Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Happy (?) New Year. Amicus is gingerly stepping into 2025 and into the coming onslaught of Trump 2.0 with one of the country’s very best legal, constitutional and human guides –– civil rights litigator and 14th Amendment scholar Sherrilyn Ifill. Together, Sherrilyn and Dahlia navigate some of the most pressing questions facing the law, the legal profession, and those who care about it. In his end of year judicial report, Chief Justice John Roberts chose to claim the mantle of both embattled civil rights champions and also infallible monarchs while blaming pretty much everyone except the court for the high court’s plummeting legitimacy. What does it mean when the most powerful men in the world equate all criticism with threats of violence, and confuse victory with victimhood? What does it mean when Supreme Court justices decide to freelance and freestyle as trial court judges and appellate litigators at high court oral arguments? And what do lawyers and judges need to do to hold the line in the coming year, and the years that will follow?

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

OA1107 - Chief Justice John Roberts has used his annual end-of-the-year report to remind us that federal judges should not accept luxury vacations from billionaires, fly insurrectionist flags on any of their properties, or ever be criticized for any reason. Or, you know--at least one of those things. We also answer a patron question about what happens if Republicans can't get their House in order by the time that electoral votes are supposed to be certified on January 6th before getting to today's main story: the very real possibility that TikTok may not live to see the first day of the second Trump administration if the Supreme Court allows current law barring it from doing business in the US to take effect on January 19th. How could the US government shutting down one of our nation's favorite new ways to communicate not constitute a massive First Amendment problem? Why did a majority of Congressional Democrats, the Biden administration and pre-election Donald Trump all agree that TikTok is a threat to national security? And when is Matt going to finally release his signature TikTok dance video? We answer two of these questions before dropping a quick footnote to look back on a stupid Congressperson's idea of a smart person's legal argument in support of overturning a democratic election.

• DC Circuit decision in Tiktok v. Garland (12/6/24)

• “What If Free Speech Means Banning TikTok?,” Alan Rozhenstein, The Atlantic (12/13/24)

• Redacted transcript of U.S. intelligence briefing to House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 7, 2024 filed with DC Circuit

• ACLU amicus brief in Tiktok v. Garland (12/27/24)

• Donald Trump’s amicus brief in Tiktok v. Garland  (12/30/24)

• Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (signed into law 4/24/24)

• “2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” John Roberts (12/30/24)

 

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

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Amarica’s Constitution proudly celebrates four years of ambitious inquiry with a long-promised and very honored guest, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Stephen G. Breyer.  Justice Breyer placed no restrictions on our questioning, and we engaged him in a frank discussion on a variety of topics related to his time on the Court, and then we switched to his current book: Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism.  As you can imagine, Professor Amar has some opinions on the matter as well.  The discussion ranged far, from the French essayist Montaigne to 20th century American pragmatists, as Justice Breyer’s broad range is displayed in a way few have seen.  We take our time, and the Justice generously indulged, for an in-depth look at the thinking that helped shaped the bench for decades. This podcast will be available on YouTube video as well as the usual audio feeds found here; we will provide  information on accessing the video in subsequent podcast episodes, as well as on our Instagram feed - check it out.  CLE credit is available through podcast.njsba.com.

OA1106 and T3BE53

The Law'd Awful Movies this month was so much fun, I wanted to give everyone the first ~30 minutes of it. After that, it's the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam answer to Q52 and the new Q53. If you are one of the lucky patrons who has already heard LAM1006, feel free to skip to 31:04.

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!

... and he might actually be right! Listen in and hear why.

OA1105 - Harvard Law professor and anti-corruption advocate Lawrence Lessig is almost certainly the only person on Earth to have had a personal relationship with both visionary hacker Aaron Swartz and former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. We warmly welcome Professor Lessig back to OA to share--among many other things--his experiences with each of these very different people, why he remains optimistic about campaign finance reform going into the second Trump administration, and the originalist argument against Super PACs.

• “Why They Mattered: Aaron Swartz,” Lawrence Lessig, Politico (12/22/2013)

• They Don’t Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy, Lawrence Lessig (2024)

• Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It, Lawrence Lessig (2011)

• Support End Super Pacs

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

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Maybe the court won’t listen to your complaints and questions - but we will. As a parting gift to you this year, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern answer your questions about Trump, the courts and the constitution. Could Trump be president a third time? What does immigration law look like under Trump 2.0? And a deep dive into Dahlia and Mark’s comic book character psyches.

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

OA1104 - America's Dismayor, and other great stories to help close out 2024 on a positive note!

Rudy Giuliani’s long, greasy slide from the heights of New York power seems to be ending in the same Manhattan federal courthouse in which he made his career as the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY. We take a closer look at the often hilarious lengths America’s former mayor has gone to in the past year to avoid paying the $148 million judgment he earned by casually defaming two hardworking Georgia election volunteers. Also discussed: why the House Ethics Committee decided to release its report on Matt Gaetz, Biden's commutation of 92% of the federal death row, and a legitimately good decision from the Supreme Court that we meant to talk about earlier. Finally, Matt drops a footnote with what he is promising will be the last time that he talks about fonts this year.

• Freeman v. Giuliani docket

• Giuliani’s written stipulation to making per se defamatory statements (7/25/23)

• Judge Liman’s “turnover” order (10/22/24)

• Judge Howell’s default judgment order (8/30/23)

• Giuliani’s 55-page response to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (12/19/24)

• The America First Warehouse (America’s Most Patriotic Venue)

• U.S. v. Rahimi (June 21, 2024)

• “Preferred Typefaces for Briefs,” Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (12/9/24)

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

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

As the Biden Administration winds down, pressure is being applied to the President, asking him to order the National Archivist to certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution.  Senator Gillebrand has submitted a letter, co-signed by more than 40 Senators, making arguments that harken back to the resolution that accompanied the 1972 amendment, when Congress purported to place a time limit on the amendment’s ratification.  Also, some state legislatures withdrew their ratification after initially approving it, and the Senators are crying foul on this.  We take a deep dive into the arguments put forth by the amendment’s implementation advocates, the history of other amendments that faced analogous issues, including the great 14th amendment, and Professor Amar’s own scholarship on the matters.  Meanwhile, our 4th anniversary is approaching, and we preview the gala event - with Justice Breyer getting behind the microphone with us before you know it!  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

In the spirit of the holidays, Leah, Kate & Melissa force themselves to say something nice about each Supreme Court Justice. Yes, all of them. Then they take a break from the tomfoolery at One First Street to share their favorite things. Whether you’re doing some very last-minute holiday shopping, looking to indulge yourself, or craving a good book or podcast, there are ideas for everyone. 

Programming note: we’re taking a break next week, but will be back on January 6, 2025 with a very special–and timely–episode on the presidency.

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

OA1103 - Is human intelligence necessarily more rational and just than artificial intelligence? How involved should AI be in our law and government? Professor Aziz Huq of the University of Chicago School of Law joins for a fascinating conversation about everything from the “right to a human decision” to the dystopian terrors of Tinder.

• “A Right to a Human Decision,” Aziz Huq, Virginia Law Review (2020)

• “The Geopolitics of Digital Regulation,” Aziz Huq (2024)

• “Chinese scientists develop AI ‘prosecutor' that can press its own charges,” Steven Chen, South China  Morning Post (2021)

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

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!