Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

OA1139 and T3BE63 - Lydia's back this week to walk us through Trump's very fashy takeover of The Kennedy Center. She watched it unfold in real-time and while it is obviously disturbing, listening to some leaked audio from the first board meeting provides a lot of laughs. It's somehow real, folks.

And we've got Professor Heather Varanini as always to walk us through the answer to T3BE62, and to set up the question for T3BE63!

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!

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

President Trump has been firing various Federal officials, many of whom serve pursuant to statutes that claim to provide protection against firing without cause.  One of the most prominent, Hampton Dellinger, who served as Special Counsel of the United States, took the President to Court, winning at the Federal District Court before losing on appeal.  Why did he sue?  Why did he drop his case? What are the implications for the other firings being contested, and what does it mean for the office of the Special Counsel itself? The Special Counsel is a haven for whistleblowers; does that, along with the statutes’ clear intent, offer him any protection? The Special Counsel also enforces the Hatch Act; we explain many of the ins and outs of that statute and how the history of the civil service is integral to understanding it.  Finally, Hampton Dellinger comes from a most distinguished family, and there are some stories to tell on that score.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In this urgent extra episode of Amicus,  host Dahlia Lithwick and Slate's senior writer Mark Joseph Stern discuss the unfolding constitutional crisis triggered by the Trump administration's defiance of a court order to halt flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to be delivered to El Salvador’s so-called Terrorism Confinement Center - a vast foreign prison  that could  be described as a labor camp.  Lithwick and Stern explore the timeline of events that unfolded in Federal Court Judge James Boasberg’s court this week, and on planes bound for El Salvador. Next, they try to parse the legal arguments put forth by the Justice Department, claiming apparently boundless power for President Trump to render anyone he deems a gang member. Finally, they discuss why the Trump administration has chosen this particular constitutional hill to die on, and how far Chief Justice John Roberts might be prepared to go along with it. 

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

OA1138 - Is a federal judge really about to sign off on dismissing the federal corruption charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams even in the face of everything that we now know about the corrupt deal which led to DOJ’s request? Why did appointed attorney Paul Clement recommend dismissing the case with prejudice, and what might it mean for future prosecutions by Trump’s DOJ if Judge Ho agrees? Superstar NYC public defender Liz Skeen returns to go beyond the headlines with some local perspective on the current state of one of the most important federal criminal cases in our lifetimes. 

• Paul Clement’s brief in support of dismissing charges with prejudice

• Rinaldi v. United States | 434 U.S. 22 (1977) 

• Rule 48. Dismissal | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

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!

Leah, Kate, and Melissa are joined this week by Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, whose new book is Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America. They talk about what rotten laws should be done away with while touching on the latest news, including the detention of Mahmoud Khalil and the dismantling of the Department of Education. 

Hosts’ favorite things this week:

• Melissa: The Trouble of Color: An American Family Memoir by Martha Jones; Paradise (Hulu) 
• Leah: Bad Law by Elie Mystal; The Bee Sting by Paul Murray; Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar; Corruption & the Maximalist Theory of Presidential Power by Bob Bauer (Executive Functions); Five Questions about The Khalil Case by Steve Vladeck (One First)
• Kate: Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter by Kate Conger and Ryan Mac; Interview with Lindsay Nash on Mahmoud Khalil by Isaac Chotiner (New Yorker)

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

Donald Trump continued his almost uninterrupted losing streak in the courts. Across the country we saw federal judges openly criticizing his Administration officials and their lawyers for overreach, bullying and misrepresentations about not only their cases, but about norms and values. But Trump has both judges and law firms in his crosshairs. On this week’s show, former US Attorney Preet Bharara joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the role of lawyers and law firms and legal norms in a crisis of lawlessness, and the extent to which court victories alone can save democracy. 

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

We announce the new Divided Argument blog! After discussing the blog and some listener feedback, we break down two recent 5-4 decisions -- the shadow docket fight over USAID funding in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Section 1983 exhaustion decision in Williams v. Reed (or should we say Rev. Stat. 1979?).

On February 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath. Because the government “provided” (at a minimum) a “portion” of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the fund, the E-Rate reimbursement requests in this case are "claims" under the False Claims Act.

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
John Masslon, Counsel, Keller Postman LLC

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA!

OA1137 - The arrest and detention of U.S. lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Kahlil in direct retaliation for his Constitutionally-protected speech and association as a campus organizer at Columbia University is the single greatest violation of any one individual’s right committed by the second Trump administration to date. Matt explains how an obscure Cold War-era provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act is being used for in one of the only times in modern history to justify the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Kahlil’s residency, and why this unprecedented assault on Khalil’s most basic civic and political  rights should concern us all.

Finally, in today’s footnote: A January 6th defendant who has won so much that he is truly tired of winning.

1. DHS Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar defends Mahmoud Khalil arrest : NPR (3/14/25)

2. “The Allegation Here is Not That He Was Breaking the Law,” Matt Cameron DEPORTNATION (3/12/25)

3. “Everything That Just Happened to Mahmoud Khalil Might (But Should Not) Be Legal,” Matt Cameron DEPORTNATION (3/11/25)

4. “Reply to the Government’s Opposition to Sanctions,” U.S. v. Pope (3/6/25)

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!

On January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in TikTok, Inc. v. Garland. The Court held that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act's provisions challenged by the petitioners do not violate the First Amendment rights of those petitioners.

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator