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

It was a rough week for two of the top lawyers in the Trump administration, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer pair ... Ever since Donald Trump’s return to office and the installation of his (second choice) Attorney General, we’ve been tracking the toxic combination of incompetence and cruelty at the Department of Justice. Pam Bondi, Trump’s hand-picked attack dog for Attorney General, finally reached the point of no return. She’s out, and Todd Blanche is in … for now. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss AG Bondi’s legacy, and why she may still be dragged before congress to answer for the DOJ’s mishandling of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, over at One, First Street, Mr. Trump became the first sitting president to show up live and in person to oral arguments, in a woefully misguided possible attempt to intimidate “his” justices into buying his nonsensical theory about birthright citizenship. John Sauer, his Solicitor General, flopped and flailed, and revealed a fundamental flaw at the heart of the second Trump presidency: if loyalty is the only test, you might fail a bunch of other, more significant, tests. Finally, Dahlia and Mark unpack the thorny and confusing 8-1 decision from the High Court in Chiles v. Salazar, taking a huge bite out of conversion therapy bans, and what that means for LGBTQ youth and the First Amendment.

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.

This bonus episode of Amicus, with full access exclusive for Slate Plus members, is a comprehensive exploration of Wednesday’s arguments in the Trump v. Barbara case on birthright citizenship. This landmark case challenges the executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, potentially affecting millions of individuals born in the U.S.
Mark Joseph Stern talks to legal scholar Evan Bernick –– who co-authored a key amicus brief in this case –– about the Supreme Court’s reaction to Trump’s order to gut the 14th amendment of the constitution and remake the legal landscape surrounding citizenship. The stakes are high, and the implications reach far beyond the courtroom.
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick checks in with Protect Democracy co-founder Ian Bassin about the United States’ speedy retreat from democracy, and how lawyers seeking to protect the constitution are adapting their strategies for Trump 2.0. While Trump’s second term is following an authoritarian playbook, some courts are acting as speed bumps, while others (we’re looking at you, SCOTUS), are increasingly pickled in right-wing brine. The velocity of America’s descent into illiberalism is startling and dangerous, but Bassin argues it is also potentially self-defeating, thanks to Trump’s historic unpopularity that is growing faster than his ability to consolidate power. The two discuss Protect Democracy’s shift from a litigation-heavy strategy to combining court fights with coalition-building, and Ian outlines threats to the 2026 elections—“deceive, disrupt, deny”—including efforts like the SAVE Act and why the President’s decision to deploy ICE to stand around in airports around the country is a clear effort to normalize their presence at polling places in November. But he also stresses that overwhelming participation and public organizing are the ultimate backstops if election results are contested.

Suggested reading: protectdemocracy.org/executive-override/

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.

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 ballots
This week’s Executive Dysfunction newsletter from Slate’s jurisprudence team is a must-read: slate.com/dysfunction

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.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It’s still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship.

In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today.

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.