Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all.  Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that’s this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

The Supreme Court just wrapped the term with a blitz of extremely consequential decisions, and the smoke hasn’t cleared yet. (In fact, it’s looming like a dark storm cloud over our Fourth of July and America 250th festivities…) In this week’s episode, cohosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern focus on two of the term’s bleakest legacies: first, the court’s catastrophically bad use of history and second, the demise of independent agencies. They discuss the court’s 6–3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which was rooted in shoddy originalism and reckless disregard for how an accountable democratic government actually functions. Meanwhile, the dissenters in Trump v. Barbara would have weaponized bogus history to end birthright citizenship for millions. To unpack this, Dahlia and Mark sit down with two law professors: Sam Bagenstos of the University of Michigan and a former general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Jed Shugerman of Boston University (whom Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson cited this week). They deconstruct the myriad ways in which the high court ultimately embarrassed itself, history, and truth, with decisions that will affect millions of Americans for years to come.Slate Plus members! Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on Friday, July 10th at noon EDT. Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick will be in conversation with Professors Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Our Pluskateers can sign up to be in the live, online audience for this special end-of-term conversation. Go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. (Psst: Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.com)This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

It was a weird and wild ride as the Supreme Court handed down the last decisions of the term that started all the way back in October of 2025. We were so much younger then. After 58 argued cases and a steady, sneaky stream of shadow docket orders, the court issued its final four decisions Tuesday, and one justice was retired and unretired in short, confusing order. The headline win: The court upheld birthright citizenship, but only by a 5-4 vote on the constitutional question, far closer than expected, and a sign of just how willing four justices are to rewrite the 14th Amendment to suit Donald Trump's wishes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh tried to split the baby, and Dahlia and Mark explain why his approach is more alarming than it first appears.The news doesn't get better from there. The court ruled against transgender student athletes in cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, with Kavanaugh writing for the majority and Justice Neil Gorsuch offering an unconvincing retreat from his brief moment, post-Bostock, as an LGBTQ rights ally. The court also gutted limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, opening new doors for even more big money in elections.Plus: the strange saga of Justice Alito's accidentally announced "retirement," what it reveals about the court's obsession with secrecy, and a first look at next term's blockbuster Second Amendment case on assault weapons.Don't miss the Amicus Plus Breakfast Table on July 10th at noon EDT with Steve Vladeck, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Niko Bowie. Slate Plus members can sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business. You can be part of a live taping of the show, go to slate.com/breakfasttable to sign up for online access. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

The end is nigh! Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least.  On the second to last day of this term, the court’s right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren’t quite ready to hand the nation’s credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?The court also handed down a significant Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants, with Justice Kagan writing for a 6-3 majority that such warrants constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. And in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court upheld state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly after. But the squeaker of a 5-4 majority was deeply alarming in a case that played to some of the justices’ fox-brained ideas about election fraud. Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters appear to have signed onto the wholly unsupported view that Democrat wins are always suspect, and the only way to restore trust in voting is to restrict voting. As Rick Hasen writes for Slate, we won’t be as lucky next time. The term wraps this week and Amicus is with you all the way for clear-eyed analysis of the final raft of decisions. Slate Plus members can also sign up for our special end-of-term conversation. Join Dahlia and Mark as they unpack this Supreme Court term with some of the smartest legal analysts in the business as part of our live online audience, July 10 at noon EDT. Slate Plus members will also have access to an exclusive Q&A with Dahlia and Mark. Submit your questions now to amicus@slate.comThis is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

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.

In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today’s truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that’s marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS. Later: Why Justice Alito’s rejoinder to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent wasn’t just a crappy birthday present, but also the latest breach of decorum at the high court.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

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

The Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week’s Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States’ framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It’s a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

One of the challenges of modern legal journalism is recalling that case law, doctrine, and Supreme Court decisions aren’t a complete picture, without including the lived realities of the people whose lives and communities are often turned upside down by changes in the law.On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court’s far-right flank vastly expanded its holding in Louisiana v. Callais to make it harder, if not impossible, to challenge racist voting maps designed to suppress Black votes. The shadow-docket decision misrepresented its own holding in Callais and discarded a case it had already decided. With the conservative supermajority tossing a lower-court panel’s finding in Allen v. Milligan and further erasing voting rights for Black Americans across the country, Amicus revisits our 2022 conversation with Evan Milligan, the named plaintiff, at the time the case first came to the high court. Milligan explained what’s at stake for the very real people living in gerrymandered districts in Alabama’s Black Belt region; a gerrymander blessed this week that was forbidden just three years ago.Later, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Andrew Weissmann, an MS NOW legal analyst, NYU law professor, and veteran federal prosecutor who served as lead prosecutor under special counsel Robert S. Mueller and as chief of the DOJ’s Fraud Section. Even with Opinionpalooza heating up at the high court, Weissmann pauses to analyze a busy week in democratic dismantling at the Justice Department and on Capitol Hill. And, Weissmann proposes something truly shocking— real accountability for public officials who lie, as laid out in his new bestselling book, Liar’s Kingdom: How to Stop Trump’s Deceit and Save America. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.