national security, and ideological fronts. Kayyem brings her national security expertise to discuss the evolution of Trump's tactics from stochastic terror to direct incitement. Together, they explore the implications for democracy of a presidential campaign where one candidate issues violent threats and tries to intimidate judges. Kayyem lays out in stark terms the kinds of focus and planning needed in the coming months.Juliette Kayyem is a national security expert, Harvard lecturer, CNN analyst, Atlantic contributor, and author of 'The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters.' Avowedly not a lawyer, she approaches America’s political predicament using counter-terrorism approaches to Trump’s movement and preparations for the 2024 elections. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s not quite red-yarn-on-a-corkboard, but given how often we’ve been thinking about the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) over the years, it may as well be. The group has become a vital component of the conservative legal movement, with pay-to-play access afforded to corporate donors to boot. Despite all the money changing hands and obvious conflicts of interest, few have heard of them - and that’s very intentional.This week we’re joined by Lisa Graves of True North Research to talk about how an organization representing the chief legal officers in half the states in the union has become a national policy juggernaut, pushing legislation and litigation to assist polluters, harm women and LGBTQ families, torment immigrants and even steal elections, all absent any significant oversight or consequences. In this week’s bonus plus segment, Slate’s very own Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss coverage of the oral arguments in the mifepristone case (including the hugely significant takeaway most of the analysis missed), and the reasons Neil Gorsuch hates nationwide injunctions. And finally, following on from last week, thinking about the language we use to describe first trimester abortions. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Well, it happened again. The hIgHeSt CoUrT will hear arguments Tuesday in a case based on made up facts! This time it’s mifepristone, the abortion drug at the center of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA. The claim was that the FDA approval process (three decades ago), for mifepristone, one of two medication abortion drugs, was haphazard and slapdash.. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine also argued that the FDA’s 2021 decision to allow telemedicine abortion and mailing of abortion pills violates a 19th-century anti-vice law called the Comstock Act.This week on the show Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Carrie N. Baker, Smith College professor and author of the forthcoming book Abortion Pills: US History and Politics. Baker says taking away the rights to access abortion pills in the mail could have catastrophic consequences for pregnant people, drug development, and privacy for all Americans.In this week’s subscribers-only segment, Slate’s Trump Law correspondent Jeremy Stahl gives us the updates on some of the cases against the former president - including the “a lot ton” of money he owes in New York, like starting on Monday. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

While all eyes and brains are on what SCOTUS thinks about making Trump emperor-king, a lesser known case will be heard Monday that could have a huge impact on how social media can (or cannot) keep election workers safe this year. Murthy v. Missouri arrives at the high court as the result a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a group of social media users—including some doctors and right-wing commentators—who argued that officials in the Biden administration censored their online speech about COVID-19, the 2020 election, among other issues The plaintiffs don’t claim that the administration directly silenced their speech. Instead, they argue that, by working with social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation, the government unlawfully chilled the free expression of their ideas.Gowri Ramachandran serves as deputy director in the Brennan Center’s Democracy program.The amicus brief filed by her team from the Brennan Center in Murthy draws the Justices attention to another aspect of election disinformation . Ramachandran explains to host Dahlia Lithwick that combating election disinformation has always been important, but it is especially critical now, as election workers struggle to keep on top of voting issues.Later in the show for Slate plus subscribers, Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals taking a swing at teens’ access to contraception, and a new effort to combat the scourge of judge-shopping. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s not just the justices on the Supreme Court who can’t seem to agree with each other anymore. As we slide into Trump v. Biden 2 (The Second One), it seems like voters can’t seem to come to a consensus on just about anything either, including the facts they are arguing over. Author and superstar litigator Barbara McQuade argues in her new book Attack From Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America the information we consume is crucial to the health of our democracy. She speaks with Dahlia Lithwick about America’s problems with dis- and mis-information, and how we can solve them.In this week’s Amicus Plus members-only segment, Dahlia is joined by her co-pilot in the jurisprudence news cockpit, Mark Joseph Stern to talk about President Biden's SOTU SCOTUS FU, why Alabama's legislative quick fix for its theocratic state supreme court's IVF decision is unlikely to hold, and the meta story of the meta data in the liberal justices’ concurrence in Monday’s Supreme Court decision to restore former President Trump to the Colorado primary ballot. This segment is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.ROTATING RED LIGHT!!! The Supreme Court ruled early Monday that alleged insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the Colorado republican primary ballot, and that no state may remove him, even if they want to. That’s Congress’ job. The 9-0 decision wasn’t unexpected, but the broad reasoning used by five of the court’s conservative justices certainly was, to the chagrin of the liberals and Amy Coney Barrett. In this special emergency episode, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s very own pocket justice league, Mark Joseph Stern and Jeremy Stahl, to discuss what this blockbuster result in Anderson says about the court’s consolidation of power and how it has helped Trump in so many ways. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a wild week at the High Court (another seven days crammed with a year’s worth of news). SCOTUS heard cases about bump stocks, and how Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would do as Facebook content moderators. The Supreme Court also finally found the time to put a thumb on the scale for serially indicted alleged insurrector-in-chief former President Donald J Trump. We’ll talk about all those things with Slate’s very own Mark Joseph Stern.But what we’re really focused on this week is the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision finding that frozen embryos are children, and the unshakeable sense that the coverage of this so far has had a slightly myopic quality, as though this case is purely about IVF, and carving out IVF, when in fact the entire movement for fetal personhood sweeps in many more people and rights than just those seeking assisted reproductive technology. We’re joined by a preeminent expert on matters of law, medicine, reproductive health, and biotechnologies, Dr. Michele Goodwin. Dr. Goodwin is the author of Policing The Womb: Invisible Women and The Criminalization of Motherhood. She explains (again) why we should have seen this decision coming from miles (and centuries) away. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Later, in the Slate Plus segment, Mark returns to discuss this week’s SCOTUS arguments and the big news that legislative turtle and legal hellscape architect Mitch McConnell will be stepping down from his role as leader of Republicans in the Senate later this year. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dahlia Lithwick is drinking from the firehose of legal news again and this week is joined by election law professor Rick Hasen to figure out why we’re all still hanging on for the Supreme Court to make a call in former President Donald J Trump’s sweeping claim to immunity from prosecution over the events of January 6th, how Americans could actually achieve a real right to vote, and why no-one’s paying attention to a pair of incredibly consequential social media cases being argued at SCOTUS next week. In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia and Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern discuss the bonkers but very very real implications of the Alabama Supreme Court decision to bestow personhood on embryos being used in fertility treatment, creating an impossible legal landscape for clinics and those struggling to become pregnant. Next, they sift through Justice Samuel Alito’s grievance debris in a recent dissent to find the deeply worrying signposts toward overturning equal marriage rights. Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pleads with SCOTUS to clear up the mess it made of gun laws with its decision in Bruen.Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The future of the Fulton County, Georgia election subversion case against Donald J. Trump and many many accused co-conspirators was cast into doubt this week as the court saw evidentiary hearings in the defence’s motion to disqualify Fulton County AG Fani Willis. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s chief Law of Trump correspondent Jeremy Stahl to discuss why, even with a very high bar for removing Willis from the case, the court was dragged through some tawdry details that are bound to come back to hurt the prosecution, one way or another.Later in the show, executive director and co-founder of Court Accountability, Alex Aronson, talks with Dahlia about what could possibly be done to make Supreme Court justices follow reasonable recusal guidelines (we’re looking at you, Justice Thomas), and whether the American electorate might at last be finding an appetite for court reform. In the Slate Plus segment, Jeremy returns to the podcast martini lounge to discuss what might be the first Trump case to reach a criminal trial. They also discuss the latest on Trump’s claim of blanket immunity. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.To catch up on the ever-breaking Trump trial news, check out https://slate.com/news-and-politics/jurisprudence Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court Thursday in Trump v. Anderson revealed a lot about some of the justices’ commitment to the primacy of originalism. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss why his organization took up and pursued the long shot case to try to keep former President Donald J Trump off the ballot in Colorado. While the Supreme Court appeared to have little appetite for taking the big swing to find that Trump had disqualified himself from office when he engaged in an insurrection, Noah insists the case is far from having been in vain - eloquently highlighting the dangerous potential consequences of inaction. It's a chilling reminder of what’s at stake.Next, Dahlia is joined by slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern to discuss whether the liberal justices have some grand bargain in mind as they offered multiple off-ramps for Trump’s side, despite dozens of bipartisan briefs arguing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, the court’s originalist’s sudden concern for consequences in this case, when they have had no interest in weighing the life and death consequences for ordinary people in cases concerning guns and abortion. Finally, they tackle a worrying undercurrent to Thursday’s arguments: an apparent capitulation to threats of chaos and violence as a basis for deciding constitutional cases. In our Slate Plus segment, Mark sticks around to discuss a landmark gun decision out of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and why it’s a problem that DOJ’s special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report declining to prosecute, but affirming that Joe Biden is old (hint: the problem isn’t that he’s old). Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Subscribe to Slate Plus to unlock the full version of this emergency episode.After weeks of waiting, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a decision in Donald J Trump’s appeal for sweeping immunity from prosecution for any of his actions while in office on grounds of a kind of post-presidential enduring presidenty-ness. The panel of three judges wrote: “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” In this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern and Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl to answer the huge questions this decision now sparks - will the Supreme Court step in? If so, when? Are there votes to stay the decision while the court mulls, or to expedite a hearing? All of this, of course, is set against the countdown to November 2024 and whether Donald Trump will be tried for alleged criminal acts to overturn the 2020 election before the American People go to the ballot box this time. To subscribe on Apple Podcasts, just click “Try Free” at the top of the Amicus show page.Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.As a Slate Plus member, not only will you unlock exclusive, subscriber-only Amicus content, but you’ll also get ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts—shows like Political Gabfest, Slow Burn, and What Next. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There haven’t been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week’s arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that’s almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms.See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha)Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum AddressSean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of BooksJamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY TimesIn this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Slate’s judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act.Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Despite Donald Trump’s efforts, there will be a significant cost for his continued defamation of E. Jean Carroll (And it’s $83.3 million!!). For much of the proceedings he sat behind Carroll muttering under his breath and posting three-dozen times on Truth Social in one night about the unfairness of the judge and the court. But zoom out, and Trump’s actions at the trial and toward women generally have far bigger implications than the size of the check he’ll have to write. This week, Vanity Fair’s Molly Jong-Fast joins Dahlia Lithwick to explain how Trump has fanned the flames of GOP misogyny playing out in every aspect of our politics, from the GOP primary to the leadership in the House of Representatives to women who have been raped in states with no access to abortion. And she asks what it ultimately says about our justice system that 80-year-old E. Jean Carroll is the one prepared to take the stand against the man who assaulted her.In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern discusses the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that kinda sorta resolved the battle between federal immigration authorities and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and the horrifying turn the conservative turn has taken on capital punishment this week.Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.