Podcast appearances and mentions of mark joseph stern

The Supreme Court wraps up a momentous term. Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern and guests break down the cases and the controversies, explaining what it means for you, and for American democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern answer your questions about threats to federal judges, how far religious opt-outs can go in public schools in light of  Mahmoud v. Taylor, and whether or not the rule of law in America is, in fact, cooked.  This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern host the panel that's guaranteed to help you understand what happened during the Supreme Court's latest term – examining the major decisions, the emergency docket, and the evolving dynamics on the court. Dahlia and Mark welcome the New York Times' Jamelle Bouie, civil rights lawyer and 14th Amendment scholar Sherrilyn Ifill of Howard University, and Professor Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law to Amicus, to discuss the implications of the cases and the controversies of the term that just wrapped. Together, they offer close analysis of the court's decisions and the various justices' machinations, while stepping back to set it all in vital historical and political context. 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!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern host the panel that's guaranteed to help you understand what happened during the Supreme Court's latest term – examining the major decisions, the emergency docket, and the evolving dynamics on the court. Dahlia and Mark welcome the New York Times' Jamelle Bouie, civil rights lawyer and 14th Amendment scholar Sherrilyn Ifill of Howard University, and Professor Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law to Amicus, to discuss the implications of the cases and the controversies of the term that just wrapped. Together, they offer close analysis of the court's decisions and the various justices' machinations, while stepping back to set it all in vital historical and political context. 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!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern host the panel that's guaranteed to help you understand what happened during the Supreme Court's latest term – examining the major decisions, the emergency docket, and the evolving dynamics on the court. Dahlia and Mark welcome the New York Times' Jamelle Bouie, civil rights lawyer and 14th Amendment scholar Sherrilyn Ifill of Howard University, and Professor Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law to Amicus, to discuss the implications of the cases and the controversies of the term that just wrapped. Together, they offer close analysis of the court's decisions and the various justices' machinations, while stepping back to set it all in vital historical and political context. 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!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The cataclysmic opinions from SCOTUS on Friday certainly suggest that the courts can no longer save us. In fact, in Trump v. CASA., we learned that it's somehow not actually the job of the courts to save us from blatant violations of our rights. With universal injunctions drop-kicked and district court judges sidelined, it's going to be nearly impossible to vindicate your rights in Trump's America. No rights are safe when the only way to get relief is to sue the government yourself. And yet in a definitely-not-planned-last-day-of-the-term-with-all-the-big-cases lineup, several other bad things happened as well. Hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss all of Friday's big decisions including Mahmoud v. Taylor, which will allow parents to opt-out of having to hear about LGBTQ+ people in schools.  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. 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. Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Blocked and Reported, a deeper dive into the recent Supreme Court decision on youth gender medicine and its aftermath. Plus, the Washington Post's unconventional plan to make a few bucks. Note: After we recorded this episode, Mark Joseph Stern sent Jesse an email laying out his views and responding to Jesse's b******g on Twitter. That email is below and we'll discuss it, plus any further correspondence those two have, at the top of the next free episode.Hi Jesse,Although I'm not on Twitter anymore, a friend flagged your tweet about my coverage of Skrmetti and your question about sex discrimination. I would like to help explain why SB1 does, indeed, discriminate on the basis of sex in a way that triggers heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause.First, I'll note that while the term "sex discrimination" is more common in media coverage, the more accurate legal standard is "sex classification." (The court's canonical cases, like Reed v. Reed and U.S. v. Virginia, favor this term.) The two can be used interchangeably, but I think "classification" is a little clearer for the purposes of addressing your arguments.You, and the Skrmetti majority, are undoubtedly correct that SB1 classifies on the basis of medical condition. But to do so, at least under many circumstances, it must also classify on the basis of sex. I see that you're suspicious of one way I've been explaining this: a cis boy can receive testosterone to develop more male features, while a trans boy cannot. I still think that example works as a legal matter, even if such treatment for a cis boy is uncommon in real life. (Although—is it? Don't doctors prescribe testosterone to cis boys with delayed puberty to jump-start secondary sex characteristics that are fundamentally cosmetic, like facial hair?) So set it aside.Consider instead an adolescent cis boy who experiences gynecomastia, unwanted but harmless growth of breast tissue. Under SB1, he may still receive testosterone therapy to reduce his breasts. Not because the excessive growth of tissue is medically harmful, but because he does not wish to appear to have breasts, as they are incongruent with his gender identity. But an adolescent trans boy may not, under SB1, receive the same treatment to achieve the same effect—reduction of breasts that are incongruent with his gender identity. Why?I take it you would say: Because the trans boy seeks the treatment for gender dysphoria, whereas the cis boy seeks it for gynecomastia. True enough, but irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether the law classifies on the basis of sex. That's because, in addition to classifying on the basis of medical condition, the law classifies on the basis of sex to determine who may receive the same treatment to achieve the same outcome. An adolescent's access to testosterone to reduce breast growth turns on the sex they were assigned at birth. Those assigned male can get testosterone; those assigned female cannot. Thus, the law classifies patients on the basis of sex, and triggers heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Put differently, to determine the medical condition—gender dysphoria or gynecomastia—a doctor must consider the patient's sex assigned at birth. That consideration, under longstanding precedent, compels heightened scrutiny.It is not uncommon for laws that classify on the basis of sex to classify on other bases as well. For instance, in Morales-Santana, the law at issue classified on the basis of a parent's physical presence in the United States. That, all agree, was permissible. But the law also classified on the basis of the parent's sex. And that, the court held, created a "gender line" that triggered heightened scrutiny. There is a similar dynamic at play in Skrmetti. Yes, the law dictates what treatments a minor may receive based on their medical condition. But to do so, it must classify minors on the basis of sex. And that, under the court's precedents, should be enough to trigger heightened scrutiny.I will note that, as you know, the question of whether a law classifies on the basis of sex is only the first step of the analysis. If the answer is yes, the next step is to apply heightened scrutiny by asking whether the law serves important governmental interests and is substantially related to the achievement of those interests. I think your objections probably lie in this second step; to return to my example, you may think the government has a strong interest in preventing minors with gender dysphoria from altering their bodies, and you believe SB1's restrictions are sensibly drawn to encompass those cases while allowing cis minors to receive the same treatments. But even if that is correct (and I won't opine on it here), SB1 still classifies on the basis of sex, requiring the application of heightened scrutiny to survive constitutional muster. And in my view, the Skrmetti majority erred in denying that reality.Best,MarkThe Washington Post Will Ask Some Sources to Annotate Its Stories - The New York TimesUnited States v. Skrmetti‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue | The SpectatorOpinion | How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way - The New York TimesOpinion | Author explains anonymity behind a pediatric gender medicine report - The Washington PostA Precocious Puberty Case: I Went Through Puberty at Age 2The conservative defense of Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is nonsense.Skrmetti: John Roberts' anti-trans opinion isn't just cruel. It's incomprehensible.Massive Ordnance Penetrator - Political Gabfest - Apple Podcasts (Bazelon argument starts at 44:00) To hear more, visit www.blockedandreported.org

The cataclysmic opinions from SCOTUS on Friday certainly suggest that the courts can no longer save us. In fact, in Trump v. CASA., we learned that it's somehow not actually the job of the courts to save us from blatant violations of our rights. With universal injunctions drop-kicked and district court judges sidelined, it's going to be nearly impossible to vindicate your rights in Trump's America. No rights are safe when the only way to get relief is to sue the government yourself. And yet in a definitely-not-planned-last-day-of-the-term-with-all-the-big-cases lineup, several other bad things happened as well. Hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss all of Friday's big decisions including Mahmoud v. Taylor, which will allow parents to opt-out of having to hear about LGBTQ+ people in schools.  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. 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. Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The cataclysmic opinions from SCOTUS on Friday certainly suggest that the courts can no longer save us. In fact, in Trump v. CASA., we learned that it's somehow not actually the job of the courts to save us from blatant violations of our rights. With universal injunctions drop-kicked and district court judges sidelined, it's going to be nearly impossible to vindicate your rights in Trump's America. No rights are safe when the only way to get relief is to sue the government yourself. And yet in a definitely-not-planned-last-day-of-the-term-with-all-the-big-cases lineup, several other bad things happened as well. Hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss all of Friday's big decisions including Mahmoud v. Taylor, which will allow parents to opt-out of having to hear about LGBTQ+ people in schools.  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. 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. Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court handed  President Donald Trump a major victory, curbing court injunctions that halted his plans to end automatic birthright citizenship.  Michele Goodwin, Mark Joseph Stern, and NJ Attorney General Matt Platkin join The Weekend to discuss the SCOTUS ruling fallout. David Corn also joins The Weekend to discuss Senate Republicans' effort to get President Trump's massive agenda passed and get the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," to his desk by a self-imposed July 4th deadline. 

Senators get first classified briefing on Trump's strikes, as Pete Hegseth attacks the media for reporting on the intelligence community's cautious early assessments. Then, Trump's spending bill sees major setback in the Senate today. Plus, why Wall Street is freaking out -- not over trade wars and conflict with Iran, but Zohran Mamdani, the democratic-socialist who could be the next mayor of NYC. Jon Allen, Peter Baker, Mychael Schnell, Ron Insana, Bill Cohan and Mark Joseph Stern join The 11th Hour this Thursday.

Part 1: We talk with Jeff Cohen, author, activist, and former journalism professor. He founded FAIR, the national media watch group, and in 2011 co-founded RootsAction, currently serving as its policy director.We discuss the state of health care in the US, and what problems are the result of the original plan. "By design"Part 2:We talk with Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer.We discuss the worst Supreme Court decision made in a recent case to allow the administration to deport people to third countries, thus negating the rights under the Constitution.  It also 'kneecaps' all lower courts who rule against this action. WNHNFM.ORG  productionMusic: David Rovics

In this episode of Outward, Bryan talks with Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern about a federal judge's sweeping and controversial ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which could have massive consequences for access to gender-affirming care. Then, Christina sits down with Congresswoman Becca Balint to talk about what it means to advocate for trans rights inside a Congress where culture war rhetoric, and policy, are escalating fast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Outward, Bryan talks with Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern about a federal judge's sweeping and controversial ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which could have massive consequences for access to gender-affirming care. Then, Christina sits down with Congresswoman Becca Balint to talk about what it means to advocate for trans rights inside a Congress where culture war rhetoric, and policy, are escalating fast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Outward, Bryan talks with Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern about a federal judge's sweeping and controversial ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which could have massive consequences for access to gender-affirming care. Then, Christina sits down with Congresswoman Becca Balint to talk about what it means to advocate for trans rights inside a Congress where culture war rhetoric, and policy, are escalating fast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Outward, Bryan talks with Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern about a federal judge's sweeping and controversial ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which could have massive consequences for access to gender-affirming care. Then, Christina sits down with Congresswoman Becca Balint to talk about what it means to advocate for trans rights inside a Congress where culture war rhetoric, and policy, are escalating fast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this member-exclusive Opinionpalooza episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and co-host Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court's shadow docket decision in the case of DHS vs. DVD, which allows for the deportation of migrants to third countries without due process or notice, despite the potential for torture and death. The Supreme Court's majority chose the opaque system of an unsigned, unargued, unbriefed and unreasoned order to issue a body-blow to the rule of law, undermining lower court rulings and Congressional statutes, specifically the Convention Against Torture. Dahlia and Mark discuss the Supreme Court's accelerating trend of granting sweeping powers to the executive branch without proper justification, all while the Trump  administration continues its pattern of defying lower court orders. Not great! Also not great? A brand new whistleblower report from a former rising star at the Department of Justice, claiming that Trump judicial nominee and current senior DoJ official, Emil Bove, deliberately ordered subordinates  to defy court orders. This is a member-exclusive bonus episode, part of Amicus' Opinionpalooza coverage of the end of the Supreme Court term. 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. If you are already a member, consider a donation or merchAlso! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices seem intent on packing their summer vacation bags and getting on their way.  Earlier in the week, the court's conservative supermajority upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids. The logic behind the decision was…lacking (Slate Plus members can hear about this right now). In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the Tennessee plaintiffs, about where we go from here. Meanwhile, don't miss the significance of Friday's batch of rulings: co-host Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the implications in cases seemingly about vaping and faxes and gas stations, but with much bigger implications. He also breaks down why Elena Kagan keeps joining the conservatives, and whether it foreshadows something bigger headed our way (light-at-end-of-tunnel-or-oncoming-train-dot-gif).  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining 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.  (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices seem intent on packing their summer vacation bags and getting on their way.  Earlier in the week, the court's conservative supermajority upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids. The logic behind the decision was…lacking (Slate Plus members can hear about this right now). In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the Tennessee plaintiffs, about where we go from here. Meanwhile, don't miss the significance of Friday's batch of rulings: co-host Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the implications in cases seemingly about vaping and faxes and gas stations, but with much bigger implications. He also breaks down why Elena Kagan keeps joining the conservatives, and whether it foreshadows something bigger headed our way (light-at-end-of-tunnel-or-oncoming-train-dot-gif).  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining 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.  (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices seem intent on packing their summer vacation bags and getting on their way.  Earlier in the week, the court's conservative supermajority upheld a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids. The logic behind the decision was…lacking (Slate Plus members can hear about this right now). In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick talks to Chase Strangio, the lawyer for the Tennessee plaintiffs, about where we go from here. Meanwhile, don't miss the significance of Friday's batch of rulings: co-host Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the implications in cases seemingly about vaping and faxes and gas stations, but with much bigger implications. He also breaks down why Elena Kagan keeps joining the conservatives, and whether it foreshadows something bigger headed our way (light-at-end-of-tunnel-or-oncoming-train-dot-gif).  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining 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.  (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this Slate Plus exclusive episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern analyse the Roberts Court's decision in Skrmetti,  effectively bans gender-affirming  care for trans minors in more than 20 states. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. 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. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America feels very different this weekend. While the president's planned military parade (that just happens to coincide with his birthday) will see tanks and armored vehicles rolling through Washington DC, federalized National Guard and US Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of state and city electeds, many of us are reeling from seeing a sitting US Senator forced to the floor and cuffed for trying to ask a question, and dozens of protests are planned around the country to declare “No Kings”.  It's. A. Lot. In this episode of Amicus  Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to process some of the events of the last week, and to understand where the law stands on the key question of whether President Trump lawfully deployed troops quell anti-ICE raid  protests in California that the administration is trying to claim are a “rebellion”. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America feels very different this weekend. While the president's planned military parade (that just happens to coincide with his birthday) will see tanks and armored vehicles rolling through Washington DC, federalized National Guard and US Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of state and city electeds, many of us are reeling from seeing a sitting US Senator forced to the floor and cuffed for trying to ask a question, and dozens of protests are planned around the country to declare “No Kings”.  It's. A. Lot. In this episode of Amicus  Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to process some of the events of the last week, and to understand where the law stands on the key question of whether President Trump lawfully deployed troops quell anti-ICE raid  protests in California that the administration is trying to claim are a “rebellion”. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America feels very different this weekend. While the president's planned military parade (that just happens to coincide with his birthday) will see tanks and armored vehicles rolling through Washington DC, federalized National Guard and US Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of state and city electeds, many of us are reeling from seeing a sitting US Senator forced to the floor and cuffed for trying to ask a question, and dozens of protests are planned around the country to declare “No Kings”.  It's. A. Lot. In this episode of Amicus  Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to process some of the events of the last week, and to understand where the law stands on the key question of whether President Trump lawfully deployed troops quell anti-ICE raid  protests in California that the administration is trying to claim are a “rebellion”. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America feels very different this weekend. While the president's planned military parade (that just happens to coincide with his birthday) will see tanks and armored vehicles rolling through Washington DC, federalized National Guard and US Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of state and city electeds, many of us are reeling from seeing a sitting US Senator forced to the floor and cuffed for trying to ask a question, and dozens of protests are planned around the country to declare “No Kings”.  It's. A. Lot. In this episode of Amicus  Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to process some of the events of the last week, and to understand where the law stands on the key question of whether President Trump lawfully deployed troops quell anti-ICE raid  protests in California that the administration is trying to claim are a “rebellion”. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate's Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's a Matt-jority top of the show today, with Sam joining a little later with an interview with Slate's Mark Joseph Stern about the goings on at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration is taking it's assault on democracy to the court, and there are several important cases we all need to be keeping an eye on. Check out Mark's reporting here: https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern After that in the Fun Half, it's Matt, Brandon and Russ, and honestly Zohran might as well be here as well because we soak in a few of his hot clips from his appearance on the Breakfast Club. After that, Jim Cramer is stroking it to AI and Sam Altman and their dystopian and dishonest vision for the future. Yucky. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: EXPRESS VPN: Get up to 4 extra months free at https://Expressvpn.com/Majority Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Russ' podcast the New Yorker Political Scene Scene: https://rss.com/podcasts/newyorkerpoliticalscenescene/ Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

The Nightcap discusses Elon Musk and President Trump's continuing feud that shows no signs of slowing down. Then, the Supreme Court rules in favor of DOGE gaining access to sensitive Social Security records. Plus, Kilmar Abrego Garcia returns to the U.S. to face criminal charges after being mistakenly deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration. And see who made this week's MVP list. Michael Steele, Stephen Cloobeck, Nayyera Haq, Brian Barrett and Mark Joseph Stern all join The 11th Hour. 

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ali Velshi is joined by MSNBC Senior National Security Analyst Frank Figliuzzi, Associate Professor of International Affairs & Director of Graduate Studies at Georgia Tech Margaret Kosal, Senior Writer at Slate Mark Joseph Stern, fmr. U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing  divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don't. Although Thursday's arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump's unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing  divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don't. Although Thursday's arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump's unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing  divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don't. Although Thursday's arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump's unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A look at how Trump's tariff policy is causing rising prices and concern among consumers. Then, POTUS announces another package of deals with Qatar amidst the ongoing jumbo jet controversy. Plus, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments over Trump's birthright citizenship order and weighs whether lower court judges have the power to block his policy moves. Peter Baker, Amna Nawaz, David Drucker, Courtenay Brown, Rick Newman, Mark Joseph Stern, and Ambassador William Taylor join as Symone Sanders hosts The 11th Hour this Thursday.

Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law, previews the end of the Supreme Court term, plus remembers the late Justice Souter.

President Trump holds an awkward meeting with Canada's Prime Minister just two months before tariffs are set to go up. Then, the President's top trade officials are scheduled to meet with a Chinese delegation just hours after the Treasury Secretary admits trade negotiations have yet to start. And, the consequences of the Trump administration's stance on due process. Jeff Mason, Sam Stein, Senator Doug Jones, Barry Ritholtz, Max Chafkin, Mark Joseph Stern, and John King Jr. join The 11th Hour this Tuesday. 

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's attempting to overturn birthright citizenship, effectively stripping citizenship from American children, or claiming Alien Enemy Act war powers under an imaginary invasion, Trump's anti-immigrant moves are outlandishly unconstitutional. They are also being met with significant pushback from judges, even conservative ones. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern who explains the landmark ruling from a Trump-appointed judge in the southern district of Texas that declared the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. Next, Amanda Frost, University of Virginia law professor and author of  You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, joins Dahlia to explain what Birthright Citizenship really means, and all the ways Trump is working to redefine what it means to be an American, including stripping citizenship from children and denaturalizing adults.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As we approach President Trump's 100th day in office (this time around) this Wednesday, Dahlia Lithwick checks in with one of the key architects of the litigation strategy that is successfully confounding the administration's most exorbitant executive overreach. After almost 140 executive orders and scores of associated lawsuits, it's hard to keep track of the state of play. But Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward is on hand to help us think through the main strands of anti-authoritarian litigation, and to explore how some recent wins in court against Trump 2.0 are upending the administration's attempt to style itself as an all-powerful unitary authority. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the Supreme Court's recent actions, including a significant order halting deportations to El Salvador, reflecting a growing judicial resistance to the administration's overreach and a confusing claim that Presidents work for . . . their lawyers? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As we approach President Trump's 100th day in office (this time around) this Wednesday, Dahlia Lithwick checks in with one of the key architects of the litigation strategy that is successfully confounding the administration's most exorbitant executive overreach. After almost 140 executive orders and scores of associated lawsuits, it's hard to keep track of the state of play. But Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward is on hand to help us think through the main strands of anti-authoritarian litigation, and to explore how some recent wins in court against Trump 2.0 are upending the administration's attempt to style itself as an all-powerful unitary authority. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the Supreme Court's recent actions, including a significant order halting deportations to El Salvador, reflecting a growing judicial resistance to the administration's overreach and a confusing claim that Presidents work for . . . their lawyers? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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