my private podcast channel
The answer for T3BE31 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
President Biden is hearing calls from many quarters to step down as a candidate. Donald Trump is shot. Questions of presidential succession and/or resignation abound. While it may seem these are unique and strange situations which the American republic has never faced, in fact, resignation has been a key American issue for centuries. Episodes well-known, and others rarely taught, are reviewed on our podcast this week, providing context and counsel for our listeners, and hopefully for the candidates themselves. The path to Mount Rushmore may take a turn away from the Oval Office, it turns out. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
The judge overseeing the stolen classified documents case at former President Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Club has dismissed the case, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. This decision will likely be appealed. It’s a big swing, on a Trump trial question that’s very possibly heading on a fast track up to the United States Supreme Court. That sinking feeling is becoming pretty familiar, huh? In a special episode of Amicus for our Slate Plus subscribers, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Matthew Seligman who had argued for the constitutionality of the special counsel last month in Judge Cannon’s courtroom in Florida.
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to the full version now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
OA1051
In the wake of... one of the many moral panics likely started by Chris Rufo, many "Don't Say Gay" laws were passed. I don't know about you, but I had just figured these had to be unconstitutional. After all, we have freedom of speech, right? There's an Amendment about that, right? Well.......
Returning to the show to take us through this is the best namer of law review articles, Caroline Mala Corbin. Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Check out her paper "The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class" here!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
Josh Hawley's book/polemic on the trials and tribulations of American men also gives us a window into the dark worldview that informs his politics-- so unfortunately, we needed to see what all he's saying. We decided to do an informal book club to discuss the horrors within, and we invited the only person whose opining on masculinity we actually want: Jonathan Van Ness.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
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
Administrative law may not sound sexy. And maybe that’s because it truly isn’t sexy. But it is at the very center of the biggest decisions this past Supreme Court term, and also widely misunderstood. In this week’s show, we asked Georgetown Law School’s Professor Lisa Heinzerling to come back to help hack through the thorny thicket of administrative law so we can more fully understand the ramifications of a clutch of cases handed down this term that – taken together – rearrange the whole project of modern government. The Supreme Court’s biggest power grab for a generation isn’t just about bestowing new and huge powers upon itself, it’s also about shifting power from agencies established in the public interest to corporations, industry and billionaires.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
OA1050
Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court’s term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations?
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
The answer for T3BE30 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
The Court’s opinion in the presidential immunity case Trump v. US, has sunk in. On reflection it is even worse that on first impression, and that is saying something. But just to condemn the opinion is not enough. Professor Amar distills the Court’s argument to its essence and explains why it completely collapses under any kind of rigorous scrutiny. Its abandonment of originalism and of the constitution’s own terms is laid bare. How could the Court go so astray? We also take a stab at this, and speculate on various forms of rot that it may reveal. CLE credit is available from visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.
OA1049
Qualified Immunity is insane. It's one of several ways that police evade accountability for truly monstrous acts. As unpleasant as that is, we're fortunate to have an amazing guest to take us through the history of it, as well as a new case that may be cause for optimism!
From her UCLA Law bio: Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019.
Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation and the author of Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable (2023).
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!