Podcasts about Amicus

Trump's actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he's calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. 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.

Trump's actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he's calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. 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.

Trump's actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he's calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. 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.

“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration's general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump's chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ's fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There's always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.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.

“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration's general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump's chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ's fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There's always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.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.

“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration's general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump's chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ's fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There's always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.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.

This hour, we look at what rights individuals and protesters have. And we ask: are our rights changing? And what can we do about that? Plus, we take a look at what rights we have online, and what we should know about digital surveillance and privacy. GUESTS: Dan Barrett: American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut's legal director Dahlia Lithwick: Writes about the courts and the law for Slate and hosts the podcast "Amicus". She is the author of Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America Cindy Cohn: Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Her forthcoming book is Privacy's Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance MUSIC FEATURED (in order): Cálice – Chico Buarque & Milton Nascimento Student Demonstration Time – The Beach Boys Is It Because I’m Black – Syl Johnson What’s Goin’ On – Marvin Gaye The People Have the Power – Patti Smith The Veil – Peter Gabriel Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Week in Horror History (Feb 23–Mar 1) is your weekly horror release-date rundown—with where to watch (U.S.), a deep-cut spotlight, and a weekly recommendation for that weird stretch where winter won't let go. This week we've got small-town paranoia, social terror, a survival nightmare in the pines, and love at the end of the world—plus a Deep-Cut that turns disbelief into the monster.Inside this episode✅ Horror releases from Feb 23–Mar 1Feb 26, 2010 — The CraziesRomero-era paranoia without zombies: a small Iowa town, something in the water, and trust collapsing fast.Where to watch: Free with ads on The Roku Channel; or rent on Amazon Prime Video, Fandango at Home, Apple TVFeb 24, 2017 — Get OutJordan Peele's debut turns “nice” into a trap—social dread, politeness that cuts like a blade, and the slow realization you're being played.Where to watch: Max (HBO Max) subscription (including via add-ons like Hulu/YouTube/Sling); or rent on Amazon Prime, Google Play, YouTube, Apple TV, Fandango at HomeFeb 23, 2023 — Sons of the Forest (Early Access release)A cabin getaway becomes a survival horror sprint—puzzles, panic, and the creeping feeling something is tracking you between the trees.Where to play: Steam (PC)Feb 25, 2024 — The Walking Dead: The Ones Who LiveA tight six-episode run that makes the apocalypse feel personal again—love, loss, and what survival turns people into.Where to watch: AMC+

The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump's economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.” Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump's America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump's first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.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.

The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump's economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.” Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump's America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump's first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.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.

The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump's economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.” Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump's America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump's first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.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.

The machinery to enable Stephen Miller's darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration's expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.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.

The machinery to enable Stephen Miller's darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration's expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.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.

The machinery to enable Stephen Miller's darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration's expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.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're joined by our good friend, Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor at Slate and host of the Amicus podcast, to cover a wide range of topics, including the courts and their role during this difficult time in American history. We start with Minnesota and the disturbing actions of ICE that have rattled the nation. From the ICE abduction of 5-year-old Liam Ramos to the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Dahlia connects the dots between eroding civil liberties and a Supreme Court that has systematically dismantled accountability. We also discuss Trump's recent FBI seizure of ballots in Georgia and what that could mean for our democracy. Dahlia issues a strong warning about where all of this could be heading and how we need to be prepared for it.Plus, Dahlia walks us through some of the cases currently before the Supreme Court: the further gutting of the Voting Rights Act, controversial redistricting, Trump's retribution, and tariffs.READ Dahlia in Slate: https://slate.com/author/dahlia-lithwickLISTEN to Dahlia's podcast, Amicus: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/amicus-with-dahlia-lithwick-law-justice-and-the-courts/id928790786SUPPORT THE SHOW BY VISITING OUR SPONSORS:Refresh your wardrobe with Quince! Get free shipping and 365-Day returns at https://www.quince.com/franken

According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick's guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance law. He is Chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket. In the past few weeks, Donald Trump's election denialism has kicked into high gear, just as his poll numbers hit new lows. Elias tells us the FBI/DNI raid to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Steve Bannon's new threats to surround polling places with ICE officers in November, show an administration that is prototyping new mechanisms for election subversion and voter suppression. But the public has power in this scenario, especially if they start paying attention to elections and voting rights now, rather than the day before November 3rd, 2026.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.

According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick's guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance law. He is Chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket. In the past few weeks, Donald Trump's election denialism has kicked into high gear, just as his poll numbers hit new lows. Elias tells us the FBI/DNI raid to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Steve Bannon's new threats to surround polling places with ICE officers in November, show an administration that is prototyping new mechanisms for election subversion and voter suppression. But the public has power in this scenario, especially if they start paying attention to elections and voting rights now, rather than the day before November 3rd, 2026.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.

According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick's guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance law. He is Chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket. In the past few weeks, Donald Trump's election denialism has kicked into high gear, just as his poll numbers hit new lows. Elias tells us the FBI/DNI raid to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Steve Bannon's new threats to surround polling places with ICE officers in November, show an administration that is prototyping new mechanisms for election subversion and voter suppression. But the public has power in this scenario, especially if they start paying attention to elections and voting rights now, rather than the day before November 3rd, 2026.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.

Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government agents detaining and disappearing people. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is in conversation with Joseph Margulies, Professor of Practice of Government at Cornell University. Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 “War on Terror”, an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review: The Moral Stupefaction of America. Margulies explains how, when we allow obscure legal language to overshadow moral imperatives, we can end up in very dark places. The line from waterboarding at black sites to executing American citizens in the streets is a straight one. And there will be a lawyer willing to write a memo for all of it. 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.

Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government agents detaining and disappearing people. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is in conversation with Joseph Margulies, Professor of Practice of Government at Cornell University. Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 “War on Terror”, an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review: The Moral Stupefaction of America. Margulies explains how, when we allow obscure legal language to overshadow moral imperatives, we can end up in very dark places. The line from waterboarding at black sites to executing American citizens in the streets is a straight one. And there will be a lawyer willing to write a memo for all of it. 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.

Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government agents detaining and disappearing people. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is in conversation with Joseph Margulies, Professor of Practice of Government at Cornell University. Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 “War on Terror”, an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review: The Moral Stupefaction of America. Margulies explains how, when we allow obscure legal language to overshadow moral imperatives, we can end up in very dark places. The line from waterboarding at black sites to executing American citizens in the streets is a straight one. And there will be a lawyer willing to write a memo for all of it. 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.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.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.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.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.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.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 member-exclusive episode, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court's fact-free foray into Trump v. Cook, a case that economists warn could crater the economy. President Donald Trump spent the first weeks of his second stint in the White House firing a lot of people from government agencies. For the most part, the High Court's conservative justices let it slide, in line with their general “he's the President, let him do it” posture. But Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was different. In August, Trump fired off a post on Truth Social, then sacked Cook a few days later, leaving a huge question mark hanging over the independence of the Fed. Turns out, that's a very big deal for anyone who wants to avoid hyperinflation and economic disaster. During Wednesday's arguments, it was clear that even Trump's hand-picked justices felt as though they would like to avoid such catastrophes. What ensued was more about feelings, fear, and frustration than law, but that may be the best we can hope for. 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 this member-exclusive episode, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court's fact-free foray into Trump v. Cook, a case that economists warn could crater the economy. President Donald Trump spent the first weeks of his second stint in the White House firing a lot of people from government agencies. For the most part, the High Court's conservative justices let it slide, in line with their general “he's the President, let him do it” posture. But Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was different. In August, Trump fired off a post on Truth Social, then sacked Cook a few days later, leaving a huge question mark hanging over the independence of the Fed. Turns out, that's a very big deal for anyone who wants to avoid hyperinflation and economic disaster. During Wednesday's arguments, it was clear that even Trump's hand-picked justices felt as though they would like to avoid such catastrophes. What ensued was more about feelings, fear, and frustration than law, but that may be the best we can hope for. 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 this member-exclusive episode, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court's fact-free foray into Trump v. Cook, a case that economists warn could crater the economy. President Donald Trump spent the first weeks of his second stint in the White House firing a lot of people from government agencies. For the most part, the High Court's conservative justices let it slide, in line with their general “he's the President, let him do it” posture. But Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was different. In August, Trump fired off a post on Truth Social, then sacked Cook a few days later, leaving a huge question mark hanging over the independence of the Fed. Turns out, that's a very big deal for anyone who wants to avoid hyperinflation and economic disaster. During Wednesday's arguments, it was clear that even Trump's hand-picked justices felt as though they would like to avoid such catastrophes. What ensued was more about feelings, fear, and frustration than law, but that may be the best we can hope for. 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.

President Trump REALLY wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. He's fallen hard for this 200-year-old law that would allow him to deploy active duty military to enforce civilian law on American streets. On this week's Amicus podcast, co-host Mark Joseph Stern is joined by Professor Steve Vladeck, a nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court, federal courts, national security law, and military justice. They discuss what's been stopping Trump from invoking the act so far, why he has no legal authority to do so right now, and what happens if he does it anyway. Next, Mark talks to Julia Gegenheimer, former special litigation counsel in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section, and now a special litigation counsel at Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Julia and Mark discuss the remaining paths to justice after the killing of Renee Good and examine what happens when the DOJ abandons its duty to seek accountability and vindicate civil rights. 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.

President Trump REALLY wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. He's fallen hard for this 200-year-old law that would allow him to deploy active duty military to enforce civilian law on American streets. On this week's Amicus podcast, co-host Mark Joseph Stern is joined by Professor Steve Vladeck, a nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court, federal courts, national security law, and military justice. They discuss what's been stopping Trump from invoking the act so far, why he has no legal authority to do so right now, and what happens if he does it anyway. Next, Mark talks to Julia Gegenheimer, former special litigation counsel in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section, and now a special litigation counsel at Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Julia and Mark discuss the remaining paths to justice after the killing of Renee Good and examine what happens when the DOJ abandons its duty to seek accountability and vindicate civil rights. 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.

President Trump REALLY wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. He's fallen hard for this 200-year-old law that would allow him to deploy active duty military to enforce civilian law on American streets. On this week's Amicus podcast, co-host Mark Joseph Stern is joined by Professor Steve Vladeck, a nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court, federal courts, national security law, and military justice. They discuss what's been stopping Trump from invoking the act so far, why he has no legal authority to do so right now, and what happens if he does it anyway. Next, Mark talks to Julia Gegenheimer, former special litigation counsel in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section, and now a special litigation counsel at Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Julia and Mark discuss the remaining paths to justice after the killing of Renee Good and examine what happens when the DOJ abandons its duty to seek accountability and vindicate civil rights. 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.

Hello everyone and welcome back to This Week in Guns, brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, FFLPayments, Traditional Arms, and MAF Corporation. This show offers commentary on the latest firearms industry news, information and buzz. I'm your host Matthew Larosiere and I'm joined by the ratman. Let's start by talking about the free tax thing, OK? Incl potato deniers, the sheer numbers, and whatever. antigunners malding over 0 dollar tax Traditional Arms: Fuddbusters and Ratman Maduro NFA stuff count 3 NRA sues itself  MAF Corp: Fudbdusterss Gun violence year in review FFL Payments antigunners malding about large capacity magazines DOJ and 26 states come after CA ammo background check ban Patriot patch Co. TWIG10     Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction and sponsorships 1:04 $0 NFA tax for suppressors and short barreled rifles 2:09 ATF denial and durability of potato suppressors 7:55 Silencer application surge and public perception issues 10:47 Sponsor: Traditional Arms LLC 11:03 US government seizes Venezuelan leader Maduro 13:31 NRA's legal troubles 17:07 Sponsor: MAF Corp 17:35 Trace year-end review and article on gun violence and large capacity magazines 27:02 Amicus briefs in California ammo background check case and historical context 30:19 Sponsor: Patriot Patch Co. 31:10 Podcast schedule update and Patreon support  

You saw it. We all saw it. We all saw what happened in Minneapolis when an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good for the crime of being in her car. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern attempt to digest this week's horrific events and wonder if there is even a possibility of justice. Dahlia recommends “They Didn't Even Need A Deepfake” by Slate's Molly Olmstead.Later in the show, Mark speaks with Brian Finucane, a senior advisor to the International Crisis Group. He spent a decade in the U.S. State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser. Brian and Mark discuss the lawlessness of Trump's foreign policy (cough cough, Venezuela), and how the administration's approach embraces some of the worst aspects of tough-guy masculinity.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 saw it. We all saw it. We all saw what happened in Minneapolis when an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good for the crime of being in her car. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern attempt to digest this week's horrific events and wonder if there is even a possibility of justice. Dahlia recommends “They Didn't Even Need A Deepfake” by Slate's Molly Olmstead.Later in the show, Mark speaks with Brian Finucane, a senior advisor to the International Crisis Group. He spent a decade in the U.S. State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser. Brian and Mark discuss the lawlessness of Trump's foreign policy (cough cough, Venezuela), and how the administration's approach embraces some of the worst aspects of tough-guy masculinity.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 saw it. We all saw it. We all saw what happened in Minneapolis when an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good for the crime of being in her car. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern attempt to digest this week's horrific events and wonder if there is even a possibility of justice. Dahlia recommends “They Didn't Even Need A Deepfake” by Slate's Molly Olmstead.Later in the show, Mark speaks with Brian Finucane, a senior advisor to the International Crisis Group. He spent a decade in the U.S. State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser. Brian and Mark discuss the lawlessness of Trump's foreign policy (cough cough, Venezuela), and how the administration's approach embraces some of the worst aspects of tough-guy masculinity.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.

SafeSport has suspended Al Fong for five years after a nearly six year long investigation, Melanie de Jesus dos Santos confirms her return ''to the gym'', and all the NCAA news to kick off the 2026 season. HEADLINES SafeSport has suspended Al Fong for five years after a nearly six year long investigation Armine was also suspended for one year after acting as the head coach of the Junior Worlds squad Both coaches were suspended for emotional and physical misconduct Listen to our interviews with Ivana Hong, Terin Humphrey, and Sarah Shire Brown, who talk about their time at GAGE under coach Al Fong  Melanie de Jesus dos Santos confirms her return ''to the gym'' according to her Instagram GYMTERNET NEWS More discontent brewing in France: 15-year-old Elena Colas, the junior world all-around silver medalist, declined a call-up to a French national team training camp in Martinique SafeSport Continues to Fail The AP finds SafeSport failed to finalize a lifetime ban against coach Sean Gardner despite abuse allegations Romanian Infighting An audio recording reveals Camelia Voinea urging supporters to attack coach Corina Moroșan, exposing a deep internal power struggle over how the gymnastics should be run in Romania OC Coach Arrested 25-year-old Jacob Alexander Demmin was arrested following an investigation into an alleged relationship with a girl under the age of 18 at Firestorm Freerunning. Ellie Freakin' Black finally getting the recognition she deserves Ellie Black was named to Order of Canada: the second-highest honor for merit in the system of orders, decorations, and medals of Canada NCAA The 2026 college season has begun! Is competing in the first week of the season a good idea? bad idea? The WORST idea? Jordan Chiles went 39.725 in week 1, leading the nation in the all-around standings, thoughts? UCLA is ranked no. 1 with a 196.975 How does UCLA's freshmen class fit into this picture? Missouri went 196.850, counting a fall on beam! Corrupt or Correct: Utah's scores, as covered on college and cocktails this week Clemson breaking into the 196s after the first meet is a win A triumph for vault variety! The first four vaults in Clemson's lineups were different Cal broke into the 196s, an important result for the team to show they aren't dead Leaps spotlight Paulina Vargas, sophomore at Oregon State, proving to us that nobody really cares if you only do a two-pass floor routine as long as your leaps look as good as hers Spotlight: The Show Nina Ballou at LSU's exhibition SOLD her dance through, bringing like 15 different celebrations during the intros Is it time to be worried? Iowa State's 191.325 is their lowest score since 1999 RELATED EPISODES Paris World Cup with Laura Cappelle Jakarta Worlds Debrief: The Romanian Drama Explained With Coaches Daymon Jones & Patrick Kiens 60: Terin Humphrey 26: Ivana Hong 358: Regionals Preview, Shire Brown, Olivera, Ruddock UP NEXT College & Cocktails: Saturday, Jan 10, 3pm Pacific, following Sprouts Quad session 1 (Oklahoma, UCLA, Utah, LSU) Add exclusive Club Content like College & Cocktails to your favorite podcast player (instructions here). SUPPORT OUR WORK  Join Club Gym Nerd (or give it as a gift!) for access to weekly Behind the Scenes episodes. Club Gym Nerd members can watch the podcast being recorded and get access to all of our exclusive extended interviews, Behind The Scenes and College & Cocktails. Not sure about joining the club?  College & Cocktails: The Friday Night NCAA Gymnastics Post-Meet Show is available to sample (even if you aren't a Club Gym Nerd member yet). Watch or listen here. Buy a Ticket to the Live Show with Cecile Landi and Levi WATCH REPLAY HERE : Buy a ticket now or buy it as a gift! If you purchased a ticket to the live show with Cecile Landi and Levi Jung-Ruivivar benefitting The National Eating Disorder Foundation you can still watch the replay.  Watch highlights before you buy here. 2026 LIVE SHOW SEASON PASSES ARE NOW AVAILABLE That's 4 live show passes for the price of 3! Season passes will be available up until the week of the first show. Buy a 2026 season pass here. MERCH GymCastic Store: clothing and gifts to let your gym nerd flag fly and even "tapestries" (banners, the perfect to display in an arena) to support your favorite gymnast! Baseball hats available now in the GymCastic store THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS Huel Daily Greens Ready to Drink – Get 20% off your purchase for New Customers with our exclusive code GYMCASTIC20 at https://huel.com/GYMCASTIC. Use our code and fill out the post checkout survey to help support the show! Thank you to our Sponsor: "Broken to Unbreakable" by Lori Vollkommer available on Amazon or wherever you buy your books NEWSLETTERS Sign up for all three GymCastic newsletters  FANTASY GAME: GymCastic 2026 College Fantasy Game now open. Never too late to join! RESOURCES Spencer's essential website The Balance Beam Situation  Gymnastics History and Code of Points Archive from Uncle Tim RESISTANCE  Submitted by our listeners. ACTION Indivisible Practical ideas about what you can actually do in this moment, check it out: indivisi.org/muskorus 5Calls App will call your Congresspeople by issue with a script to guide you Make 2 to your Congressional rep (local and DC office). 2 each to your US Senators (local and state offices) State your name and zip code or district Be concise with your question or demand (i.e. What specific steps is Senator X taking to stop XYZ) Wait for answer Ask for action items -  tell them what you want them to do (i.e. draft articles of impeachment immediately, I want to see you holding a press conference in front of...etc.) ResistBot Turns your texts into faxes, postal mail, or emails to your representatives in minutes LAWSUITS Donate to organizations suing the administration for illegal actions ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, Northwest Immigration Law Project STAY INFORMED Suggested podcasts:  Amicus, Daily Beans, Pod Save America, Strict Scrutiny Immigrant Rights Know Your Rights Red Cards, We Have Rights Video, Your Rights on trains and buses video  

Supreme Court expert and Amicus podcast host Dahlia Lithwick joins Marc Elias to unpack one of the most dangerous and least understood forces shaping American law today: the Supreme Court's shadow docket. Lithwick explains how the Court increasingly uses late-night, unsigned emergency orders to upend lower-court rulings, reverse longstanding precedent, and reshape democracy—without transparency, reasoning, or accountability. Together, they explore how the shadow docket amplifies minority rule, expands executive power, undermines voting rights, and allows the Court to exercise enormous authority while evading public scrutiny. Support independent journalism: https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/member-youtube Stay informed with the latest news and political analysis: https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/youtube Follow Democracy Docket: Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/democracydocket.com Instagram⁠: https://instagram.com/democracydocket Facebook⁠: https://facebook.com/democracydocket X/Twitter⁠: https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket TikTok⁠: https://tiktok.com/@democracydocket Threads: https://www.threads.net/@democracydocket

In a special new year retrospective, Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick revisits an important episode from early 2025. Back at the beginning of February, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International affairs at Princeton University, pointed to  the speed and viciousness of the very opening legal gambits in Trump 2.0 as evidence that America had already 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, the media, the academy and the democratic norms that protected them in Russia and Hungary. In this interview, Scheppelle explains 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.  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 a special new year retrospective, Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick revisits an important episode from early 2025. Back at the beginning of February, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International affairs at Princeton University, pointed to  the speed and viciousness of the very opening legal gambits in Trump 2.0 as evidence that America had already 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, the media, the academy and the democratic norms that protected them in Russia and Hungary. In this interview, Scheppelle explains 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.  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 a special new year retrospective, Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick revisits an important episode from early 2025. Back at the beginning of February, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International affairs at Princeton University, pointed to  the speed and viciousness of the very opening legal gambits in Trump 2.0 as evidence that America had already 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, the media, the academy and the democratic norms that protected them in Russia and Hungary. In this interview, Scheppelle explains 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.  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

Over the past calendar year, the Supreme Court's center has shifted to the right and then more to the right, and the justices' decisions have time and again facilitated Trump's agenda. But the Roberts majority is not simply focused on what the current president wants; it has its sights set on a larger project: voting. Suppressing and constraining and problematizing the core function of democratic rule. In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern reflect on the significant developments at  the Supreme Court over the past year with an eye toward the implications of the court's decisions on democracy, voting rights, and the erosion of checks and balances. Looking back at the past year at One First Street, Dahlia and Mark trace the cases that reveal the court's long game, with elections coming quickly, and discuss the forces for and against democracy being exerted within and without the high court. Then, they turn to the urgent matter of what you and I can do about it. If you want to access that special 50% discount for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the past calendar year, the Supreme Court's center has shifted to the right and then more to the right, and the justices' decisions have time and again facilitated Trump's agenda. But the Roberts majority is not simply focused on what the current president wants; it has its sights set on a larger project: voting. Suppressing and constraining and problematizing the core function of democratic rule. In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern reflect on the significant developments at  the Supreme Court over the past year with an eye toward the implications of the court's decisions on democracy, voting rights, and the erosion of checks and balances. Looking back at the past year at One First Street, Dahlia and Mark trace the cases that reveal the court's long game, with elections coming quickly, and discuss the forces for and against democracy being exerted within and without the high court. Then, they turn to the urgent matter of what you and I can do about it. If you want to access that special 50% discount for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the past calendar year, the Supreme Court's center has shifted to the right and then more to the right, and the justices' decisions have time and again facilitated Trump's agenda. But the Roberts majority is not simply focused on what the current president wants; it has its sights set on a larger project: voting. Suppressing and constraining and problematizing the core function of democratic rule. In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern reflect on the significant developments at  the Supreme Court over the past year with an eye toward the implications of the court's decisions on democracy, voting rights, and the erosion of checks and balances. Looking back at the past year at One First Street, Dahlia and Mark trace the cases that reveal the court's long game, with elections coming quickly, and discuss the forces for and against democracy being exerted within and without the high court. Then, they turn to the urgent matter of what you and I can do about it. If you want to access that special 50% discount for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In mid-March of 2025, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt and his colleagues started hearing that the Trump administration might attempt a flagrantly lawless publicity stunt, involving migrant men, secret flights to El Salvador, a notorious gulag, and a total disregard for due process. Despite getting word that something was about to happen, and rushing into a Saturday night hearing, and then securing a TRO from DC judge James Boasberg, Lee and his colleagues were unable to prevent more than 250 men from being renditioned from Texas to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador. The legal cases spawned by the dramatic events of March 15th 2025 haven't gone away, indeed they are reaching crucial milestones in the courts, raising foundational questions about the abuse of statutes and what it means to defy court orders. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by the ACLU's Lee Gelernt who is litigating these cases, to discuss the very high stakes of a set of cases that may have fallen off your radar in the shuffle.  How these cases play out will dictate much of what happens for the rest of Trump's term in office by answering democracy-defining questions such as whether the antiquated and radical wartime powers of the Alien Enemies Act can be unleashed on people the government deems enemies domestically, whether court orders are actually directives the Trump DoJ is bound  to follow, whether the district courts can require Pam Bondi's justice department to assist in the finding of fact, and whether the ancient legal concepts protecting liberty of due process and habeas corpus have the force of law in Trump's America.  If you want to access that special 50% promotion for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In mid-March of 2025, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt and his colleagues started hearing that the Trump administration might attempt a flagrantly lawless publicity stunt, involving migrant men, secret flights to El Salvador, a notorious gulag, and a total disregard for due process. Despite getting word that something was about to happen, and rushing into a Saturday night hearing, and then securing a TRO from DC judge James Boasberg, Lee and his colleagues were unable to prevent more than 250 men from being renditioned from Texas to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador. The legal cases spawned by the dramatic events of March 15th 2025 haven't gone away, indeed they are reaching crucial milestones in the courts, raising foundational questions about the abuse of statutes and what it means to defy court orders. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by the ACLU's Lee Gelernt who is litigating these cases, to discuss the very high stakes of a set of cases that may have fallen off your radar in the shuffle.  How these cases play out will dictate much of what happens for the rest of Trump's term in office by answering democracy-defining questions such as whether the antiquated and radical wartime powers of the Alien Enemies Act can be unleashed on people the government deems enemies domestically, whether court orders are actually directives the Trump DoJ is bound  to follow, whether the district courts can require Pam Bondi's justice department to assist in the finding of fact, and whether the ancient legal concepts protecting liberty of due process and habeas corpus have the force of law in Trump's America.  If you want to access that special 50% promotion for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In mid-March of 2025, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt and his colleagues started hearing that the Trump administration might attempt a flagrantly lawless publicity stunt, involving migrant men, secret flights to El Salvador, a notorious gulag, and a total disregard for due process. Despite getting word that something was about to happen, and rushing into a Saturday night hearing, and then securing a TRO from DC judge James Boasberg, Lee and his colleagues were unable to prevent more than 250 men from being renditioned from Texas to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador. The legal cases spawned by the dramatic events of March 15th 2025 haven't gone away, indeed they are reaching crucial milestones in the courts, raising foundational questions about the abuse of statutes and what it means to defy court orders. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by the ACLU's Lee Gelernt who is litigating these cases, to discuss the very high stakes of a set of cases that may have fallen off your radar in the shuffle.  How these cases play out will dictate much of what happens for the rest of Trump's term in office by answering democracy-defining questions such as whether the antiquated and radical wartime powers of the Alien Enemies Act can be unleashed on people the government deems enemies domestically, whether court orders are actually directives the Trump DoJ is bound  to follow, whether the district courts can require Pam Bondi's justice department to assist in the finding of fact, and whether the ancient legal concepts protecting liberty of due process and habeas corpus have the force of law in Trump's America.  If you want to access that special 50% promotion for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump decided this past week that there was no downside to fully embracing the racist “shithole countries” rhetoric he denied seven years ago; but this mask coming fully off is just the latest chapter in a decades-long campaign to gut a very specific part of the constitution: the reconstruction amendments. On this week's Amicus episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill about the critical role the 14th Amendment has played in shaping American democracy, and why this full frontal assault on its protections should have everyone on high alert. In a week in which we found ourselves toggling between “the tide is turning!” and “all is lost!” Sherrilyn expertly guides us to an  understanding of what winning looks like in this moment, and how the courts can still play a role in renewing America's commitment to equal justice under the law, even when the Supreme Court is openly hostile to that proposition.  Sherrilyn Ifill's substack newsletter: Is It Too Late? If you want to access that special 50% promotion for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. 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 decided this past week that there was no downside to fully embracing the racist “shithole countries” rhetoric he denied seven years ago; but this mask coming fully off is just the latest chapter in a decades-long campaign to gut a very specific part of the constitution: the reconstruction amendments. On this week's Amicus episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill about the critical role the 14th Amendment has played in shaping American democracy, and why this full frontal assault on its protections should have everyone on high alert. In a week in which we found ourselves toggling between “the tide is turning!” and “all is lost!” Sherrilyn expertly guides us to an  understanding of what winning looks like in this moment, and how the courts can still play a role in renewing America's commitment to equal justice under the law, even when the Supreme Court is openly hostile to that proposition.  Sherrilyn Ifill's substack newsletter: Is It Too Late? If you want to access that special 50% promotion for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025. 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

While the Secretary of Defense pursues lawless boat strikes with a laser focus on maximum trolling, the Supreme Court is working to undermine voting rights with a laser focus on maximum support for Republicans.  In this week's episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and co-host Mark Joseph Stern discuss the news that Trump's extra-constitutional attempt to restrict birthright citizenship is heading back to the Supreme Court. They also discuss Thursday's shadow docket decision supercharging racial gerrymandering as well as next week's campaign finance case that promises to unleash even more dark money in the midterms. Next, Dahlia's joined by Malcolm Nance, former naval intelligence officer, author and host of the Black Man Spy podcast to talk through the current administration's riding roughshod over established military law, and the very nasty history of bombing shipwrecks.  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

While the Secretary of Defense pursues lawless boat strikes with a laser focus on maximum trolling, the Supreme Court is working to undermine voting rights with a laser focus on maximum support for Republicans.  In this week's episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and co-host Mark Joseph Stern discuss the news that Trump's extra-constitutional attempt to restrict birthright citizenship is heading back to the Supreme Court. They also discuss Thursday's shadow docket decision supercharging racial gerrymandering as well as next week's campaign finance case that promises to unleash even more dark money in the midterms. Next, Dahlia's joined by Malcolm Nance, former naval intelligence officer, author and host of the Black Man Spy podcast to talk through the current administration's riding roughshod over established military law, and the very nasty history of bombing shipwrecks.  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

By design –  and also by dint of unbridled, undisciplined extremist exuberance – Donald Trump's second stint in the White House is thus far a tricky thing to characterize. While many of the administration's moves seem copy/pasted from a manual for authoritarian takeover, they're also deeply rooted in longstanding structural democratic deficits in America. For their part, The administration's boosters argue this whiplash-inducing dismantling of institutions, norms and precedents are simply the right's answer to similarly seismic constitutional shifts in the New Deal and Civil Rights eras. In a recent piece in the Boston Review, What Are We Living Through?, law professors Jedediah Britton-Purdy and David Pozen try to puzzle through these conflicting narratives of change. They join Dahlia Lithwick on this week's Amicus to map this moment and to plot paths through it.  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