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

If you’re punch-drunk and disoriented this week, come on in. Donald J Trump’s second administration is materializing at frightening speed and recklessness and it is hard (and stressful) to keep up with it all. Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International affairs at Princeton University, explains that the speed and viciousness of the legal orders in Trump 2.0 are evidence that America switched over to the fast track for autocracy on January 20th, 2025. An expert in the law of autocracy, Scheppele has seen firsthand what happened to constitutional courts and the democratic norms that governed them in Russia and Hungary and she joins Dahlia Lithwick on Amicus this week to explain how Trump’s executive orders on everything from government funding to transgender people in the military reveal a familiar global playbook that has chillingly familiar endpoints. Un-paywalled episodes' description:Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

Amicus is coming to you with an extra episode because of the five-alarm threat to the balance of power in the wake of Monday and Tuesday’s memos from the White House Office of Management and Budget freezing vast tranches of federal funding. As agencies, states, and nonprofits scramble to figure out if they can make payroll or even keep the lights on, a hugely significant legal battle is brewing over what, if any, actual restraint remains on this administration’s vision of presidential power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center to understand the ramifications of a flimsy memo that threatens the very structure of government as we know it in the United States. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025 - by Steve VladeckWant more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

It’s barely been a week and the torrent of horrible coming from the pens and mouth of President Trump is staggering. Many of the executive orders signed this week focus on immigration, and that is where we have our eyes trained as well. This week, to help us make sense of the whirlwind that threatens to upend the lives of millions of people Dahlia Lithwick talks to Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Senior Fellow and former policy director at the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigrant nonprofit aiming to defend immigrants through litigation, advocacy, and more. Not all executive orders are created equal, and so Aaron leads us through what’s constitutionally possible, legally probable, and already swinging into action from Trump’s immigration edicts. Aaron’s post about Bishop Mariann Edgar-Bunne: https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lgdojbbjvk2yAmicus’s October episode on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 with Katherine Yon Ebright, American Immigration Council: After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump's First Executive ActionsWant more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

Some very clear themes are already emerging from President Donald Trump’s executive orders; cruel, chaotic, and fear-stoking - yes, but also - they’re rife with shoddy drafting (is that you, ChatGPT?), sloppy lawyering, and some are wildly unconstitutional. In an extra episode of Amicus for plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern begin the work of parsing a few of the many, many executive orders raining down on America in the hours since Trump assumed office for the second time. 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.

Donald Trump becomes president again on Monday, and as Joe Biden leaves the White House, we’re on the brink of a massive change in how the law is interpreted. Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing was one of a host of clues this week that we are in for a wild legal and constitutional ride. On this episode of Amicus, host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by constitutional scholar Professor Pamela Karlan to pick through what we learned this week about what the law is and what it is about to become –– from Jack Smith’s report, to the new (presumptive) Attorney General of the United States’ apparent ignorance of birthright citizenship and therefore the 14th amendment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

While Donald J Trump was virtually fuming at his sentencing hearing in Judge Juan Merchan’s New York City courtroom on Friday morning, the nine justices of the US Supreme Court were taking their seats for oral arguments in the so-called TikTok ban case. And while it only took 40 minutes for the president elect’s sentence of an ‘unconditional discharge’ to be pronounced, the arguments over national security, the First Amendment, and an app that 170 million Americans use took a couple of hours longer. Amicus has an analysis of all of it. First, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss whether and how Trump’s sentence matters, and what it tells us about the Supreme Court under Trump 2.0. Next, they’re joined by Gautam Hans, clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, who specializes in constitutional law, technology law and policy, to discuss why the Supreme Court seemed so very ready to reach right past the First Amendment and grab for national security in order to uphold the TikTok ban.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.* There is a cluster-you-know-what of constitutional and legal news this week, so Amicus Plus is popping up a little early with a bonus episode to tackle the Trump prosecutions portion of the melee ahead of Friday’s very important TikTok-ban arguments. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Andrew Weissman, co-host of the MSNBC podcast "Prosecuting Donald Trump” (recently re-launched as “Main Justice” for…. obvious reasons!) Andrew is also author of two New York Times bestsellers, The Trump Indictments and Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation.*We are not eating elephants. Please do not eat elephants.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.

Happy (?) New Year. Amicus is gingerly stepping into 2025 and into the coming onslaught of Trump 2.0 with one of the country’s very best legal, constitutional and human guides –– civil rights litigator and 14th Amendment scholar Sherrilyn Ifill. Together, Sherrilyn and Dahlia navigate some of the most pressing questions facing the law, the legal profession, and those who care about it. In his end of year judicial report, Chief Justice John Roberts chose to claim the mantle of both embattled civil rights champions and also infallible monarchs while blaming pretty much everyone except the court for the high court’s plummeting legitimacy. What does it mean when the most powerful men in the world equate all criticism with threats of violence, and confuse victory with victimhood? What does it mean when Supreme Court justices decide to freelance and freestyle as trial court judges and appellate litigators at high court oral arguments? And what do lawyers and judges need to do to hold the line in the coming year, and the years that will follow?Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

Maybe the court won’t listen to your complaints and questions - but we will. As a parting gift to you this year, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern answer your questions about Trump, the courts and the constitution. Could Trump be president a third time? What does immigration law look like under Trump 2.0? And a deep dive into Dahlia and Mark’s comic book character psyches.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

It wasn’t a great week for speaking truth to power. ABC’s decision to settle Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit to the tune of $16 million at the behest of parent company Disney sent shockwaves through newsrooms around the country. Coupled with Trump’s lawsuits pending against publishers, journalism prize organizations, CBS, and this week’s news that the President-elect is suing an Iowa pollster and the newspaper that published her poll for “election interference”, rising fears about the freedom of the press are pretty understandable. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by storied media columnist Margaret Sullivan and First Amendment scholar Sonja R West to understand the protections in place and the pinch points for a free press under Trump. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

Last week, we examined the deeply worrying prospect of Kash Patel, FBI director. This week, that possibility became even more worrisome with respect to the future of the FBI, all sparked by current director Christopher Wray’s announcement of his intention to step down. To kick off this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, who explains why Wray’s decision is very bad news for the law and the rule of law. Next, the planet: Last summer, we tried to absorb the sheer scale of the shift in the constitutional landscape following a run of cases at the end of the last term that gave the courts the power to reshape the administrative state from the bench, and to impede the tools of the environmental protection trade at a time when the climate is in crisis. But the news cycle moved on and the global climate alarm got snoozed again. That alarm was surely ringing again at One, First Street this week, when a case that could reshape the nation’s biggest environmental law was argued at the Supreme Court. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado comes to the court as a dispute over how much review is due to a railroad plan that will carry waxy, crude oil through environmentally sensitive areas, and send said waxy crude on its way to already polluted and health blighted gulf communities. Sam Sankar of Earth Justice was on hand to explain how this weedy case paints a very clear picture of the Supreme Court conservative majority’s fondness for grabbing cases that are vehicles for achieving their preferred policy outcomes, but then finding themselves in a bit of a pickle when its time to craft a new test for an old problem. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

What do people inside the Department of Justice think about their once-colleague and possible-future-overlord, Kash Patel? On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by former US Attorney Joyce White Vance to discuss the frightening implications of Patel's potential nomination as FBI Director under the incoming Trump administration. They explore Patel's contentious history, including his time in the DOJ, his authorship of the Nunes memo, and his bottomless loyalty to Trump. They also discuss the broader consequences of Patel’s stated desire to use the Justice Department as a tool for political retribution, including threats to journalists and DOJ officials, and what his targeted individuals can do in the face of this new, chilling reality. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

When it comes to gender affirming care for teenagers, parents’ rights no longer matter. Doctors’ opinions no longer matter. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States. v Skrmetti, challenging Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for trans kids, and upending half a century of gender protection doctrine. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, who will also be the first openly trans lawyer to argue at SCOTUS when he argues, alongside the Biden administration, representing the parents and physician of trans adolescents seeking care, in what will be the biggest trans rights case the court has ever heard. Chase and Dahlia dig through the doctrine to reveal the conservative legal movement’s deep hypocrisy when it comes to trans rights as compared to the rights of parents and doctors when it comes to abortion.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

If you had forgotten the chaos of Trump 1.0, the frenzied first two weeks of transition to Trump 2.0 has surely been a stark reminder. A pair of random billionaires are claiming in advance that SCOTUS will back their extra-governmental plans for a slash and burn policy for federal agencies; accusations of sexual misconduct swirl around cabinet picks; nominations are being retracted and replaced, and while all of this happens we are waiting to see whether Republicans in the Senate will step into a role of moderation, or just roll over. This matters a lot with respect to what the federal judiciary is going to look like, how much scrutiny is applied to the most outlandish cabinet nominees, and the independence of the Justice Department. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has spent years investigating the dark money plot to control the courts, and who knows from firsthand experience why the justice department is different from other agencies. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

Trump’s announcement of Matt Gaetz as his pick to head the Justice Department was met with gasps around the Capitol. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s senior legal writer Mark Stern to, yes, gasp together, but also to dig into what this stunt Attorney General appointment means for the law and the rule of law. Next, Dahlia talks to Dr. Mary Anne Franks, author of Fearless Speech about the new era of censorship we are entering under the unprecedented power of Elon Musk and the oligarchs screaming “free speech” as they sue in their forum-shopped court of choice. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

We are, most of us, still very much in the post-election fog. It’s early days and while the fog persists, some of the shape of the future is very clear: despite his felonies, his lies, his promised mass deportations and threats of vengeance, President Donald J Trump will re-enter the White House in 2025 better organized, with a clearer mandate, and with the seal of approval of the popular vote. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Protect Democracy’s Ian Bassin to discuss navigating the challenges that lie ahead for American democracy, as we collectively struggle to make sense of this pivotal moment and to emerge from the fog with a flicker of hope. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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 this extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wade through the immediate aftermath of the election. Will splitting the ticket on abortion protect abortion rights nationally? (No) What will the federal government look like at 12:02 pm on January 20th, 2025? (very different than at 11:58 am that day) Are all of Brett Kavanaugh’s wildest unitary executive dreams about to come true? (looks likely!)This special episode of Amicus is possible thanks to the support of our Slate Plus subscribers. If you’re not a member but you’d like to access weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis and to 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.

This week’s show is unapologetically long, deep, and hopeful. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Yale history professor Timothy Snyder to talk about his new book, On Freedom, and to have the audacity to re-imagine freedom on the precipice of an election that could turn the United States hard right into tyranny. Next, Dahlia is joined by Rick Hasen, Director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law School, for a gut-check about how the election might go, legally speaking, and a reminder that “too early to call” is a pro-democracy posture on election night—even as the former guy almost certainly claims victory before the clock strikes midnight—regardless of the actual results. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

It’s easy to dismiss nativist rhetoric as mere Trumpy “locker room talk.” But when it comes to immigration, deportation and even detention, rhetoric about foreigners and violent invaders is actually a legal long game. Toward the end of the summer of 2023, Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, noticed that rightwing anti immigration groups and the Trump campaign had started talking in earnest about using a very old law with a very dark history, in order to do very chilling things to immigrants. She started researching the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the sole operative part of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. By October 2024, Donald Trump was invoking the statute in most of his stump speeches, saying he intends to use it to carry out the mass deportations of non-citizens, without due process and with domestic law enforcement deployed to full effect. We are already seeing Texas trying to use the language of “foreign invasion” to achieve exactly these ends. On this week’s Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick asks Katherine Yon Ebright to help the rest of us catch up with her deep dive on this dangerous law, and to explain why we should take the threats to use it literally and seriously.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

You’re nervous. We’re nervous. As we stop for gas with almost two weeks to go before November 5th, we’re kicking the tires of American democracy to see if it’s roadworthy. On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Matthew Seligman, one of the authors of How to Steal a Presidential Election, to examine the legal avenues available to Donald J Trump and his band of merry lawyers to subvert the presidential election. Seligman answers Amicus listeners’ most common election question: Can MAGA electors refuse to certify the election if they disagree with the outcome?Next, Dahlia talks to retired respected conservative federal judge J Michal Luttig, who is raising the alarm about the Supreme Court’s willful ignorance when it comes to defending democracy from Donald J Trump. Judge Luttig says part of the blame for the January 6th insurrection lies with the Supreme Court, and warns the court’s majority is poised to tip the scale for Trump this time around.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024. This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma’s Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma’s State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip’s execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip’s attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS’s landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll 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.

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.