Podcasts about law justice

Planned Parenthood recently sued Missouri to wipe the state's pro-life laws off the books. April Wood from the 40 Days for Life Institute of Law & Justice was deputized to represent Missouri in the case, which revealed a LOT about Planned Parenthood. From moldy abortion equipment to an abortionist who admitted unborn children are living to the chilling remark that gave April goosebumps, learn all about America's biggest abortion chain on this episode of The 40 Days for Life Podcast.

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. 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. 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. 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 494. This is my interview by Alex Buxeda of at Schweizer Monat [Swiss Monthly; linktree]; recorded June 22, 2026. Youtube shownotes: Stephan Kinsella, patent attorney, legal theorist, and one of the leading critics of intellectual property sits with Alex Buxeda to explore whether ideas can be owned. Starting from first principles, they discuss why Kinsella argues that patents and copyrights are incompatible with property rights, the role of scarcity in economics, innovation without intellectual property, pharmaceutical patents, entrepreneurship, pricing, and the philosophical foundations of ownership. Grok summary: We discussed why intellectual property is fundamentally incompatible with genuine property rights. Stephan Kinsella argued that patents and copyrights are not legitimate property but state-granted monopolies that violate real ownership of scarce, physical resources. He explained that ideas and knowledge are non-scarce and non-rivalrous — one person's use does not prevent another's — so enforcing IP requires aggression against others' tangible property. We explored the flaws in common justifications for patents (especially in pharmaceuticals), the arbitrary nature of IP law, the myth that “creation” grants ownership, and how free competition and open knowledge flows drive far more innovation than government-protected monopolies. Kinsella also addressed the ethics of piracy, the distorting effects of the FDA and tariffs, and why emerging technologies like 3D printing and AI will increasingly undermine IP systems. https://youtu.be/Q4SD8pmpv1U?si=gtx2KN2CcsAbIl5s Related links/publications (Grok assist) For further discussion of the issues raised in this conversation, see the following resources by Stephan Kinsella, grouped by topic: Core Case Against IP & Property Rights Fundamentals Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) — Kinsella's foundational monograph making the case that patents and copyrights are incompatible with libertarian property rights based on scarcity and homesteading. The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025) — A comprehensive recent paper arguing that IP rights are unjust state-granted monopolies that violate legitimate property rights in scarce resources. Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (2022) — Updated reflections on the original arguments, addressing common objections and developments since 2001. Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes (2011) — Argues that IP functions as non-consensual negative servitudes on others' physical property, violating true property rights. Another Way to Explain the Problem with IP: Resources v. Knowledge; Ownership v. Possession (2017) — Clear distinction between scarce resources (subject to ownership) and non-scarce knowledge/ideas. The Prior-Later Distinction (2026) — Clarifies the foundational role of first-use (prior appropriation) in property rights theory. Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property? (2025) — Examines (and rejects) attempts to unify real and intellectual property conceptually. Scarcity, Ideas, Labor Theory & Creationism Critiques Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property (2010) — Explains why ideas and knowledge are non-scarce and why libertarians were mistaken in supporting IP. Libertarian Lockean Creationism (2025) — Critique of the mistaken “creation” theory of property rights often used to defend IP. Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Locke's Big Mistake (Transcript) (2013) Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic Labor Metaphor (2011) On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse (2011) Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors (2008) How We Come to Own Ourselves (2006) — Explains self-ownership and original appropriation, central to why IP conflicts with libertarian property theory. Superabundant Bananas & Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession (2025) — Further clarification on scarcity, superabundance, and the nature of property rights. Pharmaceuticals, FDA & Market Distortions Patents and Pharmaceuticals (2023) Are Patents Needed to Make Up for FDA Kneecapping? (2011) FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal (2023) Milton Friedman on the Distorting Effect of Patents (2011) Drug Reimportation (2009) — Discussion of reimportation, free trade, and how patents distort pharmaceutical pricing. Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin (2012) — Critique of simplistic patent policy arguments. KOL469 | Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation Practical & Reform Topics Do Business Without Intellectual Property (2014) How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law (2011) The American Invents Act and Patent Reform (2011) IP Law and Market Failure (2022) Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (2012/2021) — Critique of common fallacious pro-IP arguments. Copyright Absurdities & Other Examples Libraries Prepare to Burn Foreign Books, Courtesy Copyright Law (2011) — Striking example of the absurd real-world effects of copyright enforcement. Historical Libertarian & Objectivist Views on IP Rothbard and the Galambosians (2005) — Discussion of extreme pro-IP views within libertarian circles and Rothbard's perspective. The Galambosians Strike Back (2015) Around This Time I Met the Galambosian (2013) Rand Chose IP: Death Over Life (2025) — Critique of Ayn Rand's strong support for IP. IP: The Objectivists Strike Back (2009) — Response to Objectivist defenses of IP. Why Objectivists Hate Anarchy (2009) — Broader context on Objectivist-libertarian tensions, including IP. Purpose of Law, Schizophrenic State & Broader Theory The Purpose of Law: Justice and Property Rights (2026) The Schizophrenic State (2006) — Classic piece on the contradictory nature of state actions regarding monopolies and competition. Foundational Libertarian Theory Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023) Disentangling Legal and Economic Concepts (2025) The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (2024) A Libertarian Theory of Contract (2003) What Libertarianism Is (2009) Recent Audio/Lectures KOL489 | The Problem with Intellectual Property (Audio) (2026) KOL483 | The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property (2026) KOL491 | Trying to Persuade Paul Cwik of the Case Against IP KOL253 | Berkeley Fed Soc: Libertarian's Case Against IP KOL469 | Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation These resources expand on the core themes of scarcity versus ideas, negative servitudes, pharmaceutical patent issues, market distortions, FDA interactions, practical business strategies, Locke's labor theory mistakes, contract theory, self-ownership, metaphors in discourse, Objectivist views on IP, the purpose of law, and libertarian first principles discussed in the interview. Shownotes (Grok) Podcast Shownotes Episode Title: Stephan Kinsella: Why Intellectual Property is Incompatible with Property Rights Guest: Stephan Kinsella (retired patent attorney & libertarian legal theorist) Host: Alex Buxeda Episode Summary Stephan Kinsella delivers a rigorous, first-principles critique of patents and copyright. He argues that IP is not property at all, but a government-granted monopoly that violates genuine property rights in scarce resources. Drawing on Austrian economics and libertarian ethics, he explains why ideas are non-scarce, why IP slows innovation, and why free markets and competition are superior engines of progress. A clear, uncompromising defense of abolishing intellectual property. Total Runtime: ~1 hour 22 minutes Key Topics & Timestamps 0:00 – Introduction and Practical Market Realities Kinsella begins by noting that entrepreneurs can use strategies like loss leaders and price discrimination, but cartels and monopolies are hard to sustain due to competition and cheating — setting the stage for his deeper critique of state-enforced monopolies like IP. 1:00 – Kinsella's Journey from Pro-IP to Abolitionist As a former patent attorney and lifelong libertarian, Kinsella originally accepted Ayn Rand's defense of IP. After deep study while practicing patent law, he concluded that IP is literally unjustifiable and incompatible with property rights. This realization forced him to refine his understanding of libertarian property theory, relying more heavily on Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. 4:22 – Core Argument: Scarcity, Property Rights, and Why Ideas Are Not Property Property rights exist solely to resolve conflicts over scarce, rivalrous resources. Ideas and knowledge are non-scarce — one person's use does not prevent another's simultaneous use. Granting IP rights therefore requires using force against others' legitimate physical property (factories, printers, materials), creating artificial conflict rather than resolving it. IP is not ownership of information; it is a negative servitude on real property. 14:55 – The Pharmaceutical Patent Defense and Why It Fails Kinsella directly refutes the claim that expensive R&D requires patents. High drug costs stem primarily from FDA regulation, not invention. Patents create monopoly pricing and slow knowledge diffusion, which is the true source of long-term progress. He criticizes utilitarian “market failure” arguments, arbitrary patent terms, and the state's schizophrenic approach (granting monopolies via patents while attacking monopolies via antitrust). Free markets naturally reward first movers with temporary profits before competition drives prices down. 31:45 – Arbitrariness of IP and the Myth of “Creation” as a Source of Rights Patent and copyright durations are completely arbitrary....

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

The Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States' framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It's a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. 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 Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States' framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It's a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. 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.

One of the challenges of modern legal journalism is recalling that case law, doctrine, and Supreme Court decisions aren't a complete picture, without including the lived realities of the people whose lives and communities are often turned upside down by changes in the law.On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court's far-right flank vastly expanded its holding in Louisiana v. Callais to make it harder, if not impossible, to challenge racist voting maps designed to suppress Black votes. The shadow-docket decision misrepresented its own holding in Callais and discarded a case it had already decided. With the conservative supermajority tossing a lower-court panel's finding in Allen v. Milligan and further erasing voting rights for Black Americans across the country, Amicus revisits our 2022 conversation with Evan Milligan, the named plaintiff, at the time the case first came to the high court. Milligan explained what's at stake for the very real people living in gerrymandered districts in Alabama's Black Belt region; a gerrymander blessed this week that was forbidden just three years ago.Later, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Andrew Weissmann, an MS NOW legal analyst, NYU law professor, and veteran federal prosecutor who served as lead prosecutor under special counsel Robert S. Mueller and as chief of the DOJ's Fraud Section. Even with Opinionpalooza heating up at the high court, Weissmann pauses to analyze a busy week in democratic dismantling at the Justice Department and on Capitol Hill. And, Weissmann proposes something truly shocking— real accountability for public officials who lie, as laid out in his new bestselling book, Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. 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.

One of the challenges of modern legal journalism is recalling that case law, doctrine, and Supreme Court decisions aren't a complete picture, without including the lived realities of the people whose lives and communities are often turned upside down by changes in the law.On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court's far-right flank vastly expanded its holding in Louisiana v. Callais to make it harder, if not impossible, to challenge racist voting maps designed to suppress Black votes. The shadow-docket decision misrepresented its own holding in Callais and discarded a case it had already decided. With the conservative supermajority tossing a lower-court panel's finding in Allen v. Milligan and further erasing voting rights for Black Americans across the country, Amicus revisits our 2022 conversation with Evan Milligan, the named plaintiff, at the time the case first came to the high court. Milligan explained what's at stake for the very real people living in gerrymandered districts in Alabama's Black Belt region; a gerrymander blessed this week that was forbidden just three years ago.Later, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Andrew Weissmann, an MS NOW legal analyst, NYU law professor, and veteran federal prosecutor who served as lead prosecutor under special counsel Robert S. Mueller and as chief of the DOJ's Fraud Section. Even with Opinionpalooza heating up at the high court, Weissmann pauses to analyze a busy week in democratic dismantling at the Justice Department and on Capitol Hill. And, Weissmann proposes something truly shocking— real accountability for public officials who lie, as laid out in his new bestselling book, Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. 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's Republican-appointed justices seem to be in a big rush to dismantle voting rights for non-white people. On Tuesday night, the right-wing supermajority handed down an unsigned shadow docket order that greenlights racial gerrymandering in Alabama and dramatically undermines voting rights protections nationwide. In this Opinionpalooza bonus episode exclusively for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern examine the details of the case. They also explore how we got here, and what this court's jurisprudential arrogance and voracious appetite for power means for democracy itself. By approving racially discriminatory maps, the high court's MAGA wing has exposed its willingness to rewrite long established legal rules in darkness—without transparency or accountability. This order also reveals a disturbing disregard for extensive factual findings from lower courts—and flips the legal terrain for voting rights from protection to peril.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.

The Supreme Court's Republican-appointed justices seem to be in a big rush to dismantle voting rights for non-white people. On Tuesday night, the right-wing supermajority handed down an unsigned shadow docket order that greenlights racial gerrymandering in Alabama and dramatically undermines voting rights protections nationwide. In this Opinionpalooza bonus episode exclusively for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern examine the details of the case. They also explore how we got here, and what this court's jurisprudential arrogance and voracious appetite for power means for democracy itself. By approving racially discriminatory maps, the high court's MAGA wing has exposed its willingness to rewrite long established legal rules in darkness—without transparency or accountability. This order also reveals a disturbing disregard for extensive factual findings from lower courts—and flips the legal terrain for voting rights from protection to peril.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.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, Slate's dynamic legal duo, preview the final weeks of the Supreme Court term. It's a “three-ring circus”: the merits docket, the shadow docket, and the justices' increasingly public intramural snipings and gripes. Dahlia and Mark take a look back at the major decisions the court has issued so far this term on global tariffs, conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors, and of course Callais, which gutted the Voting Rights Act and is supercharging gerrymandering ahead of the midterms. Then, Dahlia and Mark look ahead to the blockbuster decisions expected in the coming weeks: birthright citizenship, immigration cases involving temporary protected status and green card holders, executive power fights over the firing of the Fed's Lisa Cook and independent agency officials, and election cases that could dramatically change campaign finance laws and the counting of mail-in ballots.Next, they explain the court's flurry of opaque shadow docket orders—and what it means for immigration enforcement, to impoundment, trans rights, access to abortion medication, and redistricting. Finally, Dahlia and Mark parse the leaks and personal attacks that have spilled out into public from the usually tight-lipped confines of One First Street, and why this Supreme Court is fueling a newfound appetite for court reform among Americans.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.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, Slate's dynamic legal duo, preview the final weeks of the Supreme Court term. It's a “three-ring circus”: the merits docket, the shadow docket, and the justices' increasingly public intramural snipings and gripes. Dahlia and Mark take a look back at the major decisions the court has issued so far this term on global tariffs, conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors, and of course Callais, which gutted the Voting Rights Act and is supercharging gerrymandering ahead of the midterms. Then, Dahlia and Mark look ahead to the blockbuster decisions expected in the coming weeks: birthright citizenship, immigration cases involving temporary protected status and green card holders, executive power fights over the firing of the Fed's Lisa Cook and independent agency officials, and election cases that could dramatically change campaign finance laws and the counting of mail-in ballots.Next, they explain the court's flurry of opaque shadow docket orders—and what it means for immigration enforcement, to impoundment, trans rights, access to abortion medication, and redistricting. Finally, Dahlia and Mark parse the leaks and personal attacks that have spilled out into public from the usually tight-lipped confines of One First Street, and why this Supreme Court is fueling a newfound appetite for court reform among Americans.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.

Donald Trump's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" settlement fund has stunned legal experts—not just because it's corrupt, but because of how skillfully and transparently it is designed to protect the Trump Family and reward loyalists. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick brings together two of the sharpest observers of Trump-era lawlessness to map exactly what this is and why it matters.J.P. Cooney, a career federal prosecutor and former top deputy in Jack Smith's special counsel's office, explains how President Trump sued his own IRS as a private party, settled the case through attorneys who have also been his personal lawyers, and then secured an addendum—signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—immunizing Trump and his family from any IRS audit or tax-enforcement proceeding. Cooney calls it "practiced, skillful corruption". As Investigative journalist Andrea Bernstein, host of The Law According to Trump, author of American Oligarchs, and a veteran of five Trump trials, points out, this settlement enshrines Trumpian language— such as "unlawful raid at Mar-a-Lago" and "Russia collusion hoax"—in official U.S. government documents. Bernstein says it's vital to be clear about who stands to receive payouts: people convicted of seditious conspiracy, assaulting Capitol police officers, and other crimes they admitted to in open court. Cooney and Bernstein agree this fund doesn't just reward insurrection—it incentivizes future violence, chills legitimate dissent, and systematically erases the historical record of Jan. 6. Later, Slate executive editor Susan Matthews joins to preview the new season of Slow Burn, Becoming Justice Gorsuch—and explain why the most anonymous justice on the court is so pivotal to understanding the power and the politics of the highest court in the land. Un-paywalled episodes' description:Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" settlement fund has stunned legal experts—not just because it's corrupt, but because of how skillfully and transparently it is designed to protect the Trump Family and reward loyalists. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick brings together two of the sharpest observers of Trump-era lawlessness to map exactly what this is and why it matters.J.P. Cooney, a career federal prosecutor and former top deputy in Jack Smith's special counsel's office, explains how President Trump sued his own IRS as a private party, settled the case through attorneys who have also been his personal lawyers, and then secured an addendum—signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—immunizing Trump and his family from any IRS audit or tax-enforcement proceeding. Cooney calls it "practiced, skillful corruption". As Investigative journalist Andrea Bernstein, host of The Law According to Trump, author of American Oligarchs, and a veteran of five Trump trials, points out, this settlement enshrines Trumpian language— such as "unlawful raid at Mar-a-Lago" and "Russia collusion hoax"—in official U.S. government documents. Bernstein says it's vital to be clear about who stands to receive payouts: people convicted of seditious conspiracy, assaulting Capitol police officers, and other crimes they admitted to in open court. Cooney and Bernstein agree this fund doesn't just reward insurrection—it incentivizes future violence, chills legitimate dissent, and systematically erases the historical record of Jan. 6. Later, Slate executive editor Susan Matthews joins to preview the new season of Slow Burn, Becoming Justice Gorsuch—and explain why the most anonymous justice on the court is so pivotal to understanding the power and the politics of the highest court in the land. Un-paywalled episodes' description:Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Amicus, hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern break down a whirlwind stretch of reproductive rights legal battles, from the Fifth Circuit's sweeping nationwide ban on telehealth medication abortion, to the Supreme Court's emergency order blocking it. Madiba Dennie (Deputy Editor, Balls and Strikes; and author of The Originalism Trap) joins to explain what the furious dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito reveal about where this is all headed.Then, Dahlia sits down with writer, activist, and former NARAL president Ilyse Hogue for a wide-ranging conversation about why the assault on medication abortion and the assault on voting rights are the same fight — and why progressives keep losing the narrative battle even when public opinion and shared values are on their side. They also discuss an overlooked but hugely significant win for free speech in the Media Matters v. FTC case, and why fighting back against government bullying matters more than ever.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 week on Amicus, hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern break down a whirlwind stretch of reproductive rights legal battles, from the Fifth Circuit's sweeping nationwide ban on telehealth medication abortion, to the Supreme Court's emergency order blocking it. Madiba Dennie (Deputy Editor, Balls and Strikes; and author of The Originalism Trap) joins to explain what the furious dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito reveal about where this is all headed.Then, Dahlia sits down with writer, activist, and former NARAL president Ilyse Hogue for a wide-ranging conversation about why the assault on medication abortion and the assault on voting rights are the same fight — and why progressives keep losing the narrative battle even when public opinion and shared values are on their side. They also discuss an overlooked but hugely significant win for free speech in the Media Matters v. FTC case, and why fighting back against government bullying matters more than ever.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.

Over the last few years, there's been an undeniable uptick in threats against American judges and their families: they've been doxxed, swatted, even killed. Many jurists are not all that comfortable having conversations around these threats. This reluctance to respond publicly is understandable, but it's also depriving us of a critical perspective from the very people this affects. This week on Amicus, that changes: Two judges sat down with us to talk openly about what often goes unsaid. Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with sitting U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington Judge Robert S. Lasnik, and Judge Jeremy Fogel, a former U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California and current Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute. They acknowledge that there's a long history of judges being threatened, but point out that it's usually not coming from the President and his Department of Justice. We're in uncharted territory, and Judges Lasnik and Fogel are bravely opening up about what this volatility means for an independent judiciary, and what we should do about 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.

Over the last few years, there's been an undeniable uptick in threats against American judges and their families: they've been doxxed, swatted, even killed. Many jurists are not all that comfortable having conversations around these threats. This reluctance to respond publicly is understandable, but it's also depriving us of a critical perspective from the very people this affects. This week on Amicus, that changes: Two judges sat down with us to talk openly about what often goes unsaid. Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with sitting U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington Judge Robert S. Lasnik, and Judge Jeremy Fogel, a former U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California and current Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute. They acknowledge that there's a long history of judges being threatened, but point out that it's usually not coming from the President and his Department of Justice. We're in uncharted territory, and Judges Lasnik and Fogel are bravely opening up about what this volatility means for an independent judiciary, and what we should do about 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.

Dahlia Lithwick reviews what has been an “exceptionally bad week” for American democracy. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade explains why the charges against former FBI director James Comey, rooted in the claim that he threatened to kill President Trump – via the medium of seashells on Instagram – are unlikely to stick, no matter how hard Trump's Acting (and actively auditioning) Attorney General Todd Blanche tries. A deleted insta post from a beach in North Carolina is just not going to meet the Supreme Court's true-threat standard as laid out in Counterman v Colorado. But actually, landing a conviction is not the point, McQuade says –– Blanche has learned from Trump's longstanding legal playbook that he can always win by losing. And that's why she is also closely watching the DOJ's indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center under a dubious fraud theory, warning that Blanche is both more skilled and more ruthless in using prosecutions for political ends, with few accountability mechanisms beyond potential disbarment. McQuade's new book, The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government is available for pre-order now. Next, Dahlia discusses this week's devastating SCOTUS decision in Louisiana v Callais with Madiba Dennie who explains how Justice Alito and the 6-3 Republican supermajority set about hollowing out Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, inviting states to redraw maps and entrench racial disenfranchisement, all under the cover of historically distorted “originalism.”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.

Dahlia Lithwick reviews what has been an “exceptionally bad week” for American democracy. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade explains why the charges against former FBI director James Comey, rooted in the claim that he threatened to kill President Trump – via the medium of seashells on Instagram – are unlikely to stick, no matter how hard Trump's Acting (and actively auditioning) Attorney General Todd Blanche tries. A deleted insta post from a beach in North Carolina is just not going to meet the Supreme Court's true-threat standard as laid out in Counterman v Colorado. But actually, landing a conviction is not the point, McQuade says –– Blanche has learned from Trump's longstanding legal playbook that he can always win by losing. And that's why she is also closely watching the DOJ's indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center under a dubious fraud theory, warning that Blanche is both more skilled and more ruthless in using prosecutions for political ends, with few accountability mechanisms beyond potential disbarment. McQuade's new book, The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government is available for pre-order now. Next, Dahlia discusses this week's devastating SCOTUS decision in Louisiana v Callais with Madiba Dennie who explains how Justice Alito and the 6-3 Republican supermajority set about hollowing out Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, inviting states to redraw maps and entrench racial disenfranchisement, all under the cover of historically distorted “originalism.”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.

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.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.

On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the latest, probably lethal blow in the Supreme Court's decades-long campaign against multi-racial democracy in America, with a 6-3 majority opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais. In this special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights law organization. Nelson argued Louisiana v. Callais before the United States Supreme Court in October of 2025. Together, they examine the history ignored by the right wing majority, and look ahead to the disastrous consequences this ruling unleashes on American democracy, from school boards all the way to the halls of congress.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.

As journalists, a-listers, and some of the most vociferous critics of journalism from the Trump administration gather for the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Dahlia Lithwick tackles the president and his allies' tactics to chill the press and undermine the First Amendment. In conversation with Guardian columnist and former New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan she explores the Trump administration's use of meritless, high-dollar defamation suits, focusing on FBI Director Kash Patel's $250 million lawsuit lodged against The Atlantic this week. Sullivan links democratic decline to media decline, citing oligarch ownership, consolidation, weakened local news, reduced public media, and corporate leaders' capitulation via settlements and editorial interference.Margaret's newsletter, American Crisis can be found here: margaretsullivan.substack.com/Next, Dahlia and co-host Mark Joseph Stern examine New York Times' reporting on leaked Supreme Court memos showing the 2016 Clean Power Plan stay as a pivotal shadow docket moment that perfectly illustrates how activity on the shadow docket is driven by institutional grievance rather than legal urgency. They also dissect Trump's renewed attacks on the justices despite their frequent support for his agenda.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.

As journalists, a-listers, and some of the most vociferous critics of journalism from the Trump administration gather for the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Dahlia Lithwick tackles the president and his allies' tactics to chill the press and undermine the First Amendment. In conversation with Guardian columnist and former New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan she explores the Trump administration's use of meritless, high-dollar defamation suits, focusing on FBI Director Kash Patel's $250 million lawsuit lodged against The Atlantic this week. Sullivan links democratic decline to media decline, citing oligarch ownership, consolidation, weakened local news, reduced public media, and corporate leaders' capitulation via settlements and editorial interference.Margaret's newsletter, American Crisis can be found here: margaretsullivan.substack.com/Next, Dahlia and co-host Mark Joseph Stern examine New York Times' reporting on leaked Supreme Court memos showing the 2016 Clean Power Plan stay as a pivotal shadow docket moment that perfectly illustrates how activity on the shadow docket is driven by institutional grievance rather than legal urgency. They also dissect Trump's renewed attacks on the justices despite their frequent support for his agenda.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.

Hungary's autocratic creep was turned back at the ballot box last weekend, in a stark rebuke to the forces of illiberalism and to the American conservatives who invested so heavily in former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban's mission. It's good news. But it's not the end of the story. It behoves pro-democracy forces in the United States to move past the example of democratic resilience in Hungary to real, systemic change to the machinery of American democracy. On this week's Amicus podcast, Norm Eisen, former ambassador and current democracy warrior (as founder of www.democracydefendersfund.org), tells Dahlia Lithwick that America's response to Trumpism starts with protecting the rule of law, safeguarding elections, and strangling corruption—the three pillars of a genuine democratic recovery. The key isn't just fixing courts or passing reforms—it's about building a democratic coalition based on simple, clear issues. As Democrats dare to dream of what may be possible in a post-Trump America, it's time to start making concrete, workable plans. This week's show highlights the roadmap out of autocracy, through coalitions, court reform, and corruption-busting. 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.

Hungary's autocratic creep was turned back at the ballot box last weekend, in a stark rebuke to the forces of illiberalism and to the American conservatives who invested so heavily in former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban's mission. It's good news. But it's not the end of the story. It behoves pro-democracy forces in the United States to move past the example of democratic resilience in Hungary to real, systemic change to the machinery of American democracy. On this week's Amicus podcast, Norm Eisen, former ambassador and current democracy warrior (as founder of www.democracydefendersfund.org), tells Dahlia Lithwick that America's response to Trumpism starts with protecting the rule of law, safeguarding elections, and strangling corruption—the three pillars of a genuine democratic recovery. The key isn't just fixing courts or passing reforms—it's about building a democratic coalition based on simple, clear issues. As Democrats dare to dream of what may be possible in a post-Trump America, it's time to start making concrete, workable plans. This week's show highlights the roadmap out of autocracy, through coalitions, court reform, and corruption-busting. 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 events of the past week have revealed a terrifying disconnect between the constitutional remedies available to us and the gravity of the threats posed by an utterly unfit President with his finger on the nuclear button. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick turns to two experts on impeachment and the 25th Amendment: Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Professor Michael Gerhardt. Each has been at the very epicenter of democratic attempts to access the constitutional tools demanded by this moment. Rep. Raskin explains the urgent update needed to bolster the 25th amendment, and Professor Gerhardt explains the value of impeachment, even in lieu of conviction and removal, and why right now is high time to try Trump for high crimes. 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 events of the past week have revealed a terrifying disconnect between the constitutional remedies available to us and the gravity of the threats posed by an utterly unfit President with his finger on the nuclear button. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick turns to two experts on impeachment and the 25th Amendment: Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Professor Michael Gerhardt. Each has been at the very epicenter of democratic attempts to access the constitutional tools demanded by this moment. Rep. Raskin explains the urgent update needed to bolster the 25th amendment, and Professor Gerhardt explains the value of impeachment, even in lieu of conviction and removal, and why right now is high time to try Trump for high crimes. 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 was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. 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 was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump's return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we've been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump's hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She's out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi's legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ's mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment. 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 bonus episode of Amicus, with full access exclusive for Slate Plus members, is a comprehensive exploration of Wednesday's arguments in the Trump v. Barbara case on birthright citizenship. This landmark case challenges the executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, potentially affecting millions of individuals born in the U.S. Mark Joseph Stern talks to legal scholar Evan Bernick –– who co-authored a key amicus brief in this case –– about the Supreme Court's reaction to Trump's order to gut the 14th amendment of the constitution and remake the legal landscape surrounding citizenship. The stakes are high, and the implications reach far beyond the courtroom.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.

This bonus episode of Amicus, with full access exclusive for Slate Plus members, is a comprehensive exploration of Wednesday's arguments in the Trump v. Barbara case on birthright citizenship. This landmark case challenges the executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, potentially affecting millions of individuals born in the U.S. Mark Joseph Stern talks to legal scholar Evan Bernick –– who co-authored a key amicus brief in this case –– about the Supreme Court's reaction to Trump's order to gut the 14th amendment of the constitution and remake the legal landscape surrounding citizenship. The stakes are high, and the implications reach far beyond the courtroom.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.

On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick checks in with Protect Democracy co-founder Ian Bassin about the United States' speedy retreat from democracy, and how lawyers seeking to protect the constitution are adapting their strategies for Trump 2.0. While Trump's second term is following an authoritarian playbook, some courts are acting as speed bumps, while others (we're looking at you, SCOTUS), are increasingly pickled in right-wing brine. The velocity of America's descent into illiberalism is startling and dangerous, but Bassin argues it is also potentially self-defeating, thanks to Trump's historic unpopularity that is growing faster than his ability to consolidate power. The two discuss Protect Democracy's shift from a litigation-heavy strategy to combining court fights with coalition-building, and Ian outlines threats to the 2026 elections—“deceive, disrupt, deny”—including efforts like the SAVE Act and why the President's decision to deploy ICE to stand around in airports around the country is a clear effort to normalize their presence at polling places in November. But he also stresses that overwhelming participation and public organizing are the ultimate backstops if election results are contested.Suggested reading: protectdemocracy.org/executive-override/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 Supreme Court term has seen threats against the Justices – from the President, a slew of game-changing shadow docket opinions, justices sparring in public, and some of the most consequential cases of our lifetimes. If you're feeling a little disoriented by it all, join Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on this week's show for a clearer understanding of what's going on at One, First Street. They discuss the big immigration case the court took up just this week that will be crammed into the last week of arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's courage at a public event, and what it means when a justice steps out of the four corners of her opinions to voice urgent concerns about the shadow docket in public, and why, when it comes to threats to judges, the Chief Justice is meekly asking Trump knock it off, while taking no responsibility for his court's role in it all. Supplemental reading: The Constitutional Accountability Center on the history of mail-in ballotsThis week's Executive Dysfunction newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team is a must-read: slate.com/dysfunctionWant 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.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. 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.

On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick explores the rise of Christian nationalism in America, its influence on the Supreme Court , and the implications for democracy and civil rights. Featuring Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, their discussion delves into the historical roots, recent legal cases, and the ongoing fight to uphold the separation of church and state in a country that survived two centuries as an open, pluralist refuge for all religions, and then became a Christian nation, seemingly overnight.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.