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!
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.
It wasn’t a great week for speaking truth to power. ABC’s decision to settle Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit to the tune of $16 million at the behest of parent company Disney sent shockwaves through newsrooms around the country. Coupled with Trump’s lawsuits pending against publishers, journalism prize organizations, CBS, and this week’s news that the President-elect is suing an Iowa pollster and the newspaper that published her poll for “election interference”, rising fears about the freedom of the press are pretty understandable. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by storied media columnist Margaret Sullivan and First Amendment scholar Sonja R West to understand the protections in place and the pinch points for a free press under Trump.
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.
OA1102 - Why is the state of New York charging Luigi Mangione as a terrorist? And why have federal charges been filed in this case at all? We consider before moving on to try to locate any actual legal basis in the Georgia Court of Appeals decision removing Fulton County DA Fani Willis from the prosecution of Donald Trump and his alleged conspirators in Georgia. Finally, we dig into 11th Circuit judge Kevin Newsom’s surprisingly defensible argument that judges and lawyers should occasionally consult with ChatGPT, and Matt drops a footnote involving judges being weird about food.
OA1101 - You know... that super woke institution... the US Military... well, NO LONGER! Trump's man for the job is a real piece of work. And if you don't believe us, take it from his own mom. As usual, Lydia gives us the doozy breakdown, and also how Hegseth fits right into the Project 2025 design.
Then, it's T3BE 52!
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!
In the wake of President Biden’s pardon of his son, and with the shadow of President-elect Trump’s possible pardons of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and attempted to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s election, are there constitutional issues? The Constitution itself seems direct on the subject, but it turns out there is a lot to discuss. Scope, timing, subject, language, all are questionable. Would either or both of these be impeachable acts? What would happen to the pardon in that case? Are there immunity issues? Where does the pardon power come from, and how has it been used in the past? What is the originalism of pardon law? Lots to talk about, however you feel about the acts themselves politically. And - some big coming attractions! CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
After an unpredictably long hiatus, we're back to break down what we missed. We debate the off-the-rails FedSoc panel Dan was on, work through some shadow docket happenings and the Court's two recent DIGs, ponder the implications of the election on the Court, and briefly discuss the first merits opinion of the Term, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas.
Leah, Melissa, and Kate cover some breaking news before recapping last week’s SCOTUS arguments. They also touch on some lower-court opinions and court culture including the Fifth Circuit going buck wild (yet again), KBJ’s Broadway debut, Mitch McConnell’s never-ending hypocrisy, and TikTok’s fate in America.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
OA1100 - Donald Trump’s promises of “mass deportation” have been dominating the headlines, but what do we actually know about what the coming administration is planning--and who should actually be concerned? Matt explains how immigration enforcement actually works in practice under the current system, including its current practical and logistical limitations. We then break down the ways that Trump has told us that he intends to subvert or get around the existing system and the law (or lack thereof) behind these unprecedented proposals before ending with some ideas for how you can help to prepare to stand up to mass enforcement actions in your community.
Last week, we examined the deeply worrying prospect of Kash Patel, FBI director. This week, that possibility became even more worrisome with respect to the future of the FBI, all sparked by current director Christopher Wray’s announcement of his intention to step down. To kick off this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, who explains why Wray’s decision is very bad news for the law and the rule of law.
Next, the planet: Last summer, we tried to absorb the sheer scale of the shift in the constitutional landscape following a run of cases at the end of the last term that gave the courts the power to reshape the administrative state from the bench, and to impede the tools of the environmental protection trade at a time when the climate is in crisis. But the news cycle moved on and the global climate alarm got snoozed again. That alarm was surely ringing again at One, First Street this week, when a case that could reshape the nation’s biggest environmental law was argued at the Supreme Court.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Coloradocomes to the court as a dispute over how much review is due to a railroad plan that will carry waxy, crude oil through environmentally sensitive areas, and send said waxy crude on its way to already polluted and health blighted gulf communities. Sam Sankar of Earth Justice was on hand to explain how this weedy case paints a very clear picture of the Supreme Court conservative majority’s fondness for grabbing cases that are vehicles for achieving their preferred policy outcomes, but then finding themselves in a bit of a pickle when its time to craft a new test for an old problem.
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.
