Opening Arguments - What a Surprise, the Racist Bastards Want to Denaturalize Zohran Mamdani

OA1172 - It’s been two weeks since the Supreme Court decided that babies in only half of the US get to be born as citizens. We try to make sense of what they left behind in one of the most important shadow docket cases in history, and how concerned Samuel Alito should really be that the actual text of the 14th Amendment might still prevail in the end. Matt also considers how likely it is that Zohran Mamdani might lose his citizenship over his rap lyrics, and we wrap with a quick footnote combining two of our favorite things: bad AI in court and Mike Lindell.

Opening Arguments - T3BE76: Accidental Evidence

Professor Heather Varanini is here to get us ready for the Bar Exam with the next question!If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!

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

This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

Amarica's Constitution - Speaking the Law

The Birthright Citizenship case reached the Supreme Court - sort of.  The Court ruled on the executive branch’s request for a stay in response to nationwide injunctions issued by three different circuit courts, where the executive order purporting to alter more than a century’s practice regarding the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was blocked by these courts.  In doing so the Court declined - that is, the majority declined - to address the merits.  Still, the nationwide injunction issue was addressed - at least for now..  Akhil takes the Court to task for avoiding the merits, and he offers numerous ways by which this could have been - should have been - done.  He also presents a new approach that litigants in these cases might consider as they deal with various tactics the government may employ in the service of an executive order they may not expect to be upheld.  Along the way Akhil offers some suggestions for consequences that might be faced by the executive officials, maybe not in our government as currently functioning, but at least in theory.  There’s a lot here even if what is most notable for many of us is what the Court has left hanging.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Opening Arguments - When You’re So Bad At Your Job, You Make the Supreme Court Look Good By Comparison

OA1171 - Today's episode is a nice, fun departure from the doom and gloom. Oral arguments in a recent SCOTUS case went terribly wrong. And for once, it wasn't the court itself that was looking like a clown show. The case was AJT v Osseo and it involved disability rights. So naturally, I had to invite everyone's favorite disability rights advocate and all around all-star, Dr. Jenessa Seymour!

 

Strict Scrutiny - A Term for the Rich, the Reactionaries, and the Ruthless

With July upon us and bad decision season (mercifully) over, Leah, Kate and Melissa take a step back to recap this year’s SCOTUS term. They highlight some of the overarching themes, break down the biggest opinions, and look back at the moments they’ll remember forever–whether they want to or not. 

Hosts’ favorite things:

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

  • 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Sneak Preview: SCOTUS Made it Worse

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

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Our All-Star SCOTUS End-of-Term Breakfast Table

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