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

The end (of the Supreme Court term) is nigh. This week, Amicus goes into June Opinionpalooza mode with some meta-analysis of what to look out for as the Supreme Court delivers dozens of decisions over the next month or so. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern say this is a term-ending unlike any other, partly because the number of cases pinging onto the high court's shadow docket means the term may never really, truly, actually, end. And even when the shadow docket cases are decided, there is no real law that emerges, just a few lines of unsigned chicken scratch. Beyond the big merits cases concerning everything from birthright citizenship to healthcare for trans minors to racial gerrymandering to defunding Planned Parenthood, and beyond the brief, unbriefed, unargued emergency docket cases, the Supreme Court's conservatives are in a power struggle with the very president they crowned quasi-king.  In a conversation recorded live on Friday at the WBUR Festival in Boston, Mark is joined by Professor Jed Shugerman of Boston University Law School, where they discuss the bad originalism and poor judgment that led to the Roberts' court's embrace of a little something called unitary executive theory that has become the Trump administration's carte blanche.  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. Get Slate's latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. https://slate.com/legalbrief Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode attempts to understand the ways in which the law of Trump unfolds along two tracks at the same time. First, Mark Joseph Stern joins us to talk about the Supreme Court's decision to let Trump fire the heads of independent agencies, undermining a 90-year-old precedent in an unsigned, two-page decision on the shadow docket. This is a case in which Donald Trump's agenda perfectly aligns with the wishlist of the conservative supermajority that controls the court. But if the court keeps giving Trump free passes to break the law now, why should we expect him to respect the court when it tries to draw the line later? Then Dahlia Lithwick talks to the University of Chicago's Aziz Huq about the idea of a “dual state,” a legal arrangement in which seismic changes happen in ways that are not perceptible to the bulk of the citizens. Drawing from the work of a Jewish lawyer who witnessed the dual state operate in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Huq explains that authoritarians can seize the levers of the law to persecute disfavored groups, without disturbing the idea of the rule of law for the great majority of the nation. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing  divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don't. Although Thursday's arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump's unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After Silicon Valley's yeet to the right after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, and the DOGE-ification of the federal government (read: chaos and abuse as the driving ethos of HR), it felt like high time to delve into the evolving relationship between tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and the U.S. government. Their influence has massive implications for core constitutional issues such as mass surveillance, privacy, and deregulation. Kara Swisher joins Dahlia Lithwick on this week's Amicus to highlight the dangers of tech giants' encroachment on government oversight and the implications of AI and cryptocurrency.  This week's episode concludes with a heartfelt tribute to Justice David Souter who died on Thursday. Dahlia and former Souter Clerk Mary-Rose Papandrea reflect on the late Justice's humility, judicial philosophy, and the profound loss felt by his former clerks and the legal community. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As we approach President Trump's 100th day in office (this time around) this Wednesday, Dahlia Lithwick checks in with one of the key architects of the litigation strategy that is successfully confounding the administration's most exorbitant executive overreach. After almost 140 executive orders and scores of associated lawsuits, it's hard to keep track of the state of play. But Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward is on hand to help us think through the main strands of anti-authoritarian litigation, and to explore how some recent wins in court against Trump 2.0 are upending the administration's attempt to style itself as an all-powerful unitary authority. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the Supreme Court's recent actions, including a significant order halting deportations to El Salvador, reflecting a growing judicial resistance to the administration's overreach and a confusing claim that Presidents work for . . . their lawyers? 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever since March 15, when three flights carrying hundreds of men who had been afforded zero due process left United States airspace and landed in El Salvador, American democracy has been hurtling toward an internal conflict that the federal judiciary would very much prefer to avoid, but just keeps getting more unavoidable. On this week's Amicus podcast, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by Leah Litman for the first half of the show. They discuss how, faced with a Trump administration that claims the ability to rewrite the Constitution on the fly, denies the ability to follow court orders, and dangles the possibility of extending its lawlessness to renditioning American citizens to a foreign prison, the federal judiciary this week did what the Supreme Court failed to do last week: explicitly call out the regime's lawless actions. Aptly, Leah's new book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, comes out on May 13 and they discuss how the highest court's enabling of Trump and MAGA more broadly has brought us to the constitutional precipice.  Next: In the six months since the re-election of Donald Trump, abortion and reproductive rights have been squished way below the fold, news-wise, obscured by an ever-mounting pile of terrifying headlines. But outside of the public glare, the legal landscape of reproductive rights has been shifting. Dahlia Lithwick talks to Mary Ziegler about her book Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.   Together, they examine how notions of fetal and embryonic personhood are fueling punitive actions against women, physicians, and those who provide or seek healthcare related to reproduction. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's Amicus, autocratic creep in high and low gear. In high gear: The Supreme Court finally issued its order in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case, requiring that the government “facilitates” Abrego Garcia's return from the El Salvadoran prison to which he was illegally and accidentally reditioned, but also recognizing the limits on its authority to direct the executive branch. Dahlia Lithwick talks to Slate senior writer  Mark Joseph Stern about the ways in which the High Court's attempts to avoid a showdown with the Trump administration may be futile. Next, Dahlia turns to the autocratic creep in low gear that is President Trump's buyout of Big Law.  Jesse Weber, managing partner at Brown Goldstein and Levy, shares her view from a firm that has no intention of capitulating government bullying.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here's a question for you. If you are scooped up by ICE (masked, covering badge numbers), then moved from one detention center to another in quick succession, before being hastily forced onto a flight to El Salvador where you are imprisoned in a “terrorism confinement center” beyond the jurisdiction of the United States –– at what point in that process could you access some kind of adjudicatory review? In this bonus episode of Amicus for Slate Plus members,  Dahlia Lithwick tackles the Supreme Court's shadow docket decisions in two overlapping but distinct cases stemming from the Trump administration's renditioning of detainees to an El Salvadorean mega-prison which also happens to be a legal black hole.  Joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, they explore the legal and procedural concerns, the consequences for due process, and why five justices saw fit to reward the Trump administration for some very out-of-bounds behavior in the lower courts.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The US government's use of a prison in El Salvador as an extra-judicial due-process free black site has been rendered starkly visible by the story of one man they tried to disappear. On this week's Amicus,  Dahlia Lithwick interviews Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, lawyer for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, husband and father, who was illegally deported to El Salvador in March due to what the government admits was an administrative error. Abrego Garcia was abruptly detained by ICE, torn from his family, and sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison despite having legal protections against deportation. The Justice Department  now says Abrego Garcia must remain in  the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. On Friday a district court judge in Maryland ordered his return.  Next, we turn to the Trump administration's disastrous tariffs. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to  explore the legality of Trump's latest, inexplicable round of tariffs against the rest of the world, and debate whether the Supreme Court will apply its so-called “major questions doctrine” when a Republican is in the White House.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trumpian inversion of reality was threaded into so many areas of the law and active litigation this week. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the apparent evaporation of judicial patience for Trump lawyers simultaneously claiming that a signal chat was not classified or subject to record preservation rules, AND the flights to El Salvador that were  filmed for posterity on arrival at a prison were in fact state secrets. Together, they also think through the likelihood of the Supreme Court stepping into the Alien Enemies Act case at this early stage by just taking the Trump administration at its word that those summary renditions were totally legal and constitutionally correct.  Next, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, about another Trumpian inversion of reality: his executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”, which in fact is not about election integrity, but instead an extension of the Big Lie election theory that could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you're overwhelmed by the sheer volume of lawless acts, constitutional crises (we count five), and huge Trump administration losses in court this week - honestly, same. But if anyone can render this swirling storm of lawsuits and orders and injunctions legible, and put them in terms that can help make sense of this moment, it's Dahlia Lithwick. On this week's show, Dahlia is first joined by Quinta Jurecic, a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and a senior editor at Lawfare, to discuss the deeply worrying shift in the Trump regime's posture toward judges and the rule of law, that's been playing out inside and outside the courts this week. Next, Dahlia speaks with a lawyer who secured a big win against Elon Musk and DOGE this week in one of the USAID cases. Mimi Marziani explains the litigation strategy, and its limits.   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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this urgent extra episode of Amicus,  host Dahlia Lithwick and Slate's senior writer Mark Joseph Stern discuss the unfolding constitutional crisis triggered by the Trump administration's defiance of a court order to halt flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to be delivered to El Salvador's so-called Terrorism Confinement Center - a vast foreign prison  that could  be described as a labor camp.  Lithwick and Stern explore the timeline of events that unfolded in Federal Court Judge James Boasberg's court this week, and on planes bound for El Salvador. Next, they try to parse the legal arguments put forth by the Justice Department, claiming apparently boundless power for President Trump to render anyone he deems a gang member. Finally, they discuss why the Trump administration has chosen this particular constitutional hill to die on, and how far Chief Justice John Roberts might be prepared to go along with it.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump continued his almost uninterrupted losing streak in the courts. Across the country we saw federal judges openly criticizing his Administration officials and their lawyers for overreach, bullying and misrepresentations about not only their cases, but about norms and values. But Trump has both judges and law firms in his crosshairs. On this week's show, former US Attorney Preet Bharara joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the role of lawyers and law firms and legal norms in a crisis of lawlessness, and the extent to which court victories alone can save democracy.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk's moves at DOGE have been legally dubious from the start. And the more we learn, the more questions we have about this not-an-agency helmed by Musk –– who is apparently both in charge, and also not in charge. That's why we wanted to talk with Kate Shaw, University of Pennsylvania law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, about the very real constitutional issues raised by DOGE and Musk and his minions. Shaw spoke with Dahlia Lithwick about what is and isn't legal about DOGE, and the impossible bind that creates for government lawyers tasked with defending his devastation of the government.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Trump administration's effort to withhold $2 billion promised for foreign aid work. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Court's decision to reject the Trump administration's request to halt a lower court's order, by a five to four vote, compelling the State Department to resume payments. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices, Justice Samuel Alito offered a “stunned” dissent, reacting to the Court's surprising rebuke to the Trump administration with few facts but plenty of fury.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This past week has seen firings at the Pentagon, an Executive Order targeting a private law firm, the installation of a podcaster and January 6 denialist as #2 at the FBI, and an incident in which an audience member at an Idaho townhall was wrestled to the ground and led away in zip ties by private security that answer to no lawful police entity. Is this what happens when the lawyers, police officers, military officials and other law enforcement organizations who are meant to keep us all safe, are sidelined or conscripted into lawless behavior?  On this week's episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent, editor at Just Security and author of the substack The Freedom Academy with Asha Rangappa. Asha explains what happens when people who are hellbent on using the law to break the law achieve positions of power, and whether the safeguards still in place can hold. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Monday, President Trump's personal lawyer and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered prosecutors to drop federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Adams had been courting President Trump for weeks, including with a pre-inauguration visit to Mar A Lago, but the shape of the deal struck between the accused Mayor and the incoming administration came into clear view with a flurry of Department of Justice resignations on Thursday. On this week's episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney, and host and executive producer of the podcast Talking Feds. Harry explains why the so-called “Thursday Night Massacre” is not the kind of scandal even this administration can shrug off while yelling something about the “deep state” and “weaponization”. Next, Dahlia turns to the chaotic, destructive and dangerous “spontaneous disassembly” of much of the federal government currently taking place at the hands of Elon Musk with guest Sam Bagenstos, former general counsel of the United States Department of Health and Human Services until December 2024, also former general counsel for the Office of Management and Budget from January 2021 until June 2022. Now a professor at the University of Michigan, Sam explains what happens when the federal government stops working, and why persistently asking whether or not we're in a constitutional crisis is simply the wrong question.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 Vladeck 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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/3lgdojbbjvk2y Amicus'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 Actions 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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, Sky 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices