Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

America feels very different this weekend. While the president’s planned military parade (that just happens to coincide with his birthday) will see tanks and armored vehicles rolling through Washington DC, federalized National Guard and US Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of state and city electeds, many of us are reeling from seeing a sitting US Senator forced to the floor and cuffed for trying to ask a question, and dozens of protests are planned around the country to declare “No Kings”.  It’s. A. Lot. In this episode of Amicus  Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to process some of the events of the last week, and to understand where the law stands on the key question of whether President Trump lawfully deployed troops quell anti-ICE raid  protests in California that the administration is trying to claim are a “rebellion”.

This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. 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. Delivered every Tuesday.

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1166 - We consider the legal realities behind this week's most important stories, from the unprecedented statutory justification for Trump sending troops into California to why a wrongfully-deported man’s return to the US is--bad, actually? Matt then serves up a digestif of a note en bas de page about one of the most audacious counterfeiters in French history and how they were brought down with one well-placed tongue.

• Trump executive order deploying National Guard to California (6/7/25)

• 10 U.S.C 12406

• Newsom v. Trump (complaint filed 6/7/2025)

• Indictment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (5/21/25)

• Filing in Maryland Abrego Garcia litigation seeking sanctions against the government

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.

T3BE73

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.

The Supreme Court left lower courts somewhat in the lurch in its recent Bruen decision; last year, in Rahimi, it attempted to clarify matters.  Now an assault weapons case reaches the Court, Snope v. Brown, but the Court declines to hear it.  Nevertheless, Justice Kavanaugh, though agreeing with the denial of cert, writes a commentary which calls for another, unspecified case to be heard in the near future, and he gives an indication of how he might approach it.  We see this as in line with earlier writing he did in Bruen, but there are many unanswered questions in what seems like an intention to utilize a straightforward reasoning.  We raise many of these questions, and in doing so, offer our readers a look back at the path gun cases have taken to get to this point, and a look ahead in the hope that some of these heretofore unresolved issues are given their due; that the Justices "count to ten," before the Court takes what might be too headstrong a path forward.  Lawyers and judges can obtain CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

OA1165 - Anna Chu is the Executive Director at We the Action, a nonprofit that recently collaborated with labor and democracy partners like the American Federation of Government Employees and Democracy Forward, to launch Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network. This Network connects federal workers who are being illegally terminated to pro bono legal services to help them understand their rights and fight back.

But before our main segment, Lydia sneaks in to OA HQ to give us an old fashioned Doozy Watch of how things have been looking for federal employees and where the various lawsuits stand.

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.

Leah, Kate and Melissa unpack this week’s raft of SCOTUS decisions, including cases on “reverse discrimination” and whether Mexico can sue American gun manufacturers, and explain why a unanimous vote is more complicated than it appears. Also covered: Trump’s new travel bans and the Justice Department filing a lawsuit against North Carolina because...a Democrat won the supreme court race. Finally, they discuss Kate’s rockstar testimony in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary and some GOP senators’ fixation on this very podcast. 

Host favorite things:

• Kate: The scholarship of Stanford’s Mila Sohoni; Leah on the Daily Show
• Leah: The Rage of Innocence: How America Criminalizes Black Youth, Kristin Henning; Betty Who’s new music for Pride; Trump vs. Musk and this resulting hall of fame tweet
• Melissa: Leah and Troy Iwata on the Daily Show; The Cerebral, Bach-Loving Patrician Who Wrote Trump’s Playbook, Sam Tanenhaus (NYT); Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America, Sam Tanenhaus; John Proctor Is the Villain (Broadway); Atmosphere: A Love Story, Taylor Jenkins Reid

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

• 6/12 – NYC
• 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

We start out by debating who's responsible for Dan's audio snafus last time before digging into a various odds and ends, such as the Chief Justice's toast at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner and President Trump's renunciation of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. We then try to make sense of the DIG in Labcorp v. Davis and see whether our predictions about Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos panned out. 

Money talks, and sometimes it speaks as law by fiat from the highest court in the land. In this episode of  Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the impact of money on the judiciary and, eventually, on, democracy with Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  They discuss how the many faces of big money in America, currently personified by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, have shaped the Supreme Court and government regulations. They explore the implications of recent court decisions, the downfall of unions, and the crucial role of collective action in preserving democracy. Michael Podhorzer also writes a weekly newsletter, Weekend Reading.

This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. 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. Delivered every Tuesday.

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1164 - After a brief conversation from the front lines about the chaotic state of US immigration enforcement as of June 2025, we examine three unusual recent 9-0 decisions authored by three of our favorite Supreme Court justices. Join us behind the headlines to learn why Matt agrees that stopping a lawsuit against gun manufacturers, potentially opening the door to dumbass “reverse discrimination” lawsuits, and expanding tax-exempt status for the Catholic church further than ever are--fine, actually? Plus, a truly shocking immigration law development with potentially massive consequences which the media is totally missing, and one spicy meatball of a footnote.

• Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos  (6/5/25)

• Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin (6/5/25)

• Ames v. Ohio Dept of Youth Services (6/5/25)

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.

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. 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. Delivered every Tuesday.

Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday’s decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan’s narrow decision in Mexico’s lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court’s liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks.

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices