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

It’s past time to say it. This Supreme Court is helping President Donald J. Trump evade accountability. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law, joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down the conservative majority's procedural toolkit—standing, ripeness, the Purcell principle, and inscrutable rulings on the shadow docket —and how these doctrinal headfakes are being used to ensure Trump always wins in court, even when he loses. They dig into the White House ballroom case and Trump’s attempt to disrupt mail-in voting and the midterms, they explore what's different from Trump's first term, and ask which of the justices are worried about the court's legitimacy.Plus, we remember Gloria Steinem, who died at 92 this week. From co-founding Ms. magazine to her lifelong allyship with the civil rights movement, Steinem's legacy of building coalitions, lifting up others, and never letting anyone steal her joy carries urgent lessons for a moment in which so much of what she fought for is being erased. Dahlia talks with legal scholar and Ms. Studios executive producer Professor Michele Goodwin.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.

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

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

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

In the final episode—for now—of our series on reclaiming constitutional power for every American, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern urge you to consider the many ways you can make constitutional meaning in your life, your community, and your profession. Joining us to imagine what that has looked like historically and what it might look like tomorrow is New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, our former Slate colleague who possesses an uncanny, award-winning knack for applying historical context to modern-day events. He sits down with Dahlia and Mark to give the long view of the modern Supreme Court’s monopoly on constitutional understanding; its gradual (and problematic) professionalization; his own wishlist for structural reform at the high court, and a bracing reminder that there is a tremendous amount to be done to claw back the Framers’ vision of a constitution by the people.We want to hear from you! Tell us what you’re doing in your life to assert ownership of the Constitution. What are you doing to expand fundamental freedoms to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors? Write to us at amicus@slate.com, and we might be in touch with you for a special Amicus event in September.  By the People is Slate’s end-of-term project exploring the ways in which ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution beyond the rulings of the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeople.The justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Long before the Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell ruling on equal marriage in 2015, activists were canvassing door-to-door, courting any lawmaker who would listen, and losing at the local level—a lot. Their scrappy determination helped convince family members, neighbors and eventually the rest of the country that the Constitution's guarantees of liberty and equality applied to same-sex couples. In Episode 3 of By the People, equal marriage campaign architect Marc Solomon joins Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to trace the movement’s "quixotic" beginnings in 2001. As this series continues to explore how ordinary Americans—not just nine justices—can interpret and enforce the Constitution, the campaign for equal marriage offers examples and tools that dedicated citizens can use to make constitutional meaning.The episode also confronts an uncomfortable question: If popular pressure can produce a ruling you love, like Obergefell, it can produce one you might not, like the court’s decision to enshrine an individual right to bear arms in 2008’s D.C. v. Heller. Dahlia and Mark discuss what happens when popular constitutionalism is retrofitted as originalism, and why no constitutional win, no matter how  popular, is ever truly permanent.By the People is Slate’s end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

In 1867, an 8-year-old girl named Elizabeth Turner became the epicenter of a legal battle that would help define what freedom really meant after the Civil War. Days after Maryland abolished slavery, her former enslaver had her re-indentured under a sham "apprenticeship" law used to seize Black children. Elizabeth’s mother—and thousands of other parents—refused to accept it. In this second episode of By the People, legal scholar Lyle Cherneff guides Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern through a Union Army general's archive of letters that documented the plight of Black parents who petitioned, marched, and filed habeas corpus claims to win their children back. These parents read the new constitutional guarantees of freedom for themselves, and demanded they be enforced, long before any Supreme Court told them what those words meant.The resulting case, In re: Turner, helped end the practice of racialized child "apprenticeship" and shaped the meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments. But the parents who fought for it were nearly written out of the story. In this episode, we seek to restore that record, tracing a direct line from their fight to ordinary Americans’ resistance to ICE raids today.  By the People is Slate’s end-of-term project exploring how ordinary Americans have shaped the meaning of the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

For the better part of two centuries of U.S. history, the American people understood that they—and not the Supreme Court—were the final arbiters of the Constitution. But in recent decades, nine unelected justices have claimed that mantle for themselves. Now, with the high court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy crumbling, an urgent question must be answered: Can "We the People" restore our power to interpret the Constitution—and if so, how?In the first installment of the series By the People, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern try to find out how and when this notion of judicial supremacy took over, with the help of Larry Kramer, legal scholar and author of The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. You can read the full package of articles accompanying this series at slate.com/bythepeopleThe justices publish their opinions a few dozen times a year. Dahlia and Mark share theirs every week. Slate Plus gets you all of it: Amicus ad-free with a weekly bonus segment, and no paywalls anywhere on Slate. Join now. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

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.