Podcasts about Roberts Court

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court's treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey's Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement's use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

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

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

Lisa Graves exposes billionaire capture of the Roberts Court, Ro Khanna blasts Newsom's wealth tax failure, and Delia Ramirez warns Democrats to defend voting rights. Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

Lisa Graves exposes how billionaires, dark money, and the Roberts Court threaten voting rights, democracy, and accountability for Trump.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! * Lisa Graves Exposes The Billionaire Capture Of The Roberts Supreme Court: Lisa Graves exposes how billionaires, dark money, and the Roberts Court threaten voting rights, democracy, and accountability for Trump. [More]* Failing ‘Moral Test,' Newsom Rejects Compromise 2% Wealth Tax … To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageHe told America judges are umpires, not lawmakers. Two decades later, Chief Justice John Roberts is still calling balls and strikes, but sometimes it sounds like he's redrawing the strike zone.We dig into the irony and the real-world consequences of Roberts' “institutionalist” approach, starting with one of the most debated Supreme Court decisions of our time: the Obamacare individual mandate in *NFIB v. Sebelius*. We walk through why conservatives thought the Commerce Clause argument was clean, why Roberts initially seemed to agree, and how the case turned on a single reframe: treating the penalty as a tax under Congress' taxing power. That move didn't just keep a law alive, it reshaped how many people trust the Court.Then we hold that up against Molly Hemingway's portrait of Justice Samuel Alito, a justice known less for smoothing edges and more for saying what he thinks, even when it's uncomfortable. From the Citizens United State of the Union moment to Alito's willingness to let dissents stand on the record, we explore what “courage” looks like on a bench that is always being read through a partisan lens.Finally, we connect the same tension to a live controversy over birthright citizenship in Trump versus Barbara, the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Wong Kim Ark*. When Roberts fires back, “it might be a new world, but it's certainly the same Constitution,” we ask what consistency really demands.Key Points from the Episode:• Roberts' confirmation-hearing metaphor and the legitimacy problem  • How the Roberts Court moves law right while Roberts surprises conservatives  • The Obamacare individual mandate and the “penalty as a tax” reasoning  • Molly Hemingway's portrait of Alito as the road not taken  • Alito's “not true” reaction to Obama after Citizens United  • Trump versus Barbara and the Fourteenth Amendment debate over birthright citizenship  • What “same Constitution” means when the stakes are political  Links

Margaret Hoover talks to Melissa Murray, legal scholar and best-selling author of tThe U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader, a book she wrote in the hope that the Constitution would be read and understood by all Americans—just as the founders had intended.Murray, who also co-hosts the Strict Scrutiny podcast, examines the history of each amendment, and how the Reconstruction Era transformed the Constitution.In the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, Murray analyzes the history and future of the Voting Rights Act, the unfinished promise of Reconstruction, and the debate over whether the Constitution's guarantees of equal citizenship have been fulfilled or remain an ongoing project. She also discusses the Roberts Court's approach to voting rights and race, the limits of presidential power, the role of Congress in checking the executive, and why constitutional literacy remains essential to the survival of American self-government.Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, The Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation, The Marc Haas Foundation, Katharine J. Rayner, Charles R. Schwab, Lindsay and George Billingsley, The Meadowlark Foundation, Jared Stone, Al and Kathy Hubbard, and Craig Newmark Philanthropies.

The Supreme Court's voting rights decision is upending the midterm election and raising concerns about its role in democratic backsliding. Thomas Keck finds that the Court has rarely helped maintain democratic guardrails in threatening periods. But the Roberts Court had been showing a mixed record until recently. Albert Rivero finds that election law cases at the Supreme Court lead to more party-line voting, but the cases have stood out less as the Court has become more partisan across the board.

This one is different. No guest. Just me—and the truth I can't stop sitting with.The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gone. Not weakened. Not under threat. Gone. The legal architecture that turned 7% Black voter registration in Mississippi into 60%—dismantled, decision by decision, by a Supreme Court that was never neutral and was never on our side.But that's not even the whole story. Because while the courts were killing the VRA, the Justice Department was being turned into a weapon. FBI agents raided a Black state senator's office mid-day—Fox News already on the scene—while allies under federal investigation had their evidence destroyed. Ballots from Fulton County are in federal custody. Arizona. Michigan. They are building the architecture of election interference before the midterms. In public. And most people don't even know it's happeningThis episode is about all of it. The Proud Boys as a militia. The Roberts Court as an antidemocratic enforcement mechanism. The Southern Strategy, sixty years old and running on steroids. And the organizing tradition—Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, Hungary's opposition movement—that proves rigged maps can be beaten and stolen futures can be reclaimed.This is the class I didn't want to have to teach. But you need it. Pull up.SHOW NOTESThe death of the Voting Rights Act—Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Brnovich v. DNC (2021), and the April 29, 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which Justice Elena Kagan called "all but a dead letter."The pardon of 1,500+ January 6th participants and the DOJ's move to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders.The FBI raid on Fulton County's election center, the subpoenas targeting Arizona and Michigan 2024 ballots, and what it means for the midterms.The mid-day FBI raid on Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas's office, with Fox News cameras already rolling—and not one charge filed.The two-tier justice system in plain sight: evidence destroyed for allies, prosecutions launched against opponents.Elie Mystal's proposal to add 20 justices to structurally change the Supreme Court's incentive for extremism.How Hungary's opposition built 208 local chapters and 50,000 poll watchers—and won a supermajority against a gerrymandered map.The Afrofuturist tradition of Ella Baker and Bayard Rustin as the organizing inheritance we carry forward.Black Power War Room — blackpowerwarroom.com National Black Justice Coalition — nbjc.org NBJC Equity Week — nbjc.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/teach-the-babies-w-dr-david-j-johns--6173854/support.

In this episode, Jonathan Adler of William & Mary Law School and Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center explore a part of the Supreme Court's work that has drawn growing public attention: its emergency, or “shadow,” docket. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates.    Resources Jonathan Adler, “Reading the Clean Power Plan "Shadow Papers" in Context,” The Volokh Conspiracy (April 22, 2026)  Jonathan Adler, “Mifepristone Returns to the Shadow Docket,” The Volokh Conspiracy (May 3, 2026)  Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (2024)  Stephen Vladeck, “Chief Justice Roberts and the Clean Power Plan,” OneFirst (April 20, 2026)  City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)  Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)  Winter v. NRDC (2008)  West Virginia v. EPA (2016)  Biden v. Texas (2022)  United States v. Texas (2023)  FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024)  Trump v. CASA (2024)  NIH v. American Public Health Association (2025) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Dead scientists, UFO files, and growing questions the government can’t ignore. This week I investigate what’s really going on. I'm also joined by political scientist Carol Swain, who wrote the classic study of race-based gerrymandering, to discuss the partisan battle over voting districts. (1:58) Dead Scientists Mystery (5:33) Los Alamos Disappearances (7:42) UFO Files Released (10:42) Are Aliens Demons? (12:51) Foreign Enemies or Deep State? (18:14) Guest: Carol Swain (20:10) Virginia's Court-Packing Scheme (25:13) Gerrymandering Explained (30:23) Race vs. Substantive Representation (34:49) Democrats' Black City Failures (41:18) Roberts Court & Colorblindness (45:28) Progressive Policies Hurt Blacks (47:55) Marxism & Racial Division (53:27) Guest: Peter Earle Leave the old “buy and hold” crypto strategy behind at https://DineshCrypto.com ! Purchase crypto with military grade encryption and American customer service. Hundreds of crypto holders have saved MILLIONS thanks to BlockTrustIRA’s Animus AI. Visit https://DineshCrypto.com and receive up to $2,500 in FREE bonus crypto! America has nearly 39 trillion dollars in debt! Are you protected from this pending disaster? Go to http://DineshGold.com and get up to 10% in bonus gold or silver. For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (706) 262-4774 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/dinesh Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. I’m on substack! Check out what I have to say here: https://dineshdsouza.substack.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Voting Rights Act, or VRA, is viewed as the most important piece of legislation advancing civil rights in the 1960s. Passed in 1965, it was intended to redress the dis-empowerment of African Americans whose voting rights had been restricted due to several states legislation, ranging from poll taxes to literacy tests and other restrictions on voting. Throughout the Roberts Court, the VRA has been restricted and its protections stripped away. In 2026, perhaps the last of these provisions have been overturned, in a decision in the case Louisiana v Callais. On todays show, we will explore this decision and the impact it has on drawing Congressional districts, in an era of particularly aggressive gerrymandering. [ dur: 58mins. ] Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law and the Executive Director of Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy at Georgia State University. He is the author of Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges. Seth C. McKee is a Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University. He is the author of The Dynamics of Southern Politics: Causes and Consequences and coauthor of Rural Republican Realignment in the Modern South: The Untold Story with MV Hood. Christian Grose is a Professor of Political Science & Public Policy and the Academic Director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy at the University of Southern California. He is the author of Independent Redistricting Commissions Increase Voter Perceptions of Fairness and co-author of Local Election Administrators in the United States: The Frontline of Democracy. This program is produced by Doug Becker, Ankine Aghassian, Maria Armoudian, Anna Lapin and Sudd Dongre. Politics and Activism, Elections, Redistricting, Voting Rights, Congress, Courts, Democrats, Republicans

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court By: Sarah Isgur Published: 2026 416 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? A deep dive into the Roberts Court, with a historical framing of the Court as a whole. Two main themes run through the book.  First, while people want to evaluate the Court on the single axis of liberal vs. conservative, there is a second, perhaps more important axis that tracks the institutionalism of the justices—respect for precedent, maintaining the legitimacy of the Court, congressional deference, etc. Once you consider both axes, rather than a 6–3, Republican vs. Democratic Court, you get a 3–3–3 Court. Composed of (in Isgur's words): 1- The Deciders: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett 2- The Conservative Honey Badgers: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch 3- The Lonely Liberals: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson Second, there's the idea of the Supreme Court as the Last Branch Standing, by which she means that it's the only branch of government that would be recognizable to the Founders. Which also means it's the one branch of government trying to hold a constitutional line. This is not a comment on Originalism or Textualism, this is a comment on the fact that the executive Branch has accumulated an enormous amount of power, while, conversely, the legislative branch does barely any legislation. As a consequence, much of what the Court does is designed as subtle encouragement for Congress to take back some of its power. What authorial biases should I be aware of?

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit affordingyourlife.substack.com

Writer Phyllis Jordan  who grew up in Virginia and long reported on southern politics  considers the implications and consequences of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in a Louisiana case that essentially guts the Voting Rights Act.Do you agree with the Supreme Court majority that racism and discrimination in voting is no longer a problem that requires federal oversight? What do you foresee the Roberts Court being most remembered for? a. Expanding presidential powers b. Curbing women's rights and rights of minorities c. Expanding protection of religious freedom d. Protecting and defending Second Amendment rights. Phyllis Jordan is an education policy analyst, journalist and communications manager with more than 30 years experience writing, editing and directing coverage of topics such as education, Congress, national politics, transportation, military affairs and health care. She has written extensively about student absenteeism and Covid relief spending. She has worked at Georgetown's Center for Children and Families, Attendance Works, and the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading. Previously she was a senior editor  at the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.

“For Jefferson, Hamilton is not a hated enemy to be opposed or destroyed, but a respected adversary to be debated with. And that is the spirit we have to get back to today.” — Jeffrey Rosen Jeffrey Rosen is one of the most respected constitutional scholars in America — CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, contributing editor at The Atlantic, and the author of nine books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Pursuit of Happiness and The Pursuit of Liberty. In this conversation, Rosen traces the Hamilton–Jefferson rivalry from the founding era to the Roberts Court, asks whether the current administration looks more like Caesar or Andrew Jackson, makes the case that deep reading may be the last best hope for democracy, and previews his forthcoming biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is the kind of conversation that reminds you what civic discourse, at its best, can actually look like. Calls to Action ✅ If this conversation resonates, consider sharing it with someone who believes connection across difference still matters. ✅ Subscribe to Corey's Substack: coreysnathan.substack.com ✅ Leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen: ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics ✅ Subscribe to Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other on your favorite podcast platform. ✅ Watch the full conversation and subscribe on YouTube: youtube.com/@politicsandreligion Key Takeaways Caesar or Jackson? Rosen frames the central question about the current administration: is this a Caesar who subverts the separation of powers and rules by whim rather than law, or a Jackson-style populist who attacks elites and large institutions but ultimately operates within the constitutional system? The distinction, Rosen argues, matters enormously. The Hamilton–Jefferson divide is still very much alive. The debate between liberal and strict construction of the Constitution did not begin with originalism. It began with the bank. Hamilton argued Congress could imply powers beyond what's enumerated; Jefferson said no. John Marshall sided with Hamilton, and that fault line runs directly through today's Supreme Court. The pursuit of happiness meant something very different to the Founders. For Jefferson, Madison, and their classical sources, happiness was not about feeling good. It was about being good — cultivating temperance, prudence, courage, and justice, and using reason to moderate unproductive emotions like anger, envy, and fear. Social media is Madison's nightmare. Madison designed a system of deliberative slowness. Social media's “enraged to engage” business model is the precise opposite. Rosen adds that AI compounds the problem by presenting a single probabilistic version of truth rather than fostering the clash of competing ideas that the Enlightenment depended on. Brandeis offers a way out of the left–right impasse. Suspicious of both big government and big business, and committed to industrial democracy and worker ownership, Louis Brandeis remains the historical figure who most persuasively bridges the divide between libertarians and progressives. Opposed in life as in death. Hamilton and Jefferson spent careers savaging each other. Yet after Hamilton's death, Jefferson placed a bust of Hamilton across from his own at Monticello. That image — honored adversaries, not enemies — is the model Rosen believes the country desperately needs to recover. About Our Guest Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. He is the author of nine books, including The Pursuit of Happiness, The Pursuit of Liberty, and Louis D. Brandeis: American Prophet. His essays and commentary have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, and on NPR. He also served as an advisor for Ken Burns' The American Revolution on PBS. His forthcoming biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is part of the Yale Jewish Lives series. Links and Resources National Constitution Center - constitutioncenter.org GW Law - www.law.gwu.edu Jeffrey Rosen on X - @RosenJeffrey Connect on Social Media Corey is @coreysnathan on all the socials… Substack LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Twitter Threads Bluesky TikTok Thanks to our Sponsors and Partners Thanks to Pew Research Center (pewresearch.org) for making today's conversation possible. Proud members of The Democracy Group Now go talk some politics and religion — with gentleness and respect.

The Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965, and considered to be the most important civil rights legislation in American history, was effectively jettisoned by the ruling of the United States Supreme Court last week, according to our guest, David Daley, one of the leading experts in the country on the Act itself, and partisan and racial gerrymandering. The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice Samuel Alito and while he calls it an updating of the statute, others like Professor of law Richard Hasan, an elections law expert, begged to differ calling it an “earthquake” decision which sharply erodes the Voting Rights Act.  With Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act already scrapped years back by the Roberts Court, and on the heels of the Louisiana vs. Callais decision last week, one is left to wonder what is left of protections for Black citizens across the South to ensure that their voices will count.  I have had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Daley several times in the past.  Never have I heard his words as impassioned and compelling as those he brings to this podcast.  You will walk away with history surrounding this vitally important legislation, the immediate real- world impacts of this decision, and what the road ahead looks like for gerrymandering and voting rights.  He is the author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count” and “Antidemocratic,” his latest book.

“For Jefferson, Hamilton is not a hated enemy to be opposed or destroyed, but a respected adversary to be debated with. And that is the spirit we have to get back to today.” — Jeffrey Rosen Jeffrey Rosen is one of the most respected constitutional scholars in America — CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, contributing editor at The Atlantic, and the author of nine books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Pursuit of Happiness and The Pursuit of Liberty. In this conversation, Rosen traces the Hamilton–Jefferson rivalry from the founding era to the Roberts Court, asks whether the current administration looks more like Caesar or Andrew Jackson, makes the case that deep reading may be the last best hope for democracy, and previews his forthcoming biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is the kind of conversation that reminds you what civic discourse, at its best, can actually look like. Calls to Action ✅ If this conversation resonates, consider sharing it with someone who believes connection across difference still matters. ✅ Subscribe to Corey's Substack: coreysnathan.substack.com ✅ Leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen: ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics ✅ Subscribe to Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other on your favorite podcast platform. ✅ Watch the full conversation and subscribe on YouTube: youtube.com/@politicsandreligion Key Takeaways Caesar or Jackson? Rosen frames the central question about the current administration: is this a Caesar who subverts the separation of powers and rules by whim rather than law, or a Jackson-style populist who attacks elites and large institutions but ultimately operates within the constitutional system? The distinction, Rosen argues, matters enormously. The Hamilton–Jefferson divide is still very much alive. The debate between liberal and strict construction of the Constitution did not begin with originalism. It began with the bank. Hamilton argued Congress could imply powers beyond what's enumerated; Jefferson said no. John Marshall sided with Hamilton, and that fault line runs directly through today's Supreme Court. The pursuit of happiness meant something very different to the Founders. For Jefferson, Madison, and their classical sources, happiness was not about feeling good. It was about being good — cultivating temperance, prudence, courage, and justice, and using reason to moderate unproductive emotions like anger, envy, and fear. Social media is Madison's nightmare. Madison designed a system of deliberative slowness. Social media's “enraged to engage” business model is the precise opposite. Rosen adds that AI compounds the problem by presenting a single probabilistic version of truth rather than fostering the clash of competing ideas that the Enlightenment depended on. Brandeis offers a way out of the left–right impasse. Suspicious of both big government and big business, and committed to industrial democracy and worker ownership, Louis Brandeis remains the historical figure who most persuasively bridges the divide between libertarians and progressives. Opposed in life as in death. Hamilton and Jefferson spent careers savaging each other. Yet after Hamilton's death, Jefferson placed a bust of Hamilton across from his own at Monticello. That image — honored adversaries, not enemies — is the model Rosen believes the country desperately needs to recover. About Our Guest Jeffrey Rosen is President and CEO Emeritus of the National Constitution Center, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor at The Atlantic. He is the author of nine books, including The Pursuit of Happiness, The Pursuit of Liberty, and Louis D. Brandeis: American Prophet. His essays and commentary have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, and on NPR. He also served as an advisor for Ken Burns' The American Revolution on PBS. His forthcoming biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is part of the Yale Jewish Lives series. Links and Resources National Constitution Center - constitutioncenter.org GW Law - www.law.gwu.edu Jeffrey Rosen on X - @RosenJeffrey Connect on Social Media Corey is @coreysnathan on all the socials… Substack LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Twitter Threads Bluesky TikTok Thanks to our Sponsors and Partners Thanks to Pew Research Center (pewresearch.org) for making today's conversation possible. Proud members of The Democracy Group Now go talk some politics and religion — with gentleness and respect.

In this week's solo roundup, Dan Miller deconstructs a series of aggressive maneuvers by the 47th administration designed to codify Christian nationalism into federal policy. The centerpiece is the newly released report from the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force, an entity Dan argues serves less as a shield for religious freedom and more as a sword against civil rights. By framing standard anti-discrimination protections as inherent attacks on the faith, the administration is effectively creating a legal "red meat" pipeline for its base. This ideological shift is mirrored in the judicial branch, where the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Calle effectively "guts" the remains of the Voting Rights Act. Dan traces the lineage of Justice Alito's "colorblind" rhetoric back to the Roberts Court, highlighting how the judicial insistence on ignoring race is being weaponized to dismantle Black political representation and broader DEI initiatives. The episode further explores the chilling effect of "MAGA-style" free speech, highlighting the selective weaponization of federal agencies against cultural and political critics. From the FCC's retaliatory pressure on ABC following a Jimmy Kimmel monologue to the surreal indictment of James Comey over a seashell photo, Miller illustrates a pattern of using law enforcement as a tool for personal grievance. On the border, the administration continues its push for a "White America" through restrictive new visa affirmations and a cynical rebranding of ICE to "NICE"—a move Dan describes as a superficial mask for an agency defined by family separations and systemic harm. However, the episode closes on a note of strategic optimism: as the 2026 midterm elections loom, the GOP's fixation on cultural grievances over economic affordability suggests a political vulnerability that could shift the national tide. Subscribe for $3.65: ⁠https://axismundi.supercast.com/⁠ Subscribe to our free newsletter: ⁠https://swaj.substack.com/⁠ Order American Caesar by Brad Onishi: ⁠https://static.macmillan.com/static/essentials/american-caesar-9781250427922/⁠ Donate to SWAJ: https://axismundi.supercast.com/donations/new Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Daniel Harawa discusses his article, “Lemonade: A Racial Justice Reframing of The Roberts Court's Criminal Jurisprudence. Professor Harawa points out how the Court has recently issued a series of decisions addressing racism in the criminal legal system: Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado and Flowers v. Mississippi. Both teach that race history matters, those who discriminate must be […]

Nia and Aughie discuss the Roberts Court, years 2005 - present (2026). John Roberts has led the Supreme Court for 21 years, overseeing a move to the conservative right and many modern controversial opinions. Part 1 covers the youth and early career of John Roberts and the early years of the Roberts Court.

The Roberts Court has recently used its docket to indulge in growing antidemocratic tendencies, collecting power for itself as it shuts the courthouse doors on those seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights and uphold checks and balances.  David Sloss joins Lindsay Langholz to discuss his new book, People v. The Court: The Next Revolution in Constitutional Law, and how power might be rebalanced through a change in judicial review standards.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: David Sloss, John A. and Elizabeth H. Sutro Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of LawLink: People v. The Court: The Next Revolution in Constitutional Law, by David SlossLink: The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy, by Judge Lynn Adelman Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.-----------------Production House: Flint Stone MediaCopyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Cedric Powell is the Wyatt, discusses his article, “The Post-Racial Deception of the Roberts Court” in which he argues that the supposed colorblind rhetoric masks an agenda to strip precedent, history and reality away from Supreme Court decisions. By looking at the Civil Rights and Civil War Amendment cases, Powell shows how the Roberts Court […]

This Supreme Court term has seen threats against the Justices – from the President, a slew of game-changing shadow docket opinions, justices sparring in public, and some of the most consequential cases of our lifetimes. If you're feeling a little disoriented by it all, join Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on this week's show for a clearer understanding of what's going on at One, First Street. They discuss the big immigration case the court took up just this week that will be crammed into the last week of arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's courage at a public event, and what it means when a justice steps out of the four corners of her opinions to voice urgent concerns about the shadow docket in public, and why, when it comes to threats to judges, the Chief Justice is meekly asking Trump knock it off, while taking no responsibility for his court's role in it all. Supplemental reading: The Constitutional Accountability Center on the history of mail-in ballotsThis week's Executive Dysfunction newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team is a must-read: slate.com/dysfunctionWant more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Supreme Court term has seen threats against the Justices – from the President, a slew of game-changing shadow docket opinions, justices sparring in public, and some of the most consequential cases of our lifetimes. If you're feeling a little disoriented by it all, join Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on this week's show for a clearer understanding of what's going on at One, First Street. They discuss the big immigration case the court took up just this week that will be crammed into the last week of arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's courage at a public event, and what it means when a justice steps out of the four corners of her opinions to voice urgent concerns about the shadow docket in public, and why, when it comes to threats to judges, the Chief Justice is meekly asking Trump knock it off, while taking no responsibility for his court's role in it all. Supplemental reading: The Constitutional Accountability Center on the history of mail-in ballotsThis week's Executive Dysfunction newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team is a must-read: slate.com/dysfunctionWant more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Supreme Court term has seen threats against the Justices – from the President, a slew of game-changing shadow docket opinions, justices sparring in public, and some of the most consequential cases of our lifetimes. If you're feeling a little disoriented by it all, join Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on this week's show for a clearer understanding of what's going on at One, First Street. They discuss the big immigration case the court took up just this week that will be crammed into the last week of arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's courage at a public event, and what it means when a justice steps out of the four corners of her opinions to voice urgent concerns about the shadow docket in public, and why, when it comes to threats to judges, the Chief Justice is meekly asking Trump knock it off, while taking no responsibility for his court's role in it all. Supplemental reading: The Constitutional Accountability Center on the history of mail-in ballotsThis week's Executive Dysfunction newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team is a must-read: slate.com/dysfunctionWant more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For decades, Americans viewed the Supreme Court as an impartial referee standing above the political fray. However, public trust in this vital institution has recently plummeted to historic lows. Many observers blame a surge in ideological rulings that align with the party of the President who appointed each justice. If the referee is suddenly wearing a team jersey, the fundamental systems of democracy and capitalism begin to break down. Georgetown University Law Professor Steve Vladeck joins Luigi and Bethany to argue that the real culprit isn't just partisan justices, but a complete abdication of responsibility by Congress. Rather than viewing judicial reform as a zero-sum game of packing the court, he proposes that lawmakers must reclaim their constitutional authority to check judicial overreach. He explains how special interest groups have successfully manipulated this power vacuum to reshape American regulations. This perspective completely reframes the crisis from a partisan dispute into a structural collapse of institutional power. This episode explores the hidden mechanisms that allow unaccountable judges to unilaterally rewrite the rules of our economic system, why decades of political complacency allowed this shift and what actionable steps can actually fix it. Vladeck answers whether the business community will ultimately regret enabling a system that erodes the reliable rule of law and why saving our markets may require Congress to finally stand up and do its job. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sheryll Cashin, former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and professor of law, civil rights and social justice at Georgetown University, reviews key existential Supreme Court cases for Black America and the impact of the Roberts Court on democracy.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

In hour 2, Greg Kelly offers a fervent defense of Donald Trump following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated specific emergency tariffs as an illegal use of executive authority. Kelly and guest Joe diGenova critique the judicial overreach of the Roberts Court, specifically targeting conservative justices who sided with the liberal wing to create what they view as a massive economic and constitutional setback. The broadcast transitions into a broader defense of the administration's resilience, highlighting Trump's resolve to utilize alternative legal statutes to maintain his protectionist trade agenda despite the court's interference. Woven throughout this political commentary is a skeptical reexamination of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, with Kelly characterizing the allegations against prominent figures as a product of media-driven hysteria and unreliable accusers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Interesting fact: While all federal officials take an oath that they will support the US Constitution, Supreme Court justices must also take a second (and very profound) oath of office.As New York Times judicial columnist Adam Liptak reports, each of the nine “supremes” must swear that they will “do equal right to the poor and the rich.” Yes, class fairness is not only a core element of justice, but it's supposed out to be a formal measure of Supreme Court behavior.Every justice is aware of this consequential, ethical requirement, since each one took the oath. How damning, then, that the Court's right-wing ideologues feel no twinge of conscience about flagrantly and frequently violating their own word of honor! Call the roll: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. In case after case that pits corporate power against workers, consumers, small business, voters, communities, our environment, farm families—i.e., you and me—this plutocratic cabal rules for the rich.This month, an independent study of decisions by the Roberts Court revealed that two-thirds of its rulings favor wealthy powers over middle-income and poor people. Thus, our so-called “court of justice” is a primary pusher of inequality, especially through its farfetched decree that unlimited corporate political cash is “free speech,” and that corporations are “people.”Chief Justice Roberts smugly proclaims that the Constitution tells him whether the corporate giant or “the little guy” should win. “That's the oath” I took, he sniffs.This is Jim Hightower saying… Bovine excrement! It's obvious that plutocratic ideologues like him are using the Constitution like a ventriloquist dummy. And—hello, your honorableness—what about that other oath you took about equal fairness for the poor?Do something!There are groups that are working on holding the mighty Supremes accountable—what a world that will be! Check out:* The Alliance for Justice* Common Cause* Brennan Center for JusticeJim Hightower's Lowdown is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jimhightower.substack.com/subscribe

SHOW1-8-2026THE SHOW BEGINS IN DOUBTS ABOUT THE SARCASTIC INVENTION, THE DON-ROE DICTRINE..SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AND THE RETURN OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE Colleague Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Anatol Lieven argues that "spheres of influence" have returned, with the US reasserting the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere and threatening to seize Greenland. Unlike traditional alliances, this approach risks alienating fellow democracies. Lieven contrasts this with Russia's territorial ambitions in the former Soviet Union and China's historic regional goals. NUMBER 1COLD WAR TACTICS: THE SEIZURE OF A RUSSIAN TANKER Colleague Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Lieven discusses the US Navy's detention of a Russian-flagged ship in the North Atlantic, viewing it as a dangerous escalation akin to piracy. This move humiliates Moscow and aims to control oil supplies. Lieven warns that if European nations mimic these seizures, Russia may retaliate violently, risking a direct war. NUMBER 2THE SUPREME COURT AND THE MYTH OF THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Colleague Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. Richard Epstein challenges the view that the Roberts Court blindly supports a "unitary executive." He argues the Court is correctly questioning the constitutionality of independent administrative agencies, like the FTC, which insulate officials from presidential removal. Epstein contends that relying on case counts ignores the specific legal merits regarding separation of powers. NUMBER 3TRUMP V. ILLINOIS: LIMITING PRESIDENTIAL POWER OVER THE NATIONAL GUARD Colleague Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. Discussing a recent unsigned Supreme Court order, Epstein notes the Court upheld a decision preventing the President from deploying the National Guard without a governor's consent. This ruling contradicts claims of judicial bias toward the executive, affirming that the President cannot simply declare an emergency to override state sovereignty. NUMBER 4ONE YEAR LATER: ANGER AND STAGNATION AFTER THE PALISADES FIRE Colleague Jeff Bliss, Pacific Watch. A year after the Palisades fires, Jeff Bliss reports that residents remain angry over government inaction. Rebuilding is stalled by the Coastal Commission's strict regulations, and fuel loads in canyons remain high due to environmental restrictions on brush clearing. The fires, driven by Santa Ana winds, highlight systemic bureaucratic failures in Los Angeles. NUMBER 5#SCALAREPORT: AI AND ROBOTICS DOMINATE CES Colleague Chris Riegel, CEO of Scala.com. Reporting from CES, Chris Riegel highlights the dominance of AI and robotics, from household droids to military applications. While the tech sector booms with massive infrastructure spending, Riegel warns of a "K-shaped" economy where Main Street struggles with softening demand, masking the wealth concentrated in artificial intelligence and data centers. NUMBER 6LANCASTER COUNTY: AMISH SPENDING AND DATA CENTER GROWTH Colleague Jim McTague, Author and Former Barron's Editor. Jim McTague reports that the Lancaster County economy remains robust, evidenced by heavy Amish spending at Costco and thriving local businesses like Kegel's Produce. Despite some local protests, data centers are being built on old industrial sites. McTague sees no need for Fed rate cuts given the stable local economy. NUMBER 7THE NUCLEAR ESCROW: MANAGING PROLIFERATION AMONG ALLIES Colleague Henry Sokolski, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Henry Sokolski warns that allies like Poland, Turkey, and South Africaare considering nuclear weapons due to eroding trust in US guarantees. He proposes a "nuclear escrow" account: storing refurbished warheads in the US for allies to deploy only during crises, providing leverage without permanently stationing targets on foreign soil. NUMBER 8THE SIEGE OF 717 AND THE VOLCANO OF THERA Colleague Professor Ed Watts, Author of The Romans. In 717 AD, Arab forces besieged Constantinople but failed due to the city's massive walls and "Greek fire." Professor Watts explains that a subsequent volcanic eruption in Thera was interpreted as divine punishment for the empire's sins, leading to a spiritual crisis and the rise of iconoclasm to appease God. NUMBER 9THE STUPIDITY OF SUCCESSORS: MANUEL AND ANDRONICUS Colleague Professor Ed Watts, Author of The Romans. Manuel Komnenos favored grand gestures over systemic stability, weakening the Roman state. His successor, Andronicus, was a nihilistic sadist whose tyranny and family infighting destabilized the empire. Watts details how the refusal to punish rebellious family members created a culture of impunity that eventually led to a violent overthrow. NUMBER 10THE CRUSADES: FROM COOPERATION TO CONFLICT Colleague Professor Ed Watts, Author of The Romans. Relations between East and West collapsed during the Crusades. While the First Crusade cooperated with Rome, the Second and Third turned hostile, with Crusaders seizing territory rather than returning it. Watts notes that the theological schism of 1054 and cultural distrust entrenched this division, setting the stage for future betrayal. NUMBER 111204: THE SACK OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE END OF CONTINUITY Colleague Professor Ed Watts, Author of The Romans. The Fourth Crusade, diverted by Venetian debt, sacked Constantinople in 1204, burning the city to quell resistance. Watts argues this marked the true end of the ancient Roman state. The meritocratic system collapsed, and elites like Nicetas Choniates lost everything, severing the 2,000-year political continuity of the empire. NUMBER 12VENEZUELA: THE REGIME SURVIVES MADURO'S EXIT Colleague Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Wall Street Journal. Despite Maduro's removal, the Venezuelan regime remains intact under hardliners Delcy Rodriguez and Diosdado Cabello. Mary Anastasia O'Grady notes that repression continues, and European oil companies are hesitant to invest. The regime feigns cooperation to avoid US intervention, but genuine recovery is impossible without restoring the rule of law. NUMBER 13RUSSIA'S OIL CRISIS AND REGIONAL DEFICITS Colleague Michael Bernstam, Hoover Institution. Russiafaces a financial crisis as oil prices drop below $60 per barrel. Michael Bernstam explains that increased global supply forces Russia to sell at deep discounts to China and India, often below cost. This revenue loss prevents the Kremlinfrom paying soldiers, sparking severe regional budget deficits. NUMBER 14EUROPEAN FREEZE AND THE MYTH OF BOOTS ON THE GROUND Colleague Simon Constable, Journalist and Author. A deep freeze hits Southern Europe while commodity prices like copper rise. Simon Constable reports on the UK's bleak economic mood and dismisses the feasibility of British or French "boots on the ground" in Ukraine. He notes that depleted military manpower makes such guarantees declarative rather than substantial. NUMBER 15ARTEMIS 2 RISKS AND THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN SPACE Colleague Bob Zimmerman, BehindtheBlack.com. Bob Zimmerman urges NASA to fly Artemis 2 unmanned due to unresolved Orion heat shield damage, arguing safety should trump beating China. He also dismisses concerns about lunar methane contamination and highlights a new study suggesting ice caps could allow liquid water lakes to exist on Mars. NUMBER 16

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE MYTH OF THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Colleague Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. Richard Epstein challenges the view that the Roberts Court blindly supports a "unitary executive." He argues the Court is correctly questioning the constitutionality of independent administrative agencies, like the FTC, which insulate officials from presidential removal. Epstein contends that relying on case counts ignores the specific legal merits regarding separation of powers. NUMBER 31890 FULLER SCOTUS

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE MYTH OF THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Colleague Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute. Richard Epstein challenges the view that the Roberts Court blindly supports a "unitary executive." He argues the Court is correctly questioning the constitutionality of independent administrative agencies, like the FTC, which insulate officials from presidential removal. Epstein contends that relying on case counts ignores the specific legal merits regarding separation of powers. NUMBER 31924 SCOTUS HUGHES COURT

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

When President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988, few could have expected that he would not only serve for 30 years but would also author landmark opinions on such contested issues in American society as abortion, gay rights, and free speech. At the ideological center of an increasingly divided court, Kennedy became the swing vote on many of the Roberts Court's 5–4 decisions following the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. He said his principles never wavered; “The cases swing, I don't.”  That role earned him the monicker “The Decider” by Time magazine. He is the 15th longest-serving Supreme Court justice in American history. But what judicial philosophy guided his time on the bench? How did he keep his judgments separate from his political and religious beliefs? He says it is all owed to a fundamental conviction that neutral principles must drive the decision and an unyielding commitment to the rule of law.  Join us for a live discussion in San Francisco with retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to learn about his life—beginning in Sacramento, California, and taking him to the center of power in Washington, D.C.—and his approach to the rule of law. These are topics he explores in his new book Life, Law, and Liberty, and you can hear firsthand at Commonwealth Club World Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How does the Supreme Court really work—and how does one of its youngest justices balance life, law, and seven children? In this in-depth conversation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett discusses her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Barrett explains the principles behind originalism, the Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and how the Court reached a decision in landmark cases like Casa de Maryland v. United States and handled a debate over the major questions doctrine. Barrett also opens up about her clerkship with Justice Antonin Scalia, how the Court builds consensus, why stare decisis matters, and how her faith and family life shape her character—but not her judicial reasoning. With the discussion ranging from the Warren Court to the Roberts Court, from Roe v. Wade to Dobbs, this is a very candid and illuminating conversation with a sitting Supreme Court justice. Subscribe to Uncommon Knowledge at hoover.org/uk

Lisa Graves joins to discuss Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights—from court "capture" networks to why she sees the recent immunity ruling and emergency-docket moves as system-tilting, not umpiring. She and our host spar over what counts as a "constitutional crisis," contrasting TRO reversals and precedent-scrapping with the break-glass scenario of outright defiance. Also: the Young Republicans' Hitler-meme leak and J.D. Vance's defenses...in song! Plus: New York's mayoral debate—Zohran Mamdani vs. Andrew Cuomo, on prostitution, Jews, and parades. Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack

CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR 1900 KYIV THE SHOW BEGINS IN THE DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS IS CAPABLE OF CUTTING SPENDING..... 10-8-25 FIRST HOUR 9-915 HEADLINE: Arab Intellectuals Fail Palestinians by Prioritizing Populism and Victimhood Narrative in Gaza ConflictGUEST NAME: Hussain Abdul-Hussain SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Hussain Abdul-Hussain about Hamas utilizing the power of victimhood to justify atrocities and vilify opponents. Arab and Muslim intellectuals have failed Palestinians by prioritizing populism over introspection and self-critique. Regional actors like Egypt prioritize populist narratives over national interests, exemplified by refusing to open the Sinai border despite humanitarian suffering. The key recommendation is challenging the narrative and fostering a reliable, mature Palestinian government. 915-930 HEADLINE: Arab Intellectuals Fail Palestinians by Prioritizing Populism and Victimhood Narrative in Gaza ConflictGUEST NAME: Hussain Abdul-Hussain SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Hussain Abdul-Hussain about Hamas utilizing the power of victimhood to justify atrocities and vilify opponents. Arab and Muslim intellectuals have failed Palestinians by prioritizing populism over introspection and self-critique. Regional actors like Egypt prioritize populist narratives over national interests, exemplified by refusing to open the Sinai border despite humanitarian suffering. The key recommendation is challenging the narrative and fostering a reliable, mature Palestinian government. 930-945 HEADLINE: Russian Oil and Gas Revenue Squeezed as Prices Drop, Turkey Shifts to US LNG, and China Delays Pipeline GUEST NAME: Michael Bernstam SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Michael Bernstam about Russia facing severe budget pressure due to declining oil prices projected to reach $40 per barrel for Russian oil and global oil surplus. Turkey, a major buyer, is abandoning Russian natural gas after signing a 20-year LNG contract with the US. Russia refuses Indian rupee payments, demanding Chinese renminbi, which India lacks. China has stalled the major Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline project indefinitely. Russia utilizes stablecoin and Bitcoin via Central Asian banks to circumvent payment sanctions. 945-1000 HEADLINE: UN Snapback Sanctions Imposed on Iran; Debate Over Nuclear Dismantlement and Enrichment GUEST NAME: Andrea Stricker SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Andrea Stricker about the US and Europe securing the snapback of UN sanctions against Iran after 2015 JCPOA restrictions expired. Iran's non-compliance with inspection demands triggered these severe sanctions. The discussion covers the need for full dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, including both enrichment and weaponization capabilities, to avoid future conflict. Concerns persist about Iran potentially retaining enrichment capabilities through low-level enrichment proposals and its continued non-cooperation with IAEA inspections. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 HEADLINE: Commodities Rise and UK Flag Controversy: French Weather, Market Trends, and British Politics GUEST NAME: Simon Constable SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Simon Constable about key commodities like copper up 16% and steel up 15% signaling strong economic demand. Coffee prices remain very high at 52% increase. The conversation addresses French political turmoil, though non-citizens cannot vote. In the UK, the St. George's flag has become highly controversial, viewed by some as associated with racism, unlike the Union Jack. This flag controversy reflects a desire among segments like the white working class to assert English identity. 1015-1030 HEADLINE: Commodities Rise and UK Flag Controversy: French Weather, Market Trends, and British Politics GUEST NAME: Simon Constable SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Simon Constable about key commodities like copper up 16% and steel up 15% signaling strong economic demand. Coffee prices remain very high at 52% increase. The conversation addresses French political turmoil, though non-citizens cannot vote. In the UK, the St. George's flag has become highly controversial, viewed by some as associated with racism, unlike the Union Jack. This flag controversy reflects a desire among segments like the white working class to assert English identity. 1030-1045 HEADLINE: China's Economic Contradictions: Deflation and Consumer Wariness Undermine GDP Growth ClaimsGUEST NAME: Fraser Howie SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Fraser Howie about China facing severe economic contradictions despite high World Bank forecasts. Deflation remains rampant with frequently negative CPI and PPI figures. Consumer wariness and high youth unemployment at one in seven persist throughout the economy. The GDP growth figure is viewed as untrustworthy, manufactured through debt in a command economy. Decreased container ship arrivals point to limited actual growth, exacerbated by higher US tariffs. Economic reforms appear unlikely as centralization under Xi Jinping continues. 1045-1100 HEADLINE: Takaichi Sanae Elected LDP Head, Faces Coalition Challenge to Become Japan's First Female Prime Minister GUEST NAME: Lance Gatling SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Lance Gatling about Takaichi Sanae being elected head of Japan's LDP, positioning her to potentially become the first female Prime Minister. A conservative figure, she supports visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. Her immediate challenge is forming a majority coalition, as the junior partner Komeito disagrees with her conservative positions and social policies. President Trump praised her election, signaling potential for strong bilateral relations. THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 VHEADLINE: DeepSeek AI: Chinese LLM Performance and Security Flaws Revealed Amid Semiconductor Export Circumvention GUEST NAME: Jack Burnham SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Jack Burnham about competition in Large Language Models between the US and China's DeepSeek. A NIST study found US models superior in software engineering, though DeepSeek showed parity in scientific questions. Critically, DeepSeek models exhibited significant security flaws. China attempts to circumvent US export controls on GPUs by smuggling and using cloud computing centers in Southeast Asia. Additionally, China aims to dominate global telecommunications through control of supply chains and legal mechanisms granting the CCP access to firm data.E V 1115-1130 HEADLINE: DeepSeek AI: Chinese LLM Performance and Security Flaws Revealed Amid Semiconductor Export Circumvention GUEST NAME: Jack Burnham SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Jack Burnham about competition in Large Language Models between the US and China's DeepSeek. A NIST study found US models superior in software engineering, though DeepSeek showed parity in scientific questions. Critically, DeepSeek models exhibited significant security flaws. China attempts to circumvent US export controls on GPUs by smuggling and using cloud computing centers in Southeast Asia. Additionally, China aims to dominate global telecommunications through control of supply chains and legal mechanisms granting the CCP access to firm data. 1130-1145 HEADLINE: Taiwanese Influencer Charged for Threatening President; Mainland Chinese Influence Tactics ExposedGUEST NAME: Mark Simon SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Mark Simon about internet personality Holger Chen under investigation in Taiwan for calling for President William Lai's decapitation. This highlights mainland Chinese influence operations utilizing influencers who push themes of military threat and Chinese greatness. Chen is suspected of having a mainland-affiliated paymaster due to lack of local commercial support. Taiwan's population primarily identifies as Taiwanese and is unnerved by constant military threats. A key propaganda goal is convincing Taiwan that the US will not intervene. 1145-1200 HEADLINE: Sentinel ICBM Modernization is Critical and Cost-Effective Deterrent Against Great Power CompetitionGUEST NAME: Peter Huessy SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Peter Huessy about the Sentinel program replacing aging 55-year-old Minuteman ICBMs, aiming for lower operating costs and improved capabilities. Cost overruns stem from necessary infrastructure upgrades, including replacing thousands of miles of digital command and control cabling and building new silos. Maintaining the ICBM deterrent is financially and strategically crucial, saving hundreds of billions compared to relying solely on submarines. The need for modernization reflects the end of the post-Cold War "holiday from history," requiring rebuilding against threats from China and Russia. FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches. 1215-1230 HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches. 1230-1245 HEADLINE: Space Force Awards Contracts to SpaceX and ULA; Juno Mission Ending, Launch Competition Heats UpGUEST NAME: Bob Zimmerman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Bob Zimmerman about Space Force awarding over $1 billion in launch contracts to SpaceX for five launches and ULA for two launches, highlighting growing demand for launch services. ULA's non-reusable rockets contrast with SpaceX's cheaper, reusable approach, while Blue Origin continues to lag behind. Other developments include Firefly entering defense contracting through its Scitec acquisition, Rocket Lab securing additional commercial launches, and the likely end of the long-running Juno Jupiter mission due to budget constraints. 1245-100 AM HEADLINE: Space Force Awards Contracts to SpaceX and ULA; Juno Mission Ending, Launch Competition Heats UpGUEST NAME: Bob Zimmerman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Bob Zimmerman about Space Force awarding over $1 billion in launch contracts to SpaceX for five launches and ULA for two launches, highlighting growing demand for launch services. ULA's non-reusable rockets contrast with SpaceX's cheaper, reusable approach, while Blue Origin continues to lag behind. Other developments include Firefly entering defense contracting through its Scitec acquisition, Rocket Lab securing additional commercial launches, and the likely end of the long-running Juno Jupiter mission due to budget constraints.

HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches. 1876 SCOTUS

HEADLINE: Supreme Court Battles Over Presidential Impoundment Authority and the Separation of Powers GUEST NAME: Josh Blackman SUMMARY: John Batchelor speaks with Josh Blackman about Supreme Court eras focusing on the separation of powers. Currently, the court is addressing presidential impoundment—the executive's authority to withhold appropriated funds. Earlier rulings, particularly 1975's Train v. City of New York, constrained this power. The Roberts Court appears sympathetic to reclaiming presidential authority lost during the Nixon era. The outcome of this ongoing litigation will determine the proper balance between executive and legislative branches.

In this episode, Steve Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center and Sarah Isgur of SCOTUSblog join to discuss the legacy of the Roberts Court on its 20th anniversary and preview the important cases in the Supreme Court's upcoming term, which begins on Monday, October 6. The National Constitution Center's Griffin Richie guest hosts. Resources  Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump  Trump v. Slaughter  Sarah Isgur and David French, Advisory Opinions  Steve Vladeck, “The Roberts Court Turns Twenty,” One First (9/29/2025)  Steve Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (5/16/2023)  Caleb Nelson, “Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President's Pleasure?,” Democracy Project (9/29/2025)  Joseph Copeland, “Favorable views of Supreme Court remain near historic low,” Pew Research (9/3/2025)  Brett M. Kavanaugh, “Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,” Minnesota Law Review (2009) In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' to Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.  Listen to episodes of Pursuit on ⁠Apple Podcast⁠ and ⁠Spotify⁠.  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr ⁠⁠ Explore the⁠ ⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠ or watch recordings on⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ Support our important work:  ⁠⁠Donate⁠  

Leah and Kate dive into the week's legal news, explaining how SCOTUS continues to carry water for the Trump administration. They also cover an epic slapdown of the Roberts Court out of Hawaii, Sam Alito's Italian sojourn, and the DOJ's refusal to investigate the wads of cash lining border czar Tom Homan's pockets. Then all three hosts are joined by special guests Sherrilyn Ifill, founding director of the 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy at Howard University, and New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie to discuss the Supreme Court in the years after the Civil War and Reconstruction and why that era, known as the Redemption Court, resonates with today's legal landscape.Favorite Things:Leah: Trump's Dream of Infinite Presidential Power, Jamelle Bouie (NYT); Jimmy Kimmel's comeback monologue (ABC)Kate: Chris Hayes' WITHpod episode with Bill McKibbenJamelle: “How Comedy was Destroyed by By an Anti-Reality Doomsday Cult,” Elephant Graveyard (YouTube)Sherrilyn: Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation by Zaakir Tameez; King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South by Jeanne Theoharis Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Roberts Court gave Trump sweeping immunity — and he's using it to intimidate critics, greenlight ICE's racial profiling raids, extort universities, law firms, corporations, and foreign governments, and crack down on political speech. Pema Levy of Mother Jones joins Suzi to unpack the landmark decision in Trump v. United States, a ruling that didn't just grant Trump protection for official acts but armed him with the ability to wield the Justice Department as a personal weapon against political rivals. It's as if the DOJ were Trump's private legal office. Levy traces how legal and political practices are converging in an authoritarianism that threatens us all. Jacobin Radio with Suzi Weissman features conversations with leading thinkers and activists, with a focus on labor, the economy, and protest movements.

Kate and Josh discuss the great shutdown debate and the Roberts Court's signaling on pocket rescissions.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with guest Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations, Zohran Mamdani's stunning victory in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary, and an astonishing whistleblower report that sheds incriminating light on Trump's judicial nominee Emil Bove and defiance of court orders in deportation flight cases. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's approach differs from the other liberal Justices and her ferocious critiques of the Roberts Court's processes and opinions.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with author Alison Bechdel about her new book, Spent.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with guest Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations, Zohran Mamdani's stunning victory in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary, and an astonishing whistleblower report that sheds incriminating light on Trump's judicial nominee Emil Bove and defiance of court orders in deportation flight cases. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's approach differs from the other liberal Justices and her ferocious critiques of the Roberts Court's processes and opinions.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with author Alison Bechdel about her new book, Spent.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Money talks, and sometimes it speaks as law by fiat from the highest court in the land. In this episode of  Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the impact of money on the judiciary and, eventually, on, democracy with Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  They discuss how the many faces of big money in America, currently personified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, have shaped the Supreme Court and government regulations. They explore the implications of recent court decisions, the downfall of unions, and the crucial role of collective action in preserving democracy. Michael Podhorzer also writes a weekly newsletter, Weekend Reading. 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