Strict Scrutiny - How the GOP is Trying to Steal the 2026 Midterms

Melissa and guest co-host Imani Gandy of Rewire News Group break down the week’s legal happenings, including how Texas Democrats are attempting to thwart that state’s gerrymandering efforts, college admissions in the age of Trump, and more Epstein fallout. Then, Melissa chats with Duke Law Professor Brandon Garrett about his book, Defending Due Process: Why Fairness Matters in a Polarized World. Finally, Leah speaks with University of Michigan Law Professor Richard Primus, author of the new book The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power. Check out Imani’s podcast Boom! Lawyered.

Hosts’ Favorite Things:

Melissa: Tom Lake, Ann Patchett; The Midnight Library, Matt Haig; How the George Floyd Protests Changed America, for Better and Worse, Justin Driver (NYT)

Imani: Palisade Peaches; Revenge; Death Stranding; Brit Box


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

10/4 – Chicago

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

Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com

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

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

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

Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Who Gets Left Out of Originalism?

The official history of America’s founding is often told as a whites-only story, a heroic tale of wealthy white men forging a new nation—with no mention of the people they excluded, displaced, or oppressed. But who gets left out of the story that “originalists” like to tell about the law? This week Mark Joseph Stern talks with Maggie Blackhawk, professor at NYU School of Law, and Gregory Ablavsky, a professor at Stanford Law School, about Native nations at the time of the founding, some of which were very much on the scene as the Constitution was being debated and ratified. What did they think about it? And does asking that question obscure a much more complicated—but more accurate—examination of the founding?


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

Opening Arguments - Why the Whole Alligator Alcatraz Thing Is Somehow Worse Than It Sounds

OA1180 - We begin with some much-needed reminders that good things are still happening and the rule of law is still (mostly) holding on before turning to a recent Trump executive order on homelessness which reads like something out of a (not very good) Batman movie. Jenessa explains how this development fits into the history of long-term institutionalization of vulnerable and unhoused people in the US as we work through what this thing is actually trying to do. In an unfortunately not-at-all-unrelated story, Matt then breaks down the situation with Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” (aka “Gator Gitmo”), the pending challenges to this completely new (and totally illegal) approach to state-based immigration detention, and where this is all going.

Finally, in today’s footnote: has ChatGPT finally made its first hallucinatory appearance in a judicial opinion? We investigate not just one but two recent instances of federal judges who have now joined the many lawyers caught using AI to do their homework.

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

Opening Arguments - NYTimes lets awful Harvard Law prof lie his ass off for some reason

VR2 - Vapid Response Wednesday returns live on video for another round of bad-faith legal takes from the American right’s leading--well, let’s just go with “minds.”

We begin with a quick check-in on the divided state of the U.S. “sovereign citizen” movement via a short explainer video in which one of its leading grifters denounces a whole new set of grifters who are promoting the concept of an “American State National.”

We then plumb new depths of dumbassery from Harvard Law school professor/crypto-theocrat Adrian Vermeule. In a recent New York Times op-ed, Vermeule has called out the true villains of the American judiciary: lower court judges who aren’t doing exactly what Adrian Vermeule imagines the Supreme Court has told them to do. Matt breaks down why this column doesn’t provide a single example of the trend it purports to be exposing, and Lydia has the details on one of MAGA’s favorite legal scholars. Who is Adrian Vermeule, what is “Catholic integralism,” and why is a man who has previously gone to so much effort to hide his true beliefs behind “common-good Constitutionalism” showing his entire ass in the pages of the NYT?

Then, we preview a *patron-only* bonus where we go into overtime to witness the spectacle of Alan Dershowitz’s lengthy but extremely unconvincing arguments as to why everyone should be required to sell him pierogi under force of law. If you want to be sure to not miss that, you'll have to go to patreon.com/law!

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

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Amarica's Constitution - Skrmetti Skirmish

We continue our discussion of the deep issues raised in the case of US v. Skrmetti.  Last time we observed the Court wrestling with questions of whether the Tennessee law banning gender dysphoria treatments in minors was a form of sex discrimination.  Later in the argument the Court addressed the question of whether transgender individuals, or some related group, constituted a so-called “suspect classification” and therefore laws purporting to affect that group would be subject to close examination (“Scrutiny”) by the Court.  In this episode we listen, and react to, those arguments as the Court itself did.  Professor Vik Amar returns to join Akhil in this task, and rightly so, since the “brothers in law” have written several recent posts on the deep questions raised by this and other recent cases.  This has resulted in a new unifying theory which they begin to articulate in this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Opening Arguments - LEARY V. US (1969): Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Everything You Thought You Knew About Timothy Leary

OA1179 - Dr. Timothy Leary is best remembered today as the Harvard psychologist who told America to “turn on, tune in, and drop out” with psychedelics in the 1960s. But did you know that “the High Priest of LSD” was also one of the most famous people ever to bring a criminal case to the U.S.. Supreme Court?  Jenessa shares her scientific perspective on Leary’s “research,”  and Matt explains how a minor California marijuana possession charge led to Leary’s unbelievable life on the run as an international fugitive across four continents and his eventual association with not just one but three of the era’s most notorious radical groups. We then review Dr. Leary’s conviction under the Marihuana [sic] Tax Act of 1937 and how Leary v. U.S. changed everything about drug enforcement. (Also discussed: the unexpected origin of the Beatles song “Come Together,” the benefits of podcasting on acid, and what psychedelic research and regulation might have looked like in an alternate Leary-free timeline.)

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

Strict Scrutiny - Stacking the Bench with Creeps & Kooks

Leah and guest co-host Mark Joseph Stern of Slate and the Amicus podcast run through what’s been happening in the courts this week, including disturbing attacks on judges, the confirmation of the extremely unsavory Emile Bove, and Amy Coney Barrett’s upcoming appearance with Bari Weiss. Then, Kate and Melissa speak with Jessica Calarco, sociologist and professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, about her book, Holding It Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net.

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

Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Don’t Give Up on the Law Just Yet

It’s easy to give up on the courts right now. SCOTUS is throwing down unreasoned decisions expanding Donald Trump’s authority, and Senate Republicans keep confirming the president’s cronies to lifetime judgeships, tarnishing the entire judiciary with their corruption.  But there are judges—courageous, hard-working men and women—who have chosen a different path and are fighting to protect democracy and restore our civil rights. In his new book, Better Judgment: How Three Judges Are Bringing Justice Back to the Courts (out Sept. 2), Reynolds Holding tells the story of three of these judges and how they are laying the groundwork for a post-Trump future in which the courts serve as guardians of liberty rather than instruments of autocracy. Holding speaks with co-host Mark Joseph Stern about these judges’ refusal to accept business as usual and vision of a court that truly delivers equal justice to all. 

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

Opening Arguments - Entrenched Power Hates It When Actual Progressives Are in Office

OA1178 - Our conversation with former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin continues with a closer look at the accomplishments of his term, what progressive prosecutors can realistically expect to be able to do within the constraints of the current system--and why they are the last people who should expected to do it--and what was really behind the 2022 recall campaign which removed him from office. 

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