Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

48:27 - John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice network Topic: Jack Smith testimony; President Trump's executive order changing the name of AI to Super Intelligence; Other news of the day 59:20 - Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again" Topic: Reducing pain at the pump 1:05:48 - K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: The erosion of Iran's power 1:18:39 - Chris Swecker, attorney who served as assistant director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006 Topic: FBI investigating massive data breach 1:37:39 - Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Jack Smith testimony; Legality of Ilhan Omar's citizenship 1:52:24 - Pastor Dave Watson, Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel on Staten Island, Founder and President of the New York Institute of Biblical Studies, and the host of "God in Our City" on WMCA Topic: The danger of AI from a biblical perspective; What Jesus says about antisemitismSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Give to help Chris make Truce How do we interpret the Constitution? It seems like an easy question, right? It turns out, it's quite difficult. As we wrap up season 6 of Truce, we're exploring some of the things that conservative evangelicals got out of their partnership with the GOP. One of the things they got was constitutional originalism. Constitutional originalism is a theory of interpretation that holds the Constitution should be understood according to its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Originalists argue that this approach anchors constitutional law in objective historical meaning, rather than in the personal values or policy preferences of modern judges. By tying interpretation to the text as it was originally understood, originalism aims to preserve democratic legitimacy: changes in constitutional meaning should come from amendments passed by the people, not from judicial reinterpretation. Supporters also claim that originalism promotes stability and predictability in the law by constraining judicial discretion. Critics of originalism counter that the Constitution was written in broad, open-ended language precisely to allow adaptation to changing social and technological conditions. They argue that strict adherence to historical meanings can freeze outdated norms into modern law and fail to address contemporary realities the framers could not have foreseen. In practice, critics also contend that historical evidence is often ambiguous, allowing judges to selectively invoke history to reach preferred outcomes. As a result, the debate over originalism reflects a deeper tension between constitutional stability and constitutional flexibility in a living society. Our special guest is Austin Steelman, historian at Clemson University. Sources: These Truths by Jill LePore Reagan by Bob Spitz Griswold v. Conn. from Oyez.org Article about Robert Bork Robert Kennedy's speech about Bork on C-SPAN (about 27 minutes in) Article about Gorsuch and originalism Article about Kavanaugh AP story about Barrett's philosophy Discussion: What is constitutional originalism? Why might some people like it? Dislike it? Are there questions in US law that are not addressed by the Constitution? What are some examples? How should those be addressed in an originalist worldview? In a worldview that sees it as a living document? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH IS RIGHT ABOUT RULING VIA EMERGENCY And I’ve made this point over and over again. Congress sits on its hands as a situation gets exponentially worse, we shut down the government as Congress slams through some garbage bill and then wants congratulations for “fixing” the mess IT created. In recent comments in the Springs, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch asked “why is everything such an emergency” and he’s absolutely right. Jimmy Sengenberger writes about it here. Jimmy joins me at 2:30 to chat about it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SHOULD WE REALLY BE WORRIED ABOUT AI? I think AI is a huge boon to society on net. Do we need to figure out guardrails? Sure. Should we be shoring up our security around water and electricity generation in our country? Yes. But we should be doing that anyway. David Strom joins me at 1 to talk about this story about how the very same tech companies, who just HAPPEN to be getting ready to do their IPOs, are yelling about the dangers of their own products. Read this bit: You may have noticed — I sure hope you have — that nobody in these companies is actually suggesting that AI development stop and the machines be turned off. Quite the opposite: trillions of dollars are being invested in new data centers to enable the rapid growth of AI, and a good chunk of the valuation in the stock market is driven by investments in the “hyperscalers” that will sell the computer power that makes AI run. And China is going full speed ahead, meaning that AI development will continue, and if it is going to kill us all, it would just be a Chinese AI that did it. And probably quicker, too. So what do AI companies gain from the doom talk, aside from inflating the sense that AI will be more revolutionary than the internet? We will answer that question today at 1 with David. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says all the doomerism around AI is just a Chinese Psyop. I don’t think he’s wrong. JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH IS RIGHT ABOUT RULING VIA EMERGENCY And I’ve made this point over and over again. Congress sits on its hands as a situation gets exponentially worse, we shut down the government as Congress slams through some garbage bill and then wants congratulations for “fixing” the mess IT created. In recent comments in the Springs, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch asked “why is everything such an emergency” and he’s absolutely right. Jimmy Sengenberger writes about it here. Jimmy joins me at 2:30 to chat about it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Janie Nitze, author and homeschooling mom, joins Davis Carman on the "Let's Talk Homeschool" podcast to discuss her upcoming book release. This is a children's book about the Founding Fathers and the start of our country.

Today's Headlines: Kash Patel testified before Congress for four and a half hours, during which Republican Senator John Kennedy asked why he would "even get into bestiality" — a reference to the FBI's new hiring policy — and Kash responded that "we're not into bestiality" before claiming the policy change was to help trafficking victims, which is not what the policy said, making it one of the more surreal exchanges in recent congressional history. Kash also defended firing FBI agents for being "disloyal" to Trump by having investigated January 6th or Iranian threats. The Kennedy Center voted to close itself after another judge blocked Trump's name going on the building, Trump posted that it's closing for repairs that will only happen if his name goes on it, and the courts said no again. To add to that loss, Trump went on a Truth Social rant against Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch for the mail voting ruling while calling Alito and Thomas "legends both," sent Todd Blanche out to clean it up on TV, and is still pressuring states for voter data and planning to send agents to polling sites in swing counties. On the war beat, the Iran war has officially cost over $38 billion as of August 1st and is projected to add at least half a point to inflation in early 2027 even if it ended today — which it won't — diesel hit an all-time high of $6 a gallon after Iranian drones hit a Saudi pipeline, and the Fed is expected to raise interest rates for the first time since 2023. All that is probably why Thomas Massie introduced a resolution to impeach Pete Hegseth for illegally continuing the Iran war, which probably won't work but will force Republicans on record. And finally, DOGE's approach to shrinking the government cost taxpayers $9.5 billion in 2025 paying federal employees not to work — 435% more in paid administrative leave than the prior year.  Resources/Articles mentioned: NBC News: Kash Patel defends FBI's new policy on bestiality at Senate hearing WaPo: FBI director faces sharp questions from senators about his firing of agents AP News: Live updates: Kennedy Center board votes to close most of the iconic performing arts venue NYT: Trump Slams Supreme Court Over Mail-In Voting Ruling WSJ: Trump's Frustration With His Own Supreme Court Appointees Boils Over AP News: Iran war has cost the US more than $38B, budget office says WSJ: U.S. Diesel Prices Hit New Record High as Fuel Squeeze Bites  Axios: Massie moves to impeach Pete Hegseth over Iran War WSJ: Pentagon Wants Only the Fittest Troops to Attend Upcoming Hegseth Speech NYT: Federal Employees Were Paid $9.5 Billion Not to Work in 2025 Under DOGE Effort Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

27:17 - Jon Bramnick, New Jersey State Senator Topic: Mike Morino Update 48:27 - Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News ContributorTopic: Intel on the Houthis and Iran; Russia's 500-mile missile 58:00- Dorothy Poppe, CEO of Bobby Jones Chiari & Syringomyelia Foundation Topic: Staten Island Spotlight 1:04:59- Art Del Cueto, Border Security Advisor for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and a 21-year veteran of the Border PatrolTopic: Mamdani and Letitia James suing the Trump administration over immigration rule; Ilhan Omar immigration fraud claims 1:19:19- David Fischer, CEO of Landmark Capital Topic: Gold entering the next phase of the Bull Market 1:36:49- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Mamdani and Letitia James lawsuit; Other legal news of the day 1:49:01- Miranda Devine, columnist for the New York Post and the author of "The Big Guy" Topic: "Obama and the Dems are suspiciously sounding the ‘AI apocalypse’ alarm — just in time for the midterms" (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're back after a break, and the August interim docket handed us two per curiam standing rulings. In Trump v. California, the Court stayed the injunction against the mail-ballot executive order because the states' injuries were too hypothetical, even as the Postal Service's final rule has already been enjoined and is already back at the Court. In National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Court let the ballroom construction continue because a historic preservationist's aesthetic injury is "mere offense," which leaves us asking why a crocodile counts and the White House doesn't. We work through ripeness, the Purcell principle turned inside out, the standing realignment that may not have realigned after all, and why the Chief dissented. Along the way: the Justices' papers and who really owns them, a philosopher's note on conditionals, a mixed metaphor unmixed, and the difference between teaching from a script and teaching from a cocktail napkin.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: a scheduled Friday recording is no longer unpredictable; Dan is teaching fed courts out of "Baude et al." (Hart & Wechsler), and Will insists he's only holding it in trust.[00:02:27] Jodi Kantor's NYT story on the justices' papers: Justice Scalia made no plan, Justice Ginsburg's Library of Congress conditions, and whether papers printed on government paper are personal property.[00:08:17] Will's tentative new institutionalist view: release everything after ten years so the justices have to talk to each other in person.[00:11:26] Feedback: Yale philosopher Daniel Greco on conditionals in formal logic vs. spoken English; a listener catches Will retelling the "thriving atrocities practice" story from Season 1.[00:15:27] Two per curiam standing rulings from the August interim docket, 6-3 and 5-4.[00:16:08] Trump v. California: Executive Order 14399's citizenship lists, prosecution priority, and Postal Service rule, plus a lowercase-r republican form of government and Luther v. Borden.[00:24:19] The stay: no standing, no ripeness, and whether ripeness is jurisdictional or equitable.[00:27:31] Walking Sections 2(a), 2(b), and 3: making a list is not an injury, "no well-founded fear" of prosecution, and Clapper.[00:32:26] The Post Office's final rule issued the weekend before the opinion, is already enjoined again, and is already back at the Court; cremated humans, replica explosives, and enough green ink.[00:36:29] Predictions: Will says at least five justices will keep the rule off the books before this election; Dan bets at least one majority justice says the president is fine; the major questions doctrine vs. Gregory v. Ashcroft.[00:39:09] Purcell inside out: when the body that isn't supposed to regulate elections meddles on the eve of one, courts stand back to let instability prevail.[00:45:11] The dissents: Justice Sotomayor's four don't-panic pages vs. Justice Jackson's 23, and her recurring Trump v. CASA-era argument that the Court should ask who is actually right.[00:49:45] "Another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare": Dan objects to the mixed metaphor, researches the origin of the other shoe, and proposes the shoe of Damocles.[00:53:42] Re and Paz-Priel's The Standing Realignment lands in the Supreme Court Review the same week an old-school 6-3 standing lineup comes back.[00:56:53] National Park Service v. National Trust: the demolished East Wing, 40 U.S.C. § 8106, Nixon's tennis nets, and a strong argument on the merits the Court never reaches.[01:00:12] Alison Hoagland's aesthetic injury: Lujan's crocodile, Mineral King, the White House as a national park, and the majority's "mere offense" line.[01:05:44] Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Judge Ho's aesthetic-babies theory; the ballroom is closer to a national park than to a baby; seeing X vs. not seeing Y.[01:08:21] Why the Chief dissented (the Smithsonian theory vs. the good-lawyer theory) and who wrote the per curiam ("Start with this" sounds like Justice Gorsuch).[01:13:52] Breaking mid-recording: National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown, the FCC's lowest unit charge, Justice Jackson alone in dissent, deferred to next time.[01:15:33] Teaching notes: Will's one-page Word docs (now consolidated by Claude into something beyond a cocktail napkin) vs. Dan's scripts; sign-off.Relevant linksCasesTrump v. California — per curiam and dissentsExecutive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections (91 Fed. Reg. 17125)National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation — per curiam and dissent40 U.S.C. § 8106National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown — per curiam and dissentCommentary & articlesJodi Kantor's NYT story on the justices' papers (Sept. 1, 2026)Steve Vladeck, "The Justices' Papers" (One First, Sept. 7, 2026)Will Baude, "The Purcell Principle and the Post Office" (Divided Argument blog, Sept. 2, 2026)Will Baude, "Esthetic Standing in the White House Ballroom Case" (Divided Argument blog, Aug. 31, 2026)Richard M. Re & Yoav Paz-Priel, "The Standing Realignment" (Supreme Court Review)Steve Vladeck, "Four Lessons from the Ballroom Ruling" (One First, Sept. 3, 2026)Josh Blackman, "Strictly Ballroom: Justice Kavanaugh Defeats Chief Justice Roberts" (Volokh Conspiracy, Aug. 31, 2026)OtherDivided Argument S1E7, "Triple Bank Shot" (the first telling of the atrocities-practice story)Audio Arguendo (the courts-of-appeals argument podcast)

I have to begin by saying that I like Neil Gorsuch. I like the fact that he is on the Court. Despite a few unfortunate votes, his presence there is pretty reliable and steady. He voted to strike down Roe, and so he has won my friendship forever.That said—and let us frank and honest here—that statement above is about as defensible as the infamous response of Ketanji Brown Jackson, which she made that time when the good senators decided for some reason to test her biology chops.For more from Doug, subscribe to Canon+: https://canonplus.com/   IT'S HERE! Pre-Order the 4th installment of the Ashtown Burial Series at ashtownburials.com.

INTRO (00:00): Kathleen opens the show drinking a Church Parking Lot Local Lager from Harding House Brewing Company in Nashville. TOUR NEWS: See Kathleen live on her “Flying Cats & Marching Armadillos Tour.” TASTING MENU (2:52): Kathleen samples Limited Edition French Onion Dip Cheez-Its, Limited Edition Lucky Charms Magical Unicorn Marshmallows, and Chicken & Waffles Oreo Cookies. QUEEN NEWS (21:47): Kathleen shares news that Stevie Nicks joined Olivia Rodrigo onstage at Daisy Chain, and Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce purchase a lakefront home in Ohio. DOLLY PARTON (26:24): Kathleen pays tribute to the life of Queen Dolly Parton. HOLLYWOOD HAPPENINGS (1:02:22): HollyBobby provides the latest news in Hollywood. UPDATE (1:40:37): Kathleen updates on the theme of this year's Met Gala, Harry and Meghan move to the UK with the help of a  hedge fund billionaire and Sarah Ferguson is coming out of hiding. FABULOUS LIVING BY AMY (1:25:47): Kathleen and her sister-in-law Amy talk about the history of Labor Day and the guidelines regarding wearing white pants and shoes after the holiday. They move on to discuss Amy's preferred go-to Fall sweaters, ranging from affordable J. Crew and Bloomingdales varieties to mid-range Veronica Beard, Ravella, and G/Fore, and finishing with luxury Gorsuch and Lafayette 148 varieties. Amy also shares the secret on how to spot fake cashmere when choosing a sweater. WHAT ARE WE WATCHING (22:43): Kathleen recommends watching “Nashville” on Amazon Prime, and “Martha Cooks” on Netflix. SPORTS NEWS (1:55:19): Kathleen reads about the GoodGood Golf and Callaway PR nightmare. HOLY SHIT THEY FOUND IT (1:50:22): Kathleen reports on the recent report that Vikings lived in America 500 years before Columbus “discovered” it. NEWS (1:52:35): Kathleen reports on the history behind Tiny Jesus rubber figurines. SPANISH PHRASE OF THE WEEK (2:05:10): The Spanish phrase to learn this week is “cuantos hermanos tienes” or “how many siblings do you have” in English. PATRON SAINT OF THE WEEK (2:12:12 ): Kathleen reads about St. Gregory the Great, patron saint of musicians, singers, teachers, and students. FEEL GOOD STORY (2:07:19): Kathleen shares that Jay Leno once took at $15M pay cut so that the entire Tonight Show crew could maintain their jobs.

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

48:03- John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice network Topic: "Trump’s three-front offensive hits cartels, Canada and economic blackout on Iran" (Just the News); SCOTUS hands President Trump voting win; Iran's economy; Other news of the day 57:16- Tommy Jannarone, Owner of Ocean View Restaurant Topic: Ocean/Monmouth County Spotlight 1:07:08- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Iran's economic breakdown 1:21:13- David Fischer, CEO of Landmark Capital Topic: Treasury announcement 1:42:09- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: SCOTUS handing Trump a mail-in voting win 1:57:58- Art Del Cueto, Border Security Advisor for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and a 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol Topic: 1300 arrested after ICE's "Operation Safe Community" in Maryland and Virginia 2:08:14- Daniel Patino, Fundraiser for Food for the Poor Topic: Food for the PoorSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Neil Gorsuch discusses his children's book, "Heroes of 1776," about the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other, lesser known, revolutionaries who put their life, liberty, and property on the line to gain independence from the British. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Neil Gorsuch discusses his children's book, "Heroes of 1776," about the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other, lesser known, revolutionaries who put their life, liberty, and property on the line to gain independence from the British. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our friends over at the Slate podcast Slow Burn are good at taking events that we think are settled history, then unlocking a new understanding of those stories through interviews, archives, and fresh analysis. They've reexamined Supreme Court history several times in recent years, including a new season about Neil Gorsuch we're featuring on Amicus for the next three weeks.Becoming Justice Gorsuch explores the early years of Donald Trump's first high-court appointee and his precedent-shattering path to power. It's a must-listen if you want to understand this 6-3 Roberts court, how it came to be, and where it's headed. In Episode 1, you'll hear how Gorsuch's worldview was shaped by his iconoclastic mother, his reaction to life on a liberal college campus, and young conservative movements of the 1980s. You'll also hear a familiar voice, with Slow Burn host Susan Matthews interviewing Amicus co-host Mark Joseph Stern.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our friends over at the Slate podcast Slow Burn are good at taking events that we think are settled history, then unlocking a new understanding of those stories through interviews, archives, and fresh analysis. They've reexamined Supreme Court history several times in recent years, including a new season about Neil Gorsuch we're featuring on Amicus for the next three weeks.Becoming Justice Gorsuch explores the early years of Donald Trump's first high-court appointee and his precedent-shattering path to power. It's a must-listen if you want to understand this 6-3 Roberts court, how it came to be, and where it's headed. In Episode 1, you'll hear how Gorsuch's worldview was shaped by his iconoclastic mother, his reaction to life on a liberal college campus, and young conservative movements of the 1980s. You'll also hear a familiar voice, with Slow Burn host Susan Matthews interviewing Amicus co-host Mark Joseph Stern.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our friends over at the Slate podcast Slow Burn are good at taking events that we think are settled history, then unlocking a new understanding of those stories through interviews, archives, and fresh analysis. They've reexamined Supreme Court history several times in recent years, including a new season about Neil Gorsuch we're featuring on Amicus for the next three weeks.Becoming Justice Gorsuch explores the early years of Donald Trump's first high-court appointee and his precedent-shattering path to power. It's a must-listen if you want to understand this 6-3 Roberts court, how it came to be, and where it's headed. In Episode 1, you'll hear how Gorsuch's worldview was shaped by his iconoclastic mother, his reaction to life on a liberal college campus, and young conservative movements of the 1980s. You'll also hear a familiar voice, with Slow Burn host Susan Matthews interviewing Amicus co-host Mark Joseph Stern.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

43:54- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor Topic: "Decoy" Air Force One; Latest in Iran 55:40- Grace Hanlon, Executive Director of the Jersey Shore Partnership Topic: Monmouth/Ocean County Spotlight 1:08:49- Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief at Forbes Media & the co-author of "Inflation: What It Is, Why It's Bad, and How to Fix It" Topic: CPI report; Latest economic news 1:19:17- Marc Caputo, White House Reporter for Axios Topic: Karoline Leavitt stepping away as White House Press Secretary 1:39:53- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Nick Reiner indictment; "Chuck Grassley's behind-the-scenes work proved decisive in Todd Blanche confirmation fight" (Fox News op ed) 1:50:17- Dr. Stephanie Widmer, Emergency Medicine Attending Physician at St. John's Riverside Hospital Topic: Ebola outbreak set to become the deadliest ever 1:59:41- Pastor Dave Watson, Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel on Staten Island, Founder and President of the New York Institute of Biblical Studies, and the host of "God in Our City" on WMCA Topic: The Bible and legacy; Showing respect for the elderlySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We squeeze in one more episode before Will's vacation, tying the single-season record in the process. The mailbag then demands a reckoning on whether Magneto's powers are really limited to ferrous metals, along with the origins of the S tier and the truth-value of conditional predictions. The main event is Hunter v. United States, which holds that a plea bargain's appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it would work a "miscarriage of justice." We try to figure out where that rule could possibly come from — contract law? Rule 11? the supervisory power? procedural common law? — and why an opinion this law-free commanded this much agreement, while the separate writings range from a declaration of war on plea bargaining itself to a hunt for a sounder source of authority. Along the way: a field trip to the shuttered taproom of Ybarra v. Illinois fame, and thanks to the expanding Divided Argument production universe.Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: squeezing in one more before Will's vacation — and tying the single-season episode record.[00:01:42] The only Court news: Trump v. California, the mail-in-voting application, is fully briefed.[00:03:15] Mailbag: "lead is not magnetic." Are Magneto's powers limited to ferrous metals? The comic-book record says no.[00:05:40] Why is S the top tier? Japanese video-game rank screens and contested backronyms.[00:08:09] Parsec retcons in Star Wars, and the art of redeeming past misstatements.[00:09:09] Caleb Rogers on the logic of conditional predictions: "if A, then B" is true whenever not-A.[00:11:08] Thank-yous to the production universe — and the show is now on YouTube.[00:12:06] Jessie Henderson's field trip: the Aurora Tap of Ybarra v. Illinois fame, located and (sadly) shuttered.[00:15:30] The main event: Hunter v. United States — appeal waivers in federal plea bargains.[00:21:30] The wrinkle: a forced-medication condition, and a judge who says "you have a right to appeal" anyway (cf. Class v. United States).[00:24:45] Plea bargains as free-floating general contract law — territory of the forthcoming Epps & D'Onfro Harvard Law Review paper.[00:26:52] The circuit split: the Fifth Circuit's statutory-maximum rule vs. everyone else's miscarriage-of-justice exception.[00:29:16] The real puzzle: where does any of this authority come from — Rule 11? the judiciary's own self-image?[00:37:51] What definitely counts: race-based sentences, a no-pregnancy condition, sentencing by 12 orangutans.[00:40:40] Dan logs a scorecard prediction on what the Fifth Circuit does on remand.[00:43:04] How does an opinion this mushy get 8 votes in 2026? In for a dime, in for a dollar.[00:45:40] The Gorsuch concurrence comes out swinging against plea bargaining itself — Stuntz and Barkow make the U.S. Reports.[00:52:50] The Kavanaugh concurrence's high bar, and the 3–3–2 math of who wouldn't take sides.[00:55:00] The Thomas dissent: no source of law — and no sentencing appeals for most of American history anyway.[01:00:20] The Barrett concurrence: procedural common law, with citations to Professor Barrett.[01:08:16] Sign-off: thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute; Dan's predictions may yet be made falsifiable.Relevant linksCasesHunter v. United States — slip opinionTrump v. CaliforniaCommentary & articles"Hunter v. United States — the most important criminal case of the term" — SCOTUSblog opinion analysisAmy Coney Barrett, "The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court" — 106 Colum. L. Rev. 324 (2006), cited in the Barrett concurrenceAmy Coney Barrett, "Procedural Common Law" — 94 Va. L. Rev. 813 (2008), the other self-citationOtherIce by Magneto — last episode, where the Magneto debate beganSmart Microwave — the Chatrie episode, where the Aurora Tap of Ybarra v. Illinois first came upGorsuch Genie — our episode with Rachel Barkow on Justice Abandoned, now cited in the Gorsuch concurrence

Gary responds to a comment made by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch about the "American Creed." Justice Gorsuch claims that America was founded not on particular religious beliefs, but rather on creedal beliefs of all men being created equal. However, this claim does not square with history, law, or logic.

In this inspiring episode of Reading With Your Kids, Jed welcomes Janie Nitze, co-author of the picture book Heroes of 1776, to shine a light on the real human courage behind the Declaration of Independence. Speaking from historic Concord, Massachusetts, Janie shares how her background clerking for Justice Neil Gorsuch and their shared concern about the decline in civic education led them to create a children's book that doesn't just march through events, but highlights the sacrifices of men, women, and even children of the Revolutionary era. Janie explains that many of the Declaration's 56 signers paid a steep price—homes destroyed, family members lost, fortunes diminished—and most expected to be hanged for treason when they signed. She wants kids to see that they acted not for their own comfort, but for future generations, passing a torch of liberty that now rests in young readers' hands. Janie and Jed talk about the troubling statistics on civic knowledge and her hope that families will read rich, substantive books together, join debate clubs, and encourage kids to serve their communities and learn to "disagree while being agreeable." Janie also celebrates illustrator Chris Ellison, describing how his art brings to life powerful stories like teenage messenger Emily Geiger and 10-year-old soldier Richard Lord Jones. In the final segment, Jed talks with Cheryl Hellner, author of Sing Up the Earth, a layered picture book about art, nature, loss, and renewal. Cheryl describes how children connect with different threads—animals, grief, hope, or creativity—and how picture books can nourish both kids and adults at many stages of life.

Richard Fowler (Fox News Contributor) and Bishop Joseph Tolton (Interconnected Justice Founder) join Dr. Nii-Quartelai as Fauci pleads the Fifth, schools deploy pepper-spray drones, and an ICE contract tries to write state law out of existence — plus Gorsuch on Christian nationalism and Nancy Mace's bill targeting the Congressional Black Caucus.

OA1284 - Can a modern court implement modern solutions? It really depends on your perspective. Despite some baffling misconceptions about how… anything works, the Justices seem to be doing a pretty good job of ultimately deciding that yes, police do in fact need a warrant to deeply invade your digital privacy. While Kavanaugh appears to have the entire concept of data storage and search queries upside down and backwards, Gorsuch asks complex questions about metadata versus true content, how data is stored in individual accounts, and what other types of data would be exposed if police were allowed to search your location information without a warrant… and yet they both ultimately vote to protect your privacy. It's a weird world out there folks. Cases discussed: United States v. Jones Carpenter v. United States Chatrie v. United States Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Col. Jack Jacobs, a retired colonel in the United States Army and a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions during the Vietnam WarTopic: President Trump says Iran deal is "imminent" Patrick J. Brosnan, Retired and Decorated NYPD Detective and the host of "Pat Brosnan: Live From the Batcave" Saturdays at 9 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Security issues in the In & Out Burger shooting Dana Lancellotti, Executive Director of the Monmouth-Ocean Development Spotlight CouncilTopic: Monmouth-Ocean Spotlight Chris Grollnek, Retired Police Detective Corporal, Active Shooting Expert, and founder of the Active Shooter Prevention ProjectTopic: In & Out Burger mass shooting John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice networkTopic: Spain border crisis; Michigan primaries; Other news of the day Mike Connors, Attorney at Law at Connors & Sullivan and host of "Ask the Lawyer," airing Saturdays at 6 p.m. and Sundays at 11 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Estate Planning Gone Wrong Robert Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human ServicesTopic: Launch of "The Real Food Show"; Modernizing military food with chef Robert Irvine; HHS ending Gain of Function research Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTopic: "After SCOTUS fumbles birthright citizenship, we need sensible census solutions" (Fox News op ed); Dr. Fauci Gordon Chang, Asia expert, columnist and author of "China is Going to War"Topic: Iran seeking assistance from ChinaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sponsored by Wycliffe: There are still people whose Bibles are blank, while millions of others have incomplete stories. Help make God's Word accessible. Give today at: https://bit.ly/3Thk8SHTop headlines for Thursday, July 30, 2026Iraq's prime minister urges exiled Christians to return, though church leaders question whether the government has fixed what drove them out. A Missouri fire station removes a Christian flag after atheist group pressure. Justice Neil Gorsuch calls America a creedal nation. Plus, Rod Dreher says Vance and Carlson cut him off.0:11 Iraqi PM calls on Christians to return after genocide questioned1:18 Missouri city removes Christian flag from fire station2:12 Neil Gorsuch says US was not founded to be about 'one religion'4:19 Children's Care Bear character hailed as transgender in exhibit5:17 Tavner Smith fundraising for new church building after bankruptcy6:10 Virginia pastor removed from ministry over explicit photos7:06 Rod Dreher says JD Vance, Tucker Carlson cut him off over FuentesSubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsIraqi PM calls on Christians to return after genocide questioned | WorldMissouri city removes Christian flag from fire station | U.S.Neil Gorsuch says US was not founded to be about 'one religion' | PoliticsChildren's Care Bear character hailed as transgender in exhibit | WorldTavner Smith fundraising for new church building after bankruptcy | Church & MinistriesVirginia pastor removed from ministry over explicit photos | U.S.Rod Dreher says JD Vance, Tucker Carlson cut him off over Fuentes | Podcast

I can't believe Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch could be so ignorant about our founding. I can only assume he's "just" a coward. I'm always happy to defend the Christian roots of our country.

I can't believe Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch could be so ignorant about our founding. I can only assume he's "just" a coward. I'm always happy to defend the Christian roots of our country.

50:50- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign and former White House Deputy Press Secretary Topic: President Trump in Michigan; President Trump meeting with Zelenskyy and Netanyahu 1:01:17- Assemblyman Robert Auth, New Jersey Assemblyman representing the 39th district (Bergen & Passaic) Topic: Renewing the push to match voter rolls with jury records 1:12:12- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: President Trump's meeting with Zelenskyy; Netanyahu 1:25:20- Nicole Parker, Special Agent with the FBI from 2010 through October 2022, Fox News contributor, and the author of "The Two FBIs: The Bravery and Betrayal I Saw in My Time at the Bureau" Topic: Melania and Barron Trump assassination threat video by Iran 2:01:04- Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: "Why criminal referral of Jack Smith was 100% justified" (Fox News op ed) 2:11:46- Patrick Warburton, actor and comedian best remembered for his role as Puddy on "Seinfeld" Topic: His storied acting and stand-up career; Performing at the Sugar Loaf Performing Arts Center on August 9th at 7 pm in Chester, NYSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're back from vacation and chipping away at the summer backlog. Before the substance: listeners weigh in on our AI-generated cover art, Claude's new prediction scorecard grades our respective forecasting records, and Justices Kagan and Barrett take the Court's budget request — and some docket-terminology talk — to Congress. Then we spend the rest of the show on T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, in which the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, pronounced dead in the Green Bag two decades ago, proves alive enough to reach state-court judgments still on appeal. We try to figure out what the doctrine actually is, whether § 1257 or § 1331 is doing the work, and why the Court's committed formalists split down the middle. Along the way: insider trading as a University of Chicago virtue, a concurrence that may be playing a long game on federal habeas, and a dissent that's "exactly correct and not the law."Highlights[00:00:21] Opening: back from vacation, episode 26 of the season, chasing the all-time record of 29[00:01:15] Listener verdict on the AI back-catalog covers — Proximity Mines in the Facility gets its due, and no, we're not commissioning an artist[00:03:33] Will's Kant remarks draw "especially strenuous criticism"; he declines to recant[00:04:38] Claude's prediction scorecard grades the back catalog: Dan 82.4%, Will 71.2% — hedged singles vs. high-variance swings[00:07:06] Are prediction markets just gambling? Kalshi, Manifold, and insider trading as a University of Chicago virtue[00:10:16] Justices Kagan and Barrett testify before the Appropriations Committees: the security budget, life with a detail, and a remembrance of Lindsey Graham[00:14:03] Kagan on the "terminology nightmare" — shadow vs. emergency vs. interim docket — and why the shadow docket "is not currently shadowy"[00:16:14] The main event: T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, a fed-courts-class case if there ever was one[00:17:44] Doctrine origins: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic's attempt to bury them, and Sam Bray's Green Bag obituary[00:20:35] What Rooker actually held: no bill in equity to void a state judgment — only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state courts[00:25:17] The unusual lineup: Sotomayor writing for Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson; Barrett in dissent with the Chief, Kagan, and Gorsuch[00:28:53] Where does the doctrine come from — § 1257 exclusivity, § 1331 "original" jurisdiction, or something constitutional about "inferior" courts?[00:38:42] Will's alternative: you're either in appellate mode or collateral estoppel mode — and the Full Faith and Credit Act already covers this[00:42:44] The Thomas concurrence: Rooker "correct as an original matter" — and footnote 4's possible long game on federal habeas[00:46:34] The puzzle of the missing Feldman: Thomas's concurrence is almost entirely about Rooker[00:48:06] The Barrett dissent — "exactly correct and not the law" — and Rooker-Feldman given an inch[00:51:49] What goes in the fed courts supplement, and whether Hart and Wechsler needs a bigger Rooker-Feldman chapter again[00:53:25] Sign-off: an efficient episode; browse the back-catalog art at dividedargument.comRelevant linksCasesT.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. — slip opinionRooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908)Commentary & articlesSamuel Bray, "Rooker Feldman (1923–2006)," 9 Green Bag 2d (2006) — the obituaryWilliam Baude, "The Interim Docket" (SSRN, forthcoming U. Chi. L. Rev.) — now with Justice Kagan's terminology testimony incorporatedDavid Lat, "Justices Kagan And Barrett Are The Spokeswomen SCOTUS Needs Right Now" (Original Jurisdiction)SCOTUSblog, "Justices Kagan and Barrett testify before Congress"OtherThe custom back-catalog episode art — tell us your favorites

Justice Neil Gorsuch sits down with Margaret Hoover at the Supreme Court to talk about the ideas that shaped America, why they have endured for 250 years, and how to preserve them for the future.Gorsuch breaks down his new children's book, “Heroes of 1776,” which tells the stories of the men and women who fought for America's freedom. He explains why he believes exploring the humanity of the nation's founders can inspire young readers.He discusses the importance of civics education and pushes back against those who insist America has always been a white Christian nation. Gorsuch also reflects on the role of the Supreme Court in our democratic system, the potential impact of artificial intelligence, and the responsibility of the next generation to advance America's ideals toward a more perfect union.Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, The Meadowlark Foundation, The Philip I Kent Foundation, Anne & Edward Lamont, and Jared Stone.

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates.   Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/   Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter  July 2, 2026  Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

We picked two immigration decisions from the same day over the transgender-sports case because — Dan's protests notwithstanding — that's where the interesting law is. In Mullin v. Doe the Court lets the administration terminate temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, holding the statute's no-judicial-review bar swallows the procedural challenges and that the equal-protection claim fails on the merits — with a genuinely odd move: skipping the jurisdictional question the way Steel Co. says you can't. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado a fight about asylum-metering collapses onto a single preposition — whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States — and the majority says no. Along the way: brown M&Ms and Van Halen riders, whether Congress can strip review of constitutional claims without turning in a circle and sprinkling salt on the ground, Bolling v. Sharpe as a candidate for the worst decision ever, and why there's no White Somalia to run a controlled experiment.Highlights[00:00:28] Opening: hype music, and listening to your own podcast to get in the mood[00:01:42] Building a live-show rider with Claude Code, and the Van Halen brown-M&Ms test as a safety checklist[00:03:18] Blogging origin stories — GeoCities, Movable Type, the death of Google Reader, a ransomed domain[00:06:26] Why we date-stamp episodes; the “too many episodes” complaint[00:07:27] Today's slate: two June 25 immigration decisions, Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, chosen over the trans-sports case[00:10:37] A digression on the opinion's broken line spacing on page 1[00:12:11] Mullin v. Doe setup: TPS, the consultation-and-review procedures, and the “no judicial review of any determination” bar[00:19:07] Does the bar reach the procedures or just the bottom line? The Court says the whole thing[00:24:32] Can Congress strip review of constitutional claims — or must it first “turn in a circle and sprinkle salt on the ground”?[00:25:01] Dan on his and Alan Trammell's The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping[00:31:42] Steel Co. and jurisdiction-first — and the Court's strange skip of it on the interim docket, which costs it Gorsuch and Barrett on that Part[00:38:54] Why leave a hard jurisdictional question unwritten — the stare-decisis dodge and the “do you write on the shadow docket” dilemma[00:42:17] The multiply-the-probabilities problem (70% × 70%), by way of the Section 3 disqualification argument[00:44:04] The merits: Trump v. Hawaii redux, and Alito's very ginger, sanitized recounting of the President's statements about Haitians[00:48:21] Arlington Heights, race as a motivating factor, and the burden-shift the Court blends into one step[00:52:32] The Thomas concurrence: equal protection doesn't bind the federal government — Bolling v. Sharpe and Primus's Bolling Alone[00:59:27] The Kagan dissent: the review bar reaches only the bottom line, so the failure-to-consult claim survives[01:03:34] Why there's no perfect test case — no White Somalia — so the burden of proof is the ballgame[01:04:42] Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: metering, and whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States[01:08:31] IIRIRA swapped “arrives at” for “arrives in” — did changing the preposition change the meaning?[01:12:16] Dueling everyday-language examples: the running back, the mailbox, and Sotomayor's Penn Station / DCA / Golden Gate / movie-theater hypos[01:15:44] The Chicago Skyway's “Now arriving in Indiana” signs — “we say no thanks”[01:18:28] The dissent's practical stakes: perverse incentives to cross illegally, the SS St. Louis, and the Footnote 5 vs. Footnote 4 spat[01:20:51] Mootness and the voluntary-cessation exception; Jackson's advisory-opinion dissent and the Chatrie citation she just missed[01:24:13] The second Thomas concurrence: the § 1252 injunction bar (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez) and an inherent Article II power to expel — “milling around”[01:26:18] The “an uniform rule” indefinite-article tangent; Conor Clarke on how we can't pronounce anything[01:28:06] Sign-off: Dan's two-week vacation, and thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute and SCOTUSblogRelevant linksCasesMullin v. Doe — slip opinion (No. 25-1083, consolidated with Trump v. Miot; TPS termination for Haiti and Syria)Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — slip opinion (No. 25-5; asylum metering and “arrives in the United States”)Commentary & articlesDaniel Epps & Alan M. Trammell, “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (Columbia L. Rev. 2023) — the argument that jurisdiction stripping is a far weaker tool than advertisedRichard Primus, “Bolling Alone” (Columbia L. Rev. 2004) — after Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court has never actually invalidated federal discrimination against Black plaintiffs at the CourtHenry Monaghan, “Marbury and the Administrative State” (1983) — how a court “says what the law is” when the law tells it to defer

not a surprise in my book, but the SCOTUS recently ruled on Trump's executive order of 2025 denying citizenship by birth in the United States. We look at the arguments, and the two takes by Kavanaugh (on the concurring side) and Gorsuch (on the dissenting side, but not fully with the Trump position). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After a quick check on the Nina Totenberg embargo kerfuffle and one more revelation from Justice Thomas's memoir, we devote the episode to Chatrie v. United States, the Court's first major Fourth Amendment decision in years. We trace how the geofence-warrant ruling builds on — and goes beyond — Katz, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States, and what's left of the third-party doctrine and the mosaic theory. Will explains the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment; Dan tries to claim Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion for his general-law approach. We close with the dissents, the advisory-opinion objection, and whether the Court should be saying more about the Fourth Amendment or less about everything. Along the way: Venmo heroin deals, smart microwaves, whether Will has genuinely forgotten his passcode, and a field-trip assignment for Chicagoland listeners.Highlights[00:00:21] Cold open: three recording sessions in three days, and the theories swirling around the Nina Totenberg screw-up[00:02:04] Justice Alito's embargo story: the press-room idea he liked until he learned they have to let the journalists out of the room[00:03:04] My Grandfather's Son follow-up: Justice Thomas's over-cautious marijuana confession[00:04:35] Cleanup-order watch: GVRs still owed in light of Slaughter, Landor, and B.P.J.[00:04:57] The main event: Chatrie v. United States, the geofence-warrant case — and why a 5-Justice Fourth Amendment majority is a good get for Justice Kagan[00:06:51] What a geofence actually is (there is no fence) and the three-step Google Location History protocol[00:13:52] General warrants, particularity, the University of Chicago backpacks hypo, and Ybarra v. Illinois — with a field-trip assignment to the Aurora Tap House[00:21:09] Three questions — search, reasonableness, exclusion — and the clever cert grant that fenced out the exclusionary rule[00:25:52] The setup: Jones and the two tracks of Fourth Amendment doctrine, step 0 (the third-party doctrine), then Carpenter[00:33:13] Will's positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, and Justice Gorsuch's Carpenter dissent[00:36:29] Orin Kerr's mosaic theory: "building out the mosaic Byzantine style, it starts to become searchier"[00:39:15] Kagan shuts the mosaic door: where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of quantity — a fortiori from Carpenter[00:47:36] What survives of the third-party doctrine: Strava, public Venmo feeds, and the "For heroin" hypo[00:50:53] Why it's a big deal: the anti-mosaic holding, and a majority of Justices revealed as Carpenter people[00:54:48] Tangent: Face ID, the Fifth Amendment, Will's forgotten passcodes, and his enemies[00:56:55] Does the Stored Communications Act make all this academic?[00:58:34] The Jackson concurrence's particularity nudge, en banc remand practice, and Levy & Newman on unwritten circuit rules[01:00:43] The Gorsuch concurrence: papers, effects, property — Will disowns it and gives it to Dan's general-law approach[01:08:36] The Alito dissent: the advisory-opinion objection, footnote 4, the Davis carve-out, and the NRA v. Vullo precedent for a do-over remand[01:18:59] Justice Barrett's à-la-carte joins and her one-paragraph dissent — "we should have more dissents like this"[01:22:31] Two kinds of law professors, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," and whether we're good on law[01:24:15] Sign-off: the rare promise of a schedule — a fourth recording session this weekRelevant linksCasesChatrie v. United States — slip opinionYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. JonesKatz v. United StatesSmith v. MarylandCarpenter v. United States — slip opinionFlorida v. JardinesDavis v. United StatesNRA v. VulloCommentary & articlesAmy Howe, "Court rules that law enforcement's use of 'geofence warrant' was a 'search'" (SCOTUSblog)Kate Shaw, Will Baude & Steve Vladeck, end-of-term Supreme Court roundtable (N.Y. Times, July 1, 2026) — the "hosannas" Will mentions on airWilliam Baude & James Y. Stern, "The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment," 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016)Danielle D'Onfro & Daniel Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law," 132 Yale L.J. 910 (2023)Orin S. Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (2012)John H. Langbein, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 207OtherClarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son (2007)Jon O. Newman & Marin K. Levy, Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge 2024)

Last week the Supreme Court ruled seven to two in favor of Bayer-Monsanto, and it changes the rules for anyone who gardens, farms, or eats food grown in this country. Notice they did not go to the highest court in the land to prove Roundup is safe. They went to argue that even if it causes cancer, you are no longer allowed to sue them in your own state for failing to warn you. In this episode I walk you all the way through it. Not the headline, the whole thing. What the ruling actually says and why the legal logic is so slippery. The real story of who Bayer even is and why a drug company bought a pesticide company. The billions already paid out in cancer settlements, and the trap door that just closed. And then, because despair is just laziness in a nicer outfit, exactly what you and I do about it, starting today, with our hands and our habits and our dollars. You have more power here than you have been told. Let's use it. What We Cover Who John Durnell is, and the twenty-plus years of Roundup use behind this case What the ruling actually says, in plain English: FIFRA, the EPA, and the "Uniformity" clause that decided everything Why the legal reasoning is so slippery, and what the bipartisan dissent from Justices Jackson and Gorsuch warned about The honest version of the science fight: what the World Health Organization said versus what the EPA says Three branches of government, one year, moving in the same direction, and the one piece the people actually stopped Why a pharmaceutical company bought a pesticide company, and the structure underneath "create the problem, sell the cure" The settlement numbers, and the question they cannot answer: why pay billions for a product you swear is safe? What this precedent means for every other industry going forward What practical steps you can take right away The Receipts A few of the numbers and facts from this episode, so you have them: The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, decided seven to two on June 25, 2026. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The ruling reversed a Missouri jury's verdict that had awarded John Durnell one point two five million dollars on a failure-to-warn claim. In 2015, the World Health Organization's cancer research arm classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. The EPA has concluded it is not likely to cause cancer when used as directed, and never required a warning label. In 2020, Bayer agreed to pay nearly eleven billion dollars to settle around a hundred thousand cancer claims. The company has spent well over ten billion total, and proposed another settlement of seven and a quarter billion in February 2026. In February, the President signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to boost glyphosate production, though experts question whether it even reaches these lawsuits. A push to shield pesticide companies from these lawsuits in the Farm Bill was stripped out in late April by a bipartisan vote of two hundred eighty to one hundred forty two. The people stopped that one. What You Can Do Lower your toxic load where you can. Start with personal care products, the things you put on your skin every day. Skip drinking from, storing food in, and especially microwaving plastic when you have a glass or steel option. Know where your food comes from. Rinse and soak your produce before you eat it. This is the produce wash/soak product I use.  Grow some of your own, even a little. One tomato plant on a balcony is more food sovereignty than most Americans have. Start absurdly small. Just start. Support local farms, and then ask the question. Find a farm you trust, and kindly ask them about their spraying practices. Give your money on purpose to the people who opt out. Support your body's own systems. Sweat regularly, move consistently, and give your gut real breaks between meals. Move, sweat, rest, repeat. None of this is medical advice or a substitute for your doctor, it is everyday support for a body built to handle a tough world. Resources and Links The produce wash and soak method I use:  https://amzn.to/4xWl2DI Want to read the ruling yourself? Look up Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, decided June 25, 2026. Find a local farm or market near you and start the conversation about how your food is grown.  

On this special edition of the Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Federalist Staff Writer Shawn Fleetwood analyze the Supreme Court's birthplace citizenship decision, dissect the nuances in the dissenting justices' responses to the ruling, and reflect on the problems with "judicial supremacy."Order and review Mollie's book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution here.The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a wide-ranging, politically charged discussion centered on a major Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, which dominates the hour and drives broader debates on immigration policy, constitutional law, and American identity. Hosting solo, Buck Sexton frames the 6–3 ruling as one of the most consequential—and controversial—judicial decisions in modern history, emphasizing that the Court upheld the interpretation that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen (with limited exceptions such as diplomats), including children of undocumented immigrants and so-called “birth tourism.” The conversation repeatedly highlights concerns about immigration loopholes, anchor babies, and national security risks, arguing that the ruling could incentivize foreign nationals to exploit U.S. laws, particularly citing China as a geopolitical rival. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio calls in and analyzes dissenting opinions from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, portraying the ruling as an example of judicial overreach versus originalist constitutional interpretation, while also drawing comparisons to historically controversial Supreme Court cases like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. The discussion expands into immigration enforcement policy, including critiques of sanctuary cities, catch-and-release practices, and the broader political divide between Republicans and Democrats on border security. There is also a significant focus on how birthright citizenship could influence future political eligibility, chain migration, and even hypothetical national security threats, such as foreign-born individuals returning to the U.S. as citizens after being raised abroad. Buck welcomes guest Rafael Mangual, author of Criminal Injustice. This third hour emphasizes a deep dive into crime policy, policing debates, and the real-world consequences of progressive reforms, alongside culturally charged conversations about gender identity issues, free speech, and American political identity. Mangual’s expert analysis of criminal justice reform and the push for decarceration and depolicing, arguing that these policies—widely supported after the 2020 protests—have had harmful effects, particularly in urban communities and among Black Americans. The discussion frames rising crime trends and the subsequent reversal of some reforms as evidence that reduced policing and leniency in prosecution increased violence, with hosts emphasizing that effective policing historically correlates with lower homicide rates and improved public safety outcomes. Mangual underscores that incarceration serves a critical role in crime prevention through incapacitation, challenging progressive narratives that prioritize rehabilitation over deterrence. A major legal and political focus of Hour 3 is the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, sparking a detailed constitutional debate. Mangual aligns more closely with the dissenting justices, questioning whether the 14th Amendment’s original intent supports granting automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens or temporary visitors, including so-called “birth tourism” cases. The conversation highlights competing interpretations among justices such as Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, and critiques the use of executive action instead of legislative authority. The hosts and guest ultimately argue that any meaningful change would require congressional action or a constitutional amendment—an extremely unlikely outcome, reinforcing the political stalemate around immigration reform. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuckYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode was previously broadcast Live on YouTube and DailyWire. Ben Shapiro analyzes this morning's SCOTUS decisions on birthright citizenship, trans athletes, and campaign finance law. Ep. 2456 "Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence" by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze is available here: https://a.co/d/0ad6AurJ - - - Today's Sponsors: Supersure - Go to https://Supersure.com/shapiro. One SuperAgency. One powerful platform. All your policies in one place. Paid for by Supersure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Balance of Nature - Visit https://BalanceofNature.com today and subscribe to the Whole Health System to get an additional 10% off your subscription with promo code SHAPIRO. - - - Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dwplus.watch/BenShapiroMemberExclusive - - - DailyWire+: Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe

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.

In breaking news, a 6-3 Majority of the US Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has rejected Trump's efforts to rip away birthright citizenship from children born in this country to parents who are here in violation of immigration law or here temporarily. Popok explains that fireworks broke out in the opinion between Roberts and the Majority and Clarence Thomas (joined by Gorsuch and Alito) in the dissent. Select Quote: Save more than 50% at https://SelectQuote.com/legalaf today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

New York is the latest state to legalize medical aid in dying. Stephen Dubner speaks with the governor who signed the law, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, a death doula — and an ethicist who thinks the very idea is wrong.   SOURCES: Kathy Hochul, governor of New York. Suzanne O'Brien, death doula, founder of Doulagivers Institute. Al Roth, economist at Stanford University. Daniel Sulmasy, physician, philosopher, director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University.   RESOURCES: Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work, by Al Roth (2026). "New York Moves to Allow Terminally Ill People to Die on Their Own Terms," by Grace Ashford (New York Times, 2025). The Good Death: A Guide for Supporting Your Loved One through the End of Life, by Suzanne O'Brien (2025). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, by Neil Gorsuch (2009).   EXTRAS: "Make Me a Match (Update)," by Freakonomics Radio (2023). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss what the U.S. is getting and what it is giving up with the deal to end Trump's Iran war, how Trump's UFC fight at the White House intentionally used the symbols of the presidency to divide rather than unite Americans, and the intensifying conflict between the government and powerful AI companies.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss today's narrow Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Hemani. The hosts talk about the court's decision on guns and marijuana use, but also, thanks to Justice Gorsuch's focus on the Founding Fathers as "habitual drunkards," veer in a surprisingly philosophical discussion about history and its role in modern legal reasoning. In the latest Gabfest Reads, John Dickerson talks with Bloomberg columnist Adrian Wooldridge about his new book The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. In a moment when American democracy is under assault from authoritarian populists and dogmatic progressives, Wooldridge argues that liberalism itself offers the most resilient framework for pluralistic, self-correcting societies. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Find out more about David Plotz's monthly tours of Ft. DeRussy, the secret Civil War fort hidden in Rock Creek Park. Follow@SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfestSlate Political Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss what the U.S. is getting and what it is giving up with the deal to end Trump's Iran war, how Trump's UFC fight at the White House intentionally used the symbols of the presidency to divide rather than unite Americans, and the intensifying conflict between the government and powerful AI companies.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss today's narrow Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Hemani. The hosts talk about the court's decision on guns and marijuana use, but also, thanks to Justice Gorsuch's focus on the Founding Fathers as "habitual drunkards," veer in a surprisingly philosophical discussion about history and its role in modern legal reasoning. In the latest Gabfest Reads, John Dickerson talks with Bloomberg columnist Adrian Wooldridge about his new book The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism. In a moment when American democracy is under assault from authoritarian populists and dogmatic progressives, Wooldridge argues that liberalism itself offers the most resilient framework for pluralistic, self-correcting societies. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Find out more about David Plotz's monthly tours of Ft. DeRussy, the secret Civil War fort hidden in Rock Creek Park. Follow@SlateGabfest on X / https://twitter.com/SlateGabfestSlate Political Gabfest on Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/Gabfest/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.