Strict Scrutiny - A Blockbuster Non-Opinion and a Fascism Grab Bag

Melissa, Leah, and Kate kick the show off with a look at the Court’s 4-4 deadlock on Oklahoma’s religious charter school case. Then, it’s a romp through the shadow docket, Judge Jim Ho’s sweaty pleas for attention, Kristi Noem’s humiliating Senate hearing, and selections from Trump’s fascism grab bag. Leah also speaks with Professor Noah Rosenblum of NYU School of Law about the 6-3 decision from the Court allowing the president to fire federal commissioners without cause.

Hosts’ favorite things:

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

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - The Two Tracks of Justice

This week’s episode attempts to understand the ways in which the law of Trump unfolds along two tracks at the same time. First, Mark Joseph Stern joins us to talk about the Supreme Court’s decision to let Trump fire the heads of independent agencies, undermining a 90-year-old precedent in an unsigned, two-page decision on the shadow docket. This is a case in which Donald Trump’s agenda perfectly aligns with the wishlist of the conservative supermajority that controls the court. But if the court keeps giving Trump free passes to break the law now, why should we expect him to respect the court when it tries to draw the line later?

Then Dahlia Lithwick talks to the University of Chicago’s Aziz Huq about the idea of a “dual state,” a legal arrangement in which seismic changes happen in ways that are not perceptible to the bulk of the citizens. Drawing from the work of a Jewish lawyer who witnessed the dual state operate in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Huq explains that authoritarians can seize the levers of the law to persecute disfavored groups, without disturbing the idea of the rule of law for the great majority of the nation.

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 - A ‘Pay What You Can’ Law Practice? Prosecutors Say That Encourages Crime.

OA1160 - Sheryl Weikal is an Illinois trial lawyer with a name-your own-price practice representing marginalized people facing eviction, foreclosure, discrimination, and incarceration--which is all incredibly cool unto itself, but she also has a story like no one else you’ve heard. Sheryl won an incredible victory three years ago against the Illinois state bar for trans attorneys throughout the state in the face of years of open prejudice which she suffered from fellow lawyers, court staff, and even judges from the bench, and has written the story of her personal and professional life in a memoir which will be out June 3rd. This isn’t one to miss!

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

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.

Divided Argument - Gorsuch Genie

We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration. Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff.

Opening Arguments - Can a Priest Rat You Out?

T3BE70 - As is typical for Wednesdays these days, we've got some Lydia and Thomas nonsense to kick off the show, but Heather swiftly swoops in to save us from ourselves, reveal the answer to last week's T3BE69 (nice), and set up the question for T3BE70.

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!

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.

Amarica's Constitution - The Merits of The Merits

The Trump executive order on birthright citizenship has been banging around the lower federal courts for months now, with court after court opining on its unconstitutionality and issuing injunctions against it that span the nation.  The Supreme Court took cert on the question of whether such national injunctions are appropriate, and if not, how the relief that appears indicated can be offered.  Along the way questions of the merits poked their way through, with interesting results.  In this episode you will hear from the justices and the attorneys, and you will hear Professor Amar doing his Howard Cosell halftime highlights imitation, opining on their arguments, responses, and questions, and offering a holistic approach to the case as well as some new theories on how to think about citizenship in this context.  A “clip episode” as only Amarica’s Constitution does it.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Opening Arguments - It Took Years, but Guatemala Held a Brutal Dictator Accountable. What Can We Learn?

OA1159 - We are so pleased to have Temple Law Professor Rachel López on the show to discuss her work in shining light and digitally preserving court records related to the trials following the Guatemalan Civil War. Not only is the archiving of this material so important to those impacted by the government regime over the 30 year conflict, it also demonstrates early examples of transitional justice and what we might learn from it when applying it in the future to governments that commit human rights abuses. Listen in to hear the efforts she undertook to be sure these stories would not be forgotten.

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.

Strict Scrutiny - Will the Courts Let Trump End Birthright Citizenship?

May is supposed to be the calm before June’s opinion storm in SCOTUS-land, but not in Trump’s America. Melissa, Kate, and Leah kick off the show with the latest news, including Stephen Miller’s habeas suspension fantasies and the president’s blatant disregard of the emoluments clause when it comes to free jumbo jets. Then, the hosts are joined by professor Elora Mukherjee of Columbia Law School to break down last week’s oral arguments in the Court’s blockbuster birthright citizenship case. 

Hosts’ favorite things:

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

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - SCOTUS Is About to Suffer Buyers Remorse, Again

Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing  divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don’t.

Although Thursday’s arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump’s unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in. 


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