Podcast appearances and mentions of Dahlia Lithwick

This week, the Supreme Court blessed the torture of a condemned woman, and the court is set to kick off the new term by doing fossil fuel's bidding. So here at Amicus, we're not really in the mood for a razzle-dazzle “curtain raiser.” Instead, we're taking a clear-eyed look at the ways the Roberts court is pulling the constitutional rug out from under the American people. First, Dahlia is joined by Corinna Barrett Lain, author of Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection, to discuss the botched execution of Christa Pike. After the Supreme Court overturned a last-minute stay without explanation, Tennessee attempted to execute Pike by lethal injection—twice. She survived and was taken to hospital where doctors tried to save her life. She was unconscious and on a ventilator at the time of writing. Professor Lain explains how lethal injection's medicalized facade hides state violence, why the court keeps green-lighting botched protocols, and what Pike's case reveals about a system that executes the broken and the poor while sparing those who can afford good lawyers.Then, Dahlia speaks with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island about the Supreme Court's new term and its fossil-fuel patrons. They discuss the Suncor v. Boulder climate case, the flotilla of billionaire-funded front groups filing amicus briefs to signal the court's captured justices. Should we be optimistic that Alito has recused himself from the case that opens the term? Sen. Whitehouse says it is unlikely that decision reflects any sort of come-to-Jesus moment. It suggests instead that, if the Democrats take power in the midterms, the Supreme Court's internal practices must be investigated. Although his peers are longing to return to regular, orderly government, the senator says “there has to be a reset.” Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. If you've been peering through the steamed up windows of the Amicus Plus smokeless cigar bar longingly, hovering over that “subscribe to Slate Plus” button. Now is the time to join. For a limited time (like, until October 16th), you can join Slate Plus for 50 percent off and get bonus episodes of Amicus, like this one. You'll also enjoy ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts and unlimited reading on Slate.com. Visit slate.com/amicusplus and use the promo code AMICUS50 to receive the discount AND get access wherever you listen. Support what we do and help us absolutely crush it during Slate's 30th anniversary pledge drive! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, the Supreme Court blessed the torture of a condemned woman, and the court is set to kick off the new term by doing fossil fuel's bidding. So here at Amicus, we're not really in the mood for a razzle-dazzle “curtain raiser.” Instead, we're taking a clear-eyed look at the ways the Roberts court is pulling the constitutional rug out from under the American people. First, Dahlia is joined by Corinna Barrett Lain, author of Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection, to discuss the botched execution of Christa Pike. After the Supreme Court overturned a last-minute stay without explanation, Tennessee attempted to execute Pike by lethal injection—twice. She survived and was taken to hospital where doctors tried to save her life. She was unconscious and on a ventilator at the time of writing. Professor Lain explains how lethal injection's medicalized facade hides state violence, why the court keeps green-lighting botched protocols, and what Pike's case reveals about a system that executes the broken and the poor while sparing those who can afford good lawyers.Then, Dahlia speaks with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island about the Supreme Court's new term and its fossil-fuel patrons. They discuss the Suncor v. Boulder climate case, the flotilla of billionaire-funded front groups filing amicus briefs to signal the court's captured justices. Should we be optimistic that Alito has recused himself from the case that opens the term? Sen. Whitehouse says it is unlikely that decision reflects any sort of come-to-Jesus moment. It suggests instead that, if the Democrats take power in the midterms, the Supreme Court's internal practices must be investigated. Although his peers are longing to return to regular, orderly government, the senator says “there has to be a reset.” Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. If you've been peering through the steamed up windows of the Amicus Plus smokeless cigar bar longingly, hovering over that “subscribe to Slate Plus” button. Now is the time to join. For a limited time (like, until October 16th), you can join Slate Plus for 50 percent off and get bonus episodes of Amicus, like this one. You'll also enjoy ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts and unlimited reading on Slate.com. Visit slate.com/amicusplus and use the promo code AMICUS50 to receive the discount AND get access wherever you listen. Support what we do and help us absolutely crush it during Slate's 30th anniversary pledge drive! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Trump announced on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, Politico, and MSNow from the White House because he didn't like their coverage. Within days, a federal judge ordered the outlets be reinstated—but the White House dragged its feet. Hours later, reporters were still locked out and a state dinner with President Xi of China went ahead without them. Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute joins Dahlia Lithwick to explain the First Amendment and due-process arguments at the heart of the case, why the administration's national security justification fell apart in court, and what it means when a president seems indifferent to judicial orders. Together, they trace the broader pattern of press intimidation, including this administration's recent bans on the Associated Press and on Pentagon reporters. And, they discuss something new: news organizations standing together in solidarity for the first time, and why Jaffer thinks we're already living in an authoritarian moment—whether we've noticed or not.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 announced on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, Politico, and MSNow from the White House because he didn't like their coverage. Within days, a federal judge ordered the outlets be reinstated—but the White House dragged its feet. Hours later, reporters were still locked out and a state dinner with President Xi of China went ahead without them. Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute joins Dahlia Lithwick to explain the First Amendment and due-process arguments at the heart of the case, why the administration's national security justification fell apart in court, and what it means when a president seems indifferent to judicial orders. Together, they trace the broader pattern of press intimidation, including this administration's recent bans on the Associated Press and on Pentagon reporters. And, they discuss something new: news organizations standing together in solidarity for the first time, and why Jaffer thinks we're already living in an authoritarian moment—whether we've noticed or not.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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Trump announced on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, Politico, and MSNow from the White House because he didn't like their coverage. Within days, a federal judge ordered the outlets be reinstated—but the White House dragged its feet. Hours later, reporters were still locked out and a state dinner with President Xi of China went ahead without them. Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute joins Dahlia Lithwick to explain the First Amendment and due-process arguments at the heart of the case, why the administration's national security justification fell apart in court, and what it means when a president seems indifferent to judicial orders. Together, they trace the broader pattern of press intimidation, including this administration's recent bans on the Associated Press and on Pentagon reporters. And, they discuss something new: news organizations standing together in solidarity for the first time, and why Jaffer thinks we're already living in an authoritarian moment—whether we've noticed or not.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've seen the headlines about the lists, the claims, the THREE times this same executive order about voting by mail has gone to the Supreme Court. But is Trump's interference with mail-in voting settled—at least with respect to the midterms? Our go-to election law expert, Richard Hasen of UCLA School of Law, joins Dahlia to unpack what just happened and how this postal chaos alters voters' sense of election security. We're calling this discussion “information” and not “catastrophizing.” Hasen has this advice for listeners: get out there and vote in-person. Next, Sam Sankar of the environmental-law organization Earthjustice explains why SCOTUS' longstanding skepticism towards the environment does not make him as pessimistic as one might expect. He also takes us behind the scenes in two environmental cases that will kick off the Supreme Court term in a few weeks, including an appeal over whether the Air Force may continue to blow stuff up over an historic beach in Guam.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've seen the headlines about the lists, the claims, the THREE times this same executive order about voting by mail has gone to the Supreme Court. But is Trump's interference with mail-in voting settled—at least with respect to the midterms? Our go-to election law expert, Richard Hasen of UCLA School of Law, joins Dahlia to unpack what just happened and how this postal chaos alters voters' sense of election security. We're calling this discussion “information” and not “catastrophizing.” Hasen has this advice for listeners: get out there and vote in-person. Next, Sam Sankar of the environmental-law organization Earthjustice explains why SCOTUS' longstanding skepticism towards the environment does not make him as pessimistic as one might expect. He also takes us behind the scenes in two environmental cases that will kick off the Supreme Court term in a few weeks, including an appeal over whether the Air Force may continue to blow stuff up over an historic beach in Guam.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.

Capitulation under Trump 2.0 has been devastating to the rule of law. To review a couple of lowlights: One of the nation's leading lawyers, Brad Karp, cut a deal with Donald Trump in the first days of the bully-in-chief's second administration that turned out to constitute five flabby bullet points on an unsigned piece of paper. Chief Justice John Roberts is pretending the president is a generic Republican. Dahlia Lithwick talks to Jacob Weisberg about his new book, Profiles in Cowardice, which examines the flawed individuals leading institutions that were meant to hold the line in Trump's second term but instead gave up almost instantly. They unpack the law firm Paul, Weiss' capitulation in an "agreement" with Trump that protects nobody, Chief Justice John Roberts' fatal bet that the Supreme Court can preserve its prestige while the Justice Department defies federal judges, and Senate enthusiast Mitch McConnell's self-defeating legacy of remaking a judiciary that empowered a president to sideline the Senate entirely. Dahlia and Jacob also examine the first signs of a countervailing force, from Harvard's refusal to make a deal to the question of what Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine will do if tested around the midterms.Jacob Weisberg's book is Profiles in Cowardice: A Study of Collaboration in the Trump Era, published by Penguin Press.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.

Capitulation under Trump 2.0 has been devastating to the rule of law. To review a couple of lowlights: One of the nation's leading lawyers, Brad Karp, cut a deal with Donald Trump in the first days of the bully-in-chief's second administration that turned out to constitute five flabby bullet points on an unsigned piece of paper. Chief Justice John Roberts is pretending the president is a generic Republican. Dahlia Lithwick talks to Jacob Weisberg about his new book, Profiles in Cowardice, which examines the flawed individuals leading institutions that were meant to hold the line in Trump's second term but instead gave up almost instantly. They unpack the law firm Paul, Weiss' capitulation in an "agreement" with Trump that protects nobody, Chief Justice John Roberts' fatal bet that the Supreme Court can preserve its prestige while the Justice Department defies federal judges, and Senate enthusiast Mitch McConnell's self-defeating legacy of remaking a judiciary that empowered a president to sideline the Senate entirely. Dahlia and Jacob also examine the first signs of a countervailing force, from Harvard's refusal to make a deal to the question of what Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine will do if tested around the midterms.Jacob Weisberg's book is Profiles in Cowardice: A Study of Collaboration in the Trump Era, published by Penguin Press.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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Capitulation under Trump 2.0 has been devastating to the rule of law. To review a couple of lowlights: One of the nation's leading lawyers, Brad Karp, cut a deal with Donald Trump in the first days of the bully-in-chief's second administration that turned out to constitute five flabby bullet points on an unsigned piece of paper. Chief Justice John Roberts is pretending the president is a generic Republican. Dahlia Lithwick talks to Jacob Weisberg about his new book, Profiles in Cowardice, which examines the flawed individuals leading institutions that were meant to hold the line in Trump's second term but instead gave up almost instantly. They unpack the law firm Paul, Weiss' capitulation in an "agreement" with Trump that protects nobody, Chief Justice John Roberts' fatal bet that the Supreme Court can preserve its prestige while the Justice Department defies federal judges, and Senate enthusiast Mitch McConnell's self-defeating legacy of remaking a judiciary that empowered a president to sideline the Senate entirely. Dahlia and Jacob also examine the first signs of a countervailing force, from Harvard's refusal to make a deal to the question of what Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine will do if tested around the midterms.Jacob Weisberg's book is Profiles in Cowardice: A Study of Collaboration in the Trump Era, published by Penguin Press.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.

All this month, we're partnering with the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for a series called “Democracy Under Construction.” You can find out more about their work at kettering.org and listen to their podcast “The Context” at kettering.org/thecontextFor the thirty-third installment of “50 Weeks That Shaped America” we go to 1789. The founders spent months that summer hammering out a Constitution — and nearly forgot to include freedom. Jody, Niki and Kellie are joined by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate to look at how the Bill of Rights came to exist: the philosophical fight over whether rights even needed to be written down, what ended up in it (and what didn't), and what it tells us about who the founders were actually building this government for. Be sure to check out Dahlia's “Amicus” podcast and all her work at Slate.Join our America250 newsletter community! Subscribe for free to get the latest news and analysis of how America250 is playing out. Paying subscribers get access to early, ad-free versions of the show. Plus bonus features throughout the year. To support our work and get access to everything, subscribe now.This Day is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Special series announcement! For the next four weeks, we're bringing you a special series as part of Kettering's America 250 initiative, “Democracy, Under Construction.” It's about key events in American history that have brought us toward, or away from, an inclusive democracy—and the work that remains to be done. We coproduced this series with our friends at a podcast called This Day. It's a history show, and they're doing a whole year of episodes about major events that shaped our nation. So, for the next four Tuesdays, you'll be hearing episodes of This Day in our feed, where their three cohosts and special guests discuss these important moments in American history. Learn more about the series here: https://kettering.org/america-250-podcast-series-begins-in-september/ If you enjoy this episode, go over to This Day's feed for two more episodes on each of these historical topics. The Context's host, Alex Lovit, will be the guest in the third episode each week. Listen to the episodes here: https://www.jodyavirgan.com/political-history-show For our kickoff episode in the series, we go to 1789. That's when the Founding Fathers spent months that summer hammering out the Constitution—and nearly forgot to include freedom. This Day hosts Jody Avirgan, Nicole Hemmer, and Kellie Carter Jackson are joined by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate to look at how the Bill of Rights came to exist: the philosophical fight over whether rights even needed to be written down, what ended up in it (and what didn't), and what it tells us about who the Founders were actually building this government for. Be sure to check out Dahlia's Amicus podcast and all her work at Slate. https://slate.com/author/dahlia-lithwick More about This Day: This Day podcast, hosted by Jody Avirgan and historians Nicole Hemmer and Kellie Carter Jackson, takes listeners beyond the head-spinning headlines of today and into the unexpected historical moments that have shaped American life and politics. This Day is part of the Radiotopia podcast network. Listen to the show here: https://www.jodyavirgan.com/political-history-show And finally: if you're in the Washington, DC, area, join us on Monday, October 19, 2026, for a live taping of This Day. Alex Lovit will join This Day hosts live on stage. The featured guest is Kettering Senior Fellow Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II. They will be in conversation about the moment of democratic realignment we are living through right now. Are we witnessing a fundamental shift in who holds power, who gets left out, and how race and class are reshaping the coalitions that define American politics? And what can history teach us about moments like this one? The event is open to the public, and tickets are available through the Howard Theatre: https://www.unionstagepresents.com/shows/this-day-live-the-next-realignment-presented-by-the-charles-f-kettering-foundation-19-oct Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's past time to say it. This Supreme Court is helping President Donald J. Trump evade accountability. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law, joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down the conservative majority's procedural toolkit—standing, ripeness, the Purcell principle, and inscrutable rulings on the shadow docket —and how these doctrinal headfakes are being used to ensure Trump always wins in court, even when he loses. They dig into the White House ballroom case and Trump's attempt to disrupt mail-in voting and the midterms, they explore what's different from Trump's first term, and ask which of the justices are worried about the court's legitimacy.Plus, we remember Gloria Steinem, who died at 92 this week. From co-founding Ms. magazine to her lifelong allyship with the civil rights movement, Steinem's legacy of building coalitions, lifting up others, and never letting anyone steal her joy carries urgent lessons for a moment in which so much of what she fought for is being erased. Dahlia talks with legal scholar and Ms. Studios executive producer Professor Michele Goodwin.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's past time to say it. This Supreme Court is helping President Donald J. Trump evade accountability. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law, joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down the conservative majority's procedural toolkit—standing, ripeness, the Purcell principle, and inscrutable rulings on the shadow docket —and how these doctrinal headfakes are being used to ensure Trump always wins in court, even when he loses. They dig into the White House ballroom case and Trump's attempt to disrupt mail-in voting and the midterms, they explore what's different from Trump's first term, and ask which of the justices are worried about the court's legitimacy.Plus, we remember Gloria Steinem, who died at 92 this week. From co-founding Ms. magazine to her lifelong allyship with the civil rights movement, Steinem's legacy of building coalitions, lifting up others, and never letting anyone steal her joy carries urgent lessons for a moment in which so much of what she fought for is being erased. Dahlia talks with legal scholar and Ms. Studios executive producer Professor Michele Goodwin.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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's past time to say it. This Supreme Court is helping President Donald J. Trump evade accountability. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law, joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down the conservative majority's procedural toolkit—standing, ripeness, the Purcell principle, and inscrutable rulings on the shadow docket —and how these doctrinal headfakes are being used to ensure Trump always wins in court, even when he loses. They dig into the White House ballroom case and Trump's attempt to disrupt mail-in voting and the midterms, they explore what's different from Trump's first term, and ask which of the justices are worried about the court's legitimacy.Plus, we remember Gloria Steinem, who died at 92 this week. From co-founding Ms. magazine to her lifelong allyship with the civil rights movement, Steinem's legacy of building coalitions, lifting up others, and never letting anyone steal her joy carries urgent lessons for a moment in which so much of what she fought for is being erased. Dahlia talks with legal scholar and Ms. Studios executive producer Professor Michele Goodwin.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.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other 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.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other 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.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.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.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.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.

Our friends over at the Slate podcast Slow Burn are good at taking events that we think are settled history, then unlocking a new understanding of those stories through interviews, archives, and fresh analysis. They've reexamined Supreme Court history several times in recent years, including a new season about Neil Gorsuch we're featuring on Amicus for the next three weeks.Becoming Justice Gorsuch explores the early years of Donald Trump's first high-court appointee and his precedent-shattering path to power. It's a must-listen if you want to understand this 6-3 Roberts court, how it came to be, and where it's headed. In Episode 1, you'll hear how Gorsuch's worldview was shaped by his iconoclastic mother, his reaction to life on a liberal college campus, and young conservative movements of the 1980s. You'll also hear a familiar voice, with Slow Burn host Susan Matthews interviewing Amicus co-host Mark Joseph Stern.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.

Our friends over at the Slate podcast Slow Burn are good at taking events that we think are settled history, then unlocking a new understanding of those stories through interviews, archives, and fresh analysis. They've reexamined Supreme Court history several times in recent years, including a new season about Neil Gorsuch we're featuring on Amicus for the next three weeks.Becoming Justice Gorsuch explores the early years of Donald Trump's first high-court appointee and his precedent-shattering path to power. It's a must-listen if you want to understand this 6-3 Roberts court, how it came to be, and where it's headed. In Episode 1, you'll hear how Gorsuch's worldview was shaped by his iconoclastic mother, his reaction to life on a liberal college campus, and young conservative movements of the 1980s. You'll also hear a familiar voice, with Slow Burn host Susan Matthews interviewing Amicus co-host Mark Joseph Stern.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 the final episode—for now—of our series on reclaiming constitutional power for every American, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern urge you to consider the many ways you can make constitutional meaning in your life, your community, and your profession. Joining us to imagine what that has looked like historically and what it might look like tomorrow is New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, our former Slate colleague who possesses an uncanny, award-winning knack for applying historical context to modern-day events. He sits down with Dahlia and Mark to give the long view of the modern Supreme Court's monopoly on constitutional understanding; its gradual (and problematic) professionalization; his own wishlist for structural reform at the high court, and a bracing reminder that there is a tremendous amount to be done to claw back the Framers' vision of a constitution by the people.We want to hear from you! Tell us what you're doing in your life to assert ownership of the Constitution. What are you doing to expand fundamental freedoms to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors? Write to us at amicus@slate.com, and we might be in touch with you for a special Amicus event in September. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring the ways in which ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution beyond the rulings of the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeople.The justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the final episode—for now—of our series on reclaiming constitutional power for every American, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern urge you to consider the many ways you can make constitutional meaning in your life, your community, and your profession. Joining us to imagine what that has looked like historically and what it might look like tomorrow is New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, our former Slate colleague who possesses an uncanny, award-winning knack for applying historical context to modern-day events. He sits down with Dahlia and Mark to give the long view of the modern Supreme Court's monopoly on constitutional understanding; its gradual (and problematic) professionalization; his own wishlist for structural reform at the high court, and a bracing reminder that there is a tremendous amount to be done to claw back the Framers' vision of a constitution by the people.We want to hear from you! Tell us what you're doing in your life to assert ownership of the Constitution. What are you doing to expand fundamental freedoms to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors? Write to us at amicus@slate.com, and we might be in touch with you for a special Amicus event in September. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring the ways in which ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution beyond the rulings of the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeople.The justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the final episode—for now—of our series on reclaiming constitutional power for every American, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern urge you to consider the many ways you can make constitutional meaning in your life, your community, and your profession. Joining us to imagine what that has looked like historically and what it might look like tomorrow is New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, our former Slate colleague who possesses an uncanny, award-winning knack for applying historical context to modern-day events. He sits down with Dahlia and Mark to give the long view of the modern Supreme Court's monopoly on constitutional understanding; its gradual (and problematic) professionalization; his own wishlist for structural reform at the high court, and a bracing reminder that there is a tremendous amount to be done to claw back the Framers' vision of a constitution by the people.We want to hear from you! Tell us what you're doing in your life to assert ownership of the Constitution. What are you doing to expand fundamental freedoms to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors? Write to us at amicus@slate.com, and we might be in touch with you for a special Amicus event in September. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring the ways in which ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution beyond the rulings of the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeople.The justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Long before the Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell ruling on equal marriage in 2015, activists were canvassing door-to-door, courting any lawmaker who would listen, and losing at the local level—a lot. Their scrappy determination helped convince family members, neighbors and eventually the rest of the country that the Constitution's guarantees of liberty and equality applied to same-sex couples. In Episode 3 of By the People, equal marriage campaign architect Marc Solomon joins Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to trace the movement's "quixotic" beginnings in 2001. As this series continues to explore how ordinary Americans—not just nine justices—can interpret and enforce the Constitution, the campaign for equal marriage offers examples and tools that dedicated citizens can use to make constitutional meaning.The episode also confronts an uncomfortable question: If popular pressure can produce a ruling you love, like Obergefell, it can produce one you might not, like the court's decision to enshrine an individual right to bear arms in 2008's D.C. v. Heller. Dahlia and Mark discuss what happens when popular constitutionalism is retrofitted as originalism, and why no constitutional win, no matter how popular, is ever truly permanent.By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Long before the Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell ruling on equal marriage in 2015, activists were canvassing door-to-door, courting any lawmaker who would listen, and losing at the local level—a lot. Their scrappy determination helped convince family members, neighbors and eventually the rest of the country that the Constitution's guarantees of liberty and equality applied to same-sex couples. In Episode 3 of By the People, equal marriage campaign architect Marc Solomon joins Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to trace the movement's "quixotic" beginnings in 2001. As this series continues to explore how ordinary Americans—not just nine justices—can interpret and enforce the Constitution, the campaign for equal marriage offers examples and tools that dedicated citizens can use to make constitutional meaning.The episode also confronts an uncomfortable question: If popular pressure can produce a ruling you love, like Obergefell, it can produce one you might not, like the court's decision to enshrine an individual right to bear arms in 2008's D.C. v. Heller. Dahlia and Mark discuss what happens when popular constitutionalism is retrofitted as originalism, and why no constitutional win, no matter how popular, is ever truly permanent.By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Long before the Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell ruling on equal marriage in 2015, activists were canvassing door-to-door, courting any lawmaker who would listen, and losing at the local level—a lot. Their scrappy determination helped convince family members, neighbors and eventually the rest of the country that the Constitution's guarantees of liberty and equality applied to same-sex couples. In Episode 3 of By the People, equal marriage campaign architect Marc Solomon joins Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to trace the movement's "quixotic" beginnings in 2001. As this series continues to explore how ordinary Americans—not just nine justices—can interpret and enforce the Constitution, the campaign for equal marriage offers examples and tools that dedicated citizens can use to make constitutional meaning.The episode also confronts an uncomfortable question: If popular pressure can produce a ruling you love, like Obergefell, it can produce one you might not, like the court's decision to enshrine an individual right to bear arms in 2008's D.C. v. Heller. Dahlia and Mark discuss what happens when popular constitutionalism is retrofitted as originalism, and why no constitutional win, no matter how popular, is ever truly permanent.By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1867, an 8-year-old girl named Elizabeth Turner became the epicenter of a legal battle that would help define what freedom really meant after the Civil War. Days after Maryland abolished slavery, her former enslaver had her re-indentured under a sham "apprenticeship" law used to seize Black children. Elizabeth's mother—and thousands of other parents—refused to accept it. In this second episode of By the People, legal scholar Lyle Cherneff guides Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern through a Union Army general's archive of letters that documented the plight of Black parents who petitioned, marched, and filed habeas corpus claims to win their children back. These parents read the new constitutional guarantees of freedom for themselves, and demanded they be enforced, long before any Supreme Court told them what those words meant.The resulting case, In re: Turner, helped end the practice of racialized child "apprenticeship" and shaped the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments. But the parents who fought for it were nearly written out of the story. In this episode, we seek to restore that record, tracing a direct line from their fight to ordinary Americans' resistance to ICE raids today. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1867, an 8-year-old girl named Elizabeth Turner became the epicenter of a legal battle that would help define what freedom really meant after the Civil War. Days after Maryland abolished slavery, her former enslaver had her re-indentured under a sham "apprenticeship" law used to seize Black children. Elizabeth's mother—and thousands of other parents—refused to accept it. In this second episode of By the People, legal scholar Lyle Cherneff guides Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern through a Union Army general's archive of letters that documented the plight of Black parents who petitioned, marched, and filed habeas corpus claims to win their children back. These parents read the new constitutional guarantees of freedom for themselves, and demanded they be enforced, long before any Supreme Court told them what those words meant.The resulting case, In re: Turner, helped end the practice of racialized child "apprenticeship" and shaped the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments. But the parents who fought for it were nearly written out of the story. In this episode, we seek to restore that record, tracing a direct line from their fight to ordinary Americans' resistance to ICE raids today. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1867, an 8-year-old girl named Elizabeth Turner became the epicenter of a legal battle that would help define what freedom really meant after the Civil War. Days after Maryland abolished slavery, her former enslaver had her re-indentured under a sham "apprenticeship" law used to seize Black children. Elizabeth's mother—and thousands of other parents—refused to accept it. In this second episode of By the People, legal scholar Lyle Cherneff guides Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern through a Union Army general's archive of letters that documented the plight of Black parents who petitioned, marched, and filed habeas corpus claims to win their children back. These parents read the new constitutional guarantees of freedom for themselves, and demanded they be enforced, long before any Supreme Court told them what those words meant.The resulting case, In re: Turner, helped end the practice of racialized child "apprenticeship" and shaped the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments. But the parents who fought for it were nearly written out of the story. In this episode, we seek to restore that record, tracing a direct line from their fight to ordinary Americans' resistance to ICE raids today. By the People is Slate's end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the better part of two centuries of U.S. history, the American people understood that they—and not the Supreme Court—were the final arbiters of the Constitution. But in recent decades, nine unelected justices have claimed that mantle for themselves. Now, with the high court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy crumbling, an urgent question must be answered: Can "We the People" restore our power to interpret the Constitution—and if so, how?In the first installment of the series By the People, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern try to find out how and when this notion of judicial supremacy took over, with the help of Larry Kramer, legal scholar and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the better part of two centuries of U.S. history, the American people understood that they—and not the Supreme Court—were the final arbiters of the Constitution. But in recent decades, nine unelected justices have claimed that mantle for themselves. Now, with the high court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy crumbling, an urgent question must be answered: Can "We the People" restore our power to interpret the Constitution—and if so, how?In the first installment of the series By the People, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern try to find out how and when this notion of judicial supremacy took over, with the help of Larry Kramer, legal scholar and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the better part of two centuries of U.S. history, the American people understood that they—and not the Supreme Court—were the final arbiters of the Constitution. But in recent decades, nine unelected justices have claimed that mantle for themselves. Now, with the high court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy crumbling, an urgent question must be answered: Can "We the People" restore our power to interpret the Constitution—and if so, how?In the first installment of the series By the People, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern try to find out how and when this notion of judicial supremacy took over, with the help of Larry Kramer, legal scholar and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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 just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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.

Bill talks with Slate's Dahlia Lithwick about the Supreme Court's 2025–26 term, arguing it is decisively the Roberts Court and increasingly deferential to President Trump, especially through heavy reliance on the shadow docket, where Trump has won many emergency orders without signed opinions or reasoning. They discuss major rulings: a narrow outcome on birthright citizenship that Lithwick warns could be revisited; a decision granting broad presidential immunity; decisions expanding presidential power to fire heads of independent agencies; and immigration rulings allowing removal of Haitian and Syrian immigrants' Temporary Protected Status and restricting asylum. Lithwick also highlights Voting Rights Act and redistricting decisions, expanded campaign spending, and a tariffs loss for Trump tied to economic stability concerns. Press closes urging Democrats to win the Senate to block future Court appointments.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's our annual Supreme Court term wrap-up. To break down a term marked by juggernaut victories for the conservative legal movement—as well as a few key losses for Trump—Harry is joined by Amy Howe, Dahlia Lithwick, and Steve Vladeck. They break down the biggest cases and spotlight several overlooked decisions with enormous long-term consequences for executive power, immigration, and the structure of the American government itself. Finally, the trio looks ahead to the next term and posits ways to restrain a runaway court. Mentioned in this episode:Amy's reporting: https://www.scotusblog.com/author/amy-howe/Dahlia's reporting: https://slate.com/author/dahlia-lithwickSteve's Substack: https://www.stevevladeck.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court just wrapped the term with a blitz of extremely consequential decisions, and the smoke hasn't cleared yet. (In fact, it's looming like a dark storm cloud over our Fourth of July and America 250th festivities…) In this week's episode, cohosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern focus on two of the term's bleakest legacies: first, the court's catastrophically bad use of history and second, the demise of independent agencies. They discuss the court's 6–3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which was rooted in shoddy originalism and reckless disregard for how an accountable democratic government actually functions. Meanwhile, the dissenters in Trump v. Barbara would have weaponized bogus history to end birthright citizenship for millions. To unpack this, Dahlia and Mark sit down with two law professors: Sam Bagenstos of the University of Michigan and a former general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Jed Shugerman of Boston University (whom Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson cited this week). They deconstruct the myriad ways in which the high court ultimately embarrassed itself, history, and truth, with decisions that will affect millions of Americans for years to come.Slate Plus members! Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on Friday, July 10th at noon EDT. Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick will be in conversation with Professors Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Our Pluskateers can sign up to be in the live, online audience for this special end-of-term conversation. Go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. (Psst: Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.com)This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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 just wrapped the term with a blitz of extremely consequential decisions, and the smoke hasn't cleared yet. (In fact, it's looming like a dark storm cloud over our Fourth of July and America 250th festivities…) In this week's episode, cohosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern focus on two of the term's bleakest legacies: first, the court's catastrophically bad use of history and second, the demise of independent agencies. They discuss the court's 6–3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which was rooted in shoddy originalism and reckless disregard for how an accountable democratic government actually functions. Meanwhile, the dissenters in Trump v. Barbara would have weaponized bogus history to end birthright citizenship for millions. To unpack this, Dahlia and Mark sit down with two law professors: Sam Bagenstos of the University of Michigan and a former general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Jed Shugerman of Boston University (whom Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson cited this week). They deconstruct the myriad ways in which the high court ultimately embarrassed itself, history, and truth, with decisions that will affect millions of Americans for years to come.Slate Plus members! Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on Friday, July 10th at noon EDT. Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick will be in conversation with Professors Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Our Pluskateers can sign up to be in the live, online audience for this special end-of-term conversation. Go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. (Psst: Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.com)This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least. On the second to last day of this term, the court's right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren't quite ready to hand the nation's credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices' fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won't be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock 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.

For the final episode of The Al Franken Podcast, we're joined one last time by our good friend Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor at Slate and host of the Amicus podcast! As we await the Supreme Court's remaining decisions, we turn to Dahlia to recap a bleak judicial term, including the decisions to gut the Voting Rights Act, strip immigrants of their Temporary Protected Status, and expel transgender servicemembers from the military.Dahlia and Al look past the mainstream media's narrative of a "moderate" bench to reveal an institution deeply aligned with MAGA's political playbook that continues to make way for an imperial presidency. On a more hopeful note, Dahlia offers a blueprint for how regular citizens can find their lane and fight back from the ground up. Dahlia issues a call for Americans to move past "learned helplessness" to dismantle the cult of the Court and return constitutional power to the people.LISTEN to Dahlia's podcast, Amicus:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/amicus-with-dahlia-lithwick-law-justice-and-the-courts/id928790786READ Dahlia in Slate Magazine: https://slate.com/author/dahlia-lithwick

Donald Trump ran for office threatening to use mass deportations, closed borders, and emergency wartime powers to “clean up” American immigration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority gifted him with two stunning victories in that crusade—effectively reshaping life for more than a million people living in the country with temporary protected status, or TPS, and forcing asylum seekers to jump through increasingly impossible new hoops. Those decisions came on the heels of Tuesday's chilling news for green card holders who might want to travel outside the United States in the form of Blanche v. Lau, where that same 6-3 majority ruled that border officers don't need clear and convincing evidence of a crime before throwing permanent residents into legal limbo.On today's show: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern talk with Andrea Flores, founder of Securing America's Promise and a policy veteran of the White House, National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Senate. Together, they unpack the decisions that made this one of most consequential weeks for immigration law in recent memory. And they note the central theme emerging from SCOTUS' right-wing supermajority in perfect symmetry with Trumpism: When MAGA does explicit racism, SCOTUS goes conveniently colorblind, as with Justice Alito's refusal to find racial animus in Trump's statements about Haitians. The episode closes with a look ahead to next week's birthright citizenship ruling and why, whatever the outcome, it cannot be allowed to obscure what happened this week.The term will wrap next week and Amicus will bring you extra episodes and clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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.

Donald Trump ran for office threatening to use mass deportations, closed borders, and emergency wartime powers to “clean up” American immigration. On Thursday, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority gifted him with two stunning victories in that crusade—effectively reshaping life for more than a million people living in the country with temporary protected status, or TPS, and forcing asylum seekers to jump through increasingly impossible new hoops. Those decisions came on the heels of Tuesday's chilling news for green card holders who might want to travel outside the United States in the form of Blanche v. Lau, where that same 6-3 majority ruled that border officers don't need clear and convincing evidence of a crime before throwing permanent residents into legal limbo.On today's show: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern talk with Andrea Flores, founder of Securing America's Promise and a policy veteran of the White House, National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Senate. Together, they unpack the decisions that made this one of most consequential weeks for immigration law in recent memory. And they note the central theme emerging from SCOTUS' right-wing supermajority in perfect symmetry with Trumpism: When MAGA does explicit racism, SCOTUS goes conveniently colorblind, as with Justice Alito's refusal to find racial animus in Trump's statements about Haitians. The episode closes with a look ahead to next week's birthright citizenship ruling and why, whatever the outcome, it cannot be allowed to obscure what happened this week.The term will wrap next week and Amicus will bring you extra episodes and clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today's truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that's marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS. Later: Why Justice Alito's rejoinder to Justice Sotomayor's dissent wasn't just a crappy birthday present, but also the latest breach of decorum at the high court.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock 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 exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today's truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that's marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS. Later: Why Justice Alito's rejoinder to Justice Sotomayor's dissent wasn't just a crappy birthday present, but also the latest breach of decorum at the high court.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock 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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices' posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? 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.