Ben Rhodes of Crooked's Pod Save the World joins Leah and Kate to break down Project 2025's truly frightening foreign policy goals. Then, Leah and Melissa are joined by The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City's Meredith Marks. In addition to braving the "rumors and nastiness" of reality television, Meredith is also a graduate of Northwestern Law School. So who better to help analyze the intersection between reality TV and the law?
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
This week Matt shares a mostly under-the-radar story which has completely changed his understanding of the events of September 11, 2001.
As the 23rd anniversary of the attacks approaches, a mountain of information emerging from lawsuits filed by 9/11 families has revealed far more extensive ties between both al-Qaeda and at least two of the hijackers to the Saudi government than were ever previously known. Why has justice taken so long? How does the law even allow this suit to proceed, and why did Congress have to override Barack Obama’s veto to allow it to move forward? Why has some of the best journalism about this lawsuit been from Golf Digest? And has the time come for a second 9/11 commission to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about the day that changed everything?
The power of the presidential pardon is a holdover from America’s colonial roots. But no one had used it like former President Trump. Over and over he kept pardoning his allies, and then, he’d welcome them back into the fold. . It seemed like he was rewarding these criminals for their loyalty, and belittling whole categories of crime, like fraud, campaign finance violations, and corruption. Is that what was really happening?
This week in our series called The Law According to Trump, we go deeper into Trump’s use of the pardon with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. Torres-Spelliscy is a professor of law at Stetson University and the author of Corporate Citizen?: An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State and Political Brands. Torres-Spelliscy speaks with host Andrea Bernstein about how Trump’s pardoning has hurt democracy, and what it means for the future of the country.
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.
This week Matt breaks down four very different legal actions:
1. Donald Trump is suing the United States--yes, the same United States that he is running to be the President of--for $100 million based on the FBI’s alleged violation of the Florida common law tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in executing a valid search warrant on Mar-A-Lago two years ago. Is Trump just spiking the legal football after his big win in front of federal judge Aileen Cannon in Jack Smith’s documents case, or is there actually something worth talking about here?
2. Is the Walt Disney Corporation actually arguing that signing up for a 30-day trial of its Disney+ streaming service protects them from the tragically fatal consequences of negligence at a restaurant in its Disney Springs shopping center? Could that really be a thing that licensed attorneys wrote down, printed, reviewed, signed, and filed with a court? We consider what might be one of the most bizarrely evil defenses ever raised in a wrongful death suit.
3. Soul singer Isaac Hayes’s family has joined the dozens of artists who have spoken out against their music being used at Trump rallies, issuing a cease-and-desist letter to the campaign alleging that it has used Hayes’s song “Hold On! I’m Coming” at least 134 times even after being asked to stop. To what extent do artists have “moral rights” under US intellectual property law, and what alternatives are available to them when they don’t? We riffing on a particularly interesting failure to harmonize copyright and antitrust law.
4. French authorities have announced that they will investigate claims of cyberbullying against Olympic boxing champion Imane Khelif, a ciswoman from Algeria who was harassed online by J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and many more of the world’s finest people with completely baseless claims that she was not a biological woman. We debate the merits of this uniquely European approach to criminalizing speech and marvel at the unmatched powers of TERF ideology to rot the human brain (and soul).
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its 6-2 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its 6-3 decision in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These decisions overturning Chevron v. NRDC (1984) may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.
Join us as we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.
Featuring: Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance (Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Court reform is in the air. Having presented the problems with the 18 year term proposals before the House and Senate, Professor Amar’s plan deserves its own scrutiny. We therefore present the plan in detail, explaining the problems that it attempts to solve, the principles it attempts to uphold, and the criticisms it might attract. Since it is a proposal and not yet a statute, it is subject to modification and hopefully improvement, so we invite the audience to chime in with your own critiques and suggestions. Let’s keep the conversation going. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
This week we welcome Rhode Island state senator Meghan Kallman for a conversation about the power of state lawmaking and ordinary people in elected office.
Meghan is a professor of sociology at UMass Boston whose work in both the theory and practice of how people organize led her to a parallel career in politics. As the Democratic Presidential ticket coalesces around a woman and (for the first time since 1980!) a non-lawyer, we discuss the unique challenges which women still face in US politics at every level as well as what it is like for someone with no legal training or no political experience to run for and hold elected office.
Also: How can state and local governments make progressive change even when the federal government can't or won't act? What is it like for someone with no legal training to write laws? And why is Rhode Island the last state in the Union to take an entire day off to celebrate the US victory over Japan?
In what has become a depressing tradition, it's time for our annual look at the hell that SCOTUS unleashed with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. To look at the landscape for reproductive rights and justice, the team is joined by Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney at the ACLU and Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Even before he was president, Donald Trump was known for stiffing his lawyers. But considering how the stakes changed once he took the Oval Office, not getting paid seemed like a pleasant option. During and after his presidency, lawyers who represented Trump have pleaded guilty in election fraud cases, campaign finance cases and more. So why do they keep representing him? Is this risk of jailtime worth the reward of…well, what is the reward?
In this next installment of The Law According to Trump, another lawyer speaks with us about representing Donald Trump. Danya Perry is Michael Cohen’s attorney (yes, that Michael Cohen). She offers insight into why lawyers still want to represent Trump, and what the ethical implications are - personally and professionally.
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.
