Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

E24 - Today on Vapid Response Wednesday: the story of a wealthy family that lost everything and the one son who had no choice but to try to defend his sister after she was convicted of abusing and trafficking minors with (and for) Jeffrey Epstein. For this special episode we read through Ian Maxwell’s entire body of published work for The Spectator and unseriously consider some of the many questions the tabloid heir raises about the arrest and conviction of his sister Ghislaine, the evils of the First Amendment, and of course a lengthy digression about some people named Todd. 

Watch this episode on YouTube!

• Nobody's Girl, Virginia Roberts Giuffre (2025)

• Virginia Giuffre’s full 2019 interview on 60 Minutes Australia

• Ian Maxwell’s video interview with The Telegraph, Feb. 20, 2026

• Ian Maxwell’s author page at The Spectator

• “The truth about my sister, Ghislaine Maxwell,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator, 12/16/2021

• “My sister Ghislaine was denied justice,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator (UK edition), 7/1/2022

• “Don’t take Virginia Giuffre’s memoir at face value,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator, 11/5/2025

• “How my sister Ghislaine beat the Epstein conspiracy theories,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator, 9/9/2025

• “My sister Ghislaine became a prop in the theater of global online outrage,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator, 2/25/26

• Full Department of Trade and Industry report regarding the investigation into Robert Maxwell's pension fund embezzlement and corporate fraud (2001)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Trump’s actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he’s calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. 

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.

OA1240 - Shaina Aber, Executive Director with Acacia Center for Justice, joins today to discuss immigration nonprofit work during Trump 2.0. Find all of the tools and programs we talked about at their website, Acacia Center for Justice.

• Chris: Upcoming theatre including As You Like It (RSC), The Rock Horror Show (Broadway), and Sunday in the Park With George (Barbican, London)
• Leah: Upcoming article for the Georgetown Law Review, The Passive Vices; independent media including Law Dork; Democracy Docket; and One First; The Supreme Court is Not "Reining in" Executive Power, Steve Vladeck (One First); Crooked on MS NOW premiering on Saturday at 9pm ET on MS NOW

• 3/6/26 – San Francisco
• 3/7/26 – Los Angeles

“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration’s general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump’s chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ’s fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. 

And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate’s jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There’s always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.

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.

The Court has ruled Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs unconstitutional.  Vik Amar, who offered important theories that appeared prominently in the opinion, joins us to explain the Major Questions Doctrine, why it applies to this case, and even more importantly, why it attempts to support significant structural features of the Constitution.  We pay particular attention to the concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch, which offers the most in-depth theoretical explanation for this Doctrine and attempts to lay a foundation for its future use.  Meanwhile, the significance of the opinion as a rebuke to Trump, and as a reassertion of the Court’s credibility,  is also discussed.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

OA1239 - Did the Supreme Court just hand Donald Trump the biggest L in US presidential history? We go beyond the headlines to break down the first decision on the merits of any of the second Trump term’s policies. What is the deal with the “major questions doctrine” and why can’t the conservative justices agree about what it is and how to use it? Why did Neil Gorsuch choose this case to drop a lengthy diss track with bars about every one of his colleagues? And is there anything Clarence Thomas wouldn’t let a Republican president do? We then review a lesser-noticed SCOTUS decision from this week on whether you can sue USPS for intentionally stealing your mail for openly racist reasons (the answer may surprise you!). 

Finally, in today’s footnote: Thomas Takes the ICE Exam!

1. Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump (2/20/2026)

2. United States Postal Service v. Konan  (2/24/2026)

3. “The Postmaster,” William Shawn, The New Yorker (11/14/1970)(letter addressed to William Faulkner from Post Office Inspector Mark Webster)

4. Memorandum Summary of Documents Newly Received from DHS Whistleblowers, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (2/23/2026)(with leaked ICE training documents attached)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1238 - Dive in to an “old” case from the 90’s that secured a critical right for people with disabilities: The right to be free from unnecessary institutionalization. Learn about some of the more obscure portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the different ways we can define discrimination, and what happens when a majority of  judges just cannot agree to sign on to an entire opinion.

• Olmstead v. L.C. 527 U.S. 581 (1999)

• Americans with Disabilities Act - Findings and Purpose; 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2, 3, & 5)

• Americans with Disabilities Act - Discrimination; 42 U.S.C. § 12132

• 28 CFR § 35.130(d)

• Jesse Jackson (July 18, 1989). Statement before the Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Select Education (regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act).

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

• KS: Grant, Ron Chernow; The Last Dance
• LL: A Caribbean Heiress in Paris, Adriana Herrera; Wuthering Heights, Charli xcx

• 3/6/26 – San Francisco

• 3/7/26 – Los Angeles

With unpredictable timeliness, we have a quasi-emergency episode on the 170-page tariffs decision, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Come for the in-the-weeds legal analysis, stay for the deep dive into the origins of the phrase "no, no, a thousand times no."