Law firms, universities, and businesses are bending the knee to the Trump administration at the slightest threat. Amid this shocking cowardice, blue states have been a bastion of defiance against the president’s escalating power grabs—with attorneys general leading the way. Mark Joseph Stern talks with New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who has been on the frontlines of this battle since Day One.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The official history of America’s founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding? Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s easy to give up on the courts right now. SCOTUS is throwing down unreasoned decisions expanding Donald Trump’s authority, and Senate Republicans keep confirming the president’s cronies to lifetime judgeships, tarnishing the entire judiciary with their corruption.  But there are judges—courageous, hard-working men and women—who have chosen a different path and are fighting to protect democracy and restore our civil rights. In his new book, Better Judgment: How Three Judges Are Bringing Justice Back to the Courts (out Sept. 2), Reynolds Holding tells the story of three of these judges and how they are laying the groundwork for a post-Trump future in which the courts serve as guardians of liberty rather than instruments of autocracy. Holding speaks with co-host Mark Joseph Stern about these judges’ refusal to accept business as usual and vision of a court that truly delivers equal justice to all.  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

Civil rights are under attack. The Supreme Court seems to have its sights set on the Voting Rights Act. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking every issue to the court knowing that it will never have to face accountability there. And with states like Texas considering unpopular redistricting plans, the administration may never face it at the ballot box either. Put more bluntly, many of our elected officials are operating with a perceived immunity from accountability of any sort. This week Dahlia spoke about the deleterious effects of these actions on voting rights with Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They discuss the damage done to our civil rights by the current Department of Justice, and what we can learn about accountability from recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.  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

Over the last six months, life has been upended for  millions of people in America as Stephen Miller's extreme immigration policies have been unleashed. And while the first weeks of the second Trump administration saw some genuine pushback from the Supreme  Court, six months in, that feint at checking and balancing has fallen away. On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick welcomes Aaron Reichlin Melnick, Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council. Reichlin Melnick last appeared on the show in the days after Trump's inauguration and the initial barrage of lawless Executive Orders targeting the immigration system and the millions caught in it. Half a year into Trump 2.0, and Stephen Miller's no-holds-barred anti-immigrant plan for America, what's stuck? What's accelerated? And in light of the new budget, what's next? 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

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick sits down with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to dissect the most recent Supreme Court term and its implications. They explore Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emerging role and influence, the patterns of bias within the court that she’s calling out, and the broader systemic issues facing the judiciary. Their conversation also delves into the “worst possible nominee” for a lifetime appointment to a US court of appeals, Emil Bove. Next, they tackle climate inaction, Democrats’ failure to respond to the billionaire takeover of the Supreme Court, and why Senator Whitehouse is still optimistic about challenging, even fixing, these systems. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Slate Plus exclusive episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern analyse the Roberts Court's decision in Skrmetti,  effectively bans gender-affirming  care for trans minors in more than 20 states. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Also! Sign up for Slate’s Legal Brief: the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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

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

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

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

After Silicon Valley’s yeet to the right after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, and the DOGE-ification of the federal government (read: chaos and abuse as the driving ethos of HR), it felt like high time to delve into the evolving relationship between tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and the U.S. government. Their influence has massive implications for core constitutional issues such as mass surveillance, privacy, and deregulation. Kara Swisher joins Dahlia Lithwick on this week’s Amicus to highlight the dangers of tech giants' encroachment on government oversight and the implications of AI and cryptocurrency.  This week’s episode concludes with a heartfelt tribute to Justice David Souter who died on Thursday. Dahlia and former Souter Clerk Mary-Rose Papandrea reflect on the late Justice’s humility, judicial philosophy, and the profound loss felt by his former clerks and the legal community. 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