Leah, Melissa and Kate try to wrap their heads around SCOTUS throwing away 40 years of precedent that allowed federal agencies (and the experts who work for them) to interpret ambiguous laws, not the judiciary. The court also made it easier to criminalize homelessness and harder to charge hundreds of January 6th insurrectionists. A tough day on 1 First Street, to say the least.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
While most everyone was reacting to Thursday’s Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care.
This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts).
Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday’s rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable.
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.
As the Supreme Court gives itself an extension on its homework, we review two of its most recent completed assignments:
Department of State v. Munoz (6/21/2024) What rights do US citizens have to object to the arbitrary denial of a spouse’s immigrant visa? Matt explains the arbitrary perils of the consular visa processing system and Amy Coney Barrett’s dangerously misguided search for deeply rooted history and tradition in an immigration system deeply rooted in white supremacy. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s warning in dissent about
Snyder v. U.S. (6/26/24): In fantastic news for anyone looking to give or receive a bribe, a 6-3 conservative majority has effectively read any penalties for paying a public official off after they have given you what you wanted out of federal law. Brett Kavanaugh reminds us what he was put there for by mischaracterizing the facts, finding entirely new meanings for the word “rewarded,” and worrying way too much about soccer moms inducing violations of 18 USC 666 with gift cards and edible arrangements.
We close out with a quick review of Steve Bannon’s desperate attempts to stay out of prison, and the concerning commitments House Republicans have recently made to stand behind his argument that the entire January 6th committee was invalid.
Finally for PATRONS ONLY: we read and discuss the best bits of Justice Jackson's very good Snyder dissent!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
After accidentally uploading the decision in the EMTALA case, the Supreme Court released it for real today. Leah is joined by Fatima Goss-Graves, Chris Geidner, and Amanda Hollis-Brusky to analyze the Court’s “refusal to declare what the law requires,” as KBJ put it in her dissent. Plus, Leah, Chris, and Amanda break down today’s opinions in cases about the administrative state, breathing clean air, and big pharma.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
What’s this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That’s right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders’) long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency’s ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.
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.
Leah, Melissa, and Kate weigh the implications of Bloomberg’s scoop on EMTALA (apparently someone at the court got a little trigger-happy with the upload button). Then they take a look at today’s two official opinions–is a $13,000 bribe equivalent to buying someone Chipotle? Coach Kavanaugh has thoughts. And did the government strong-arm social media companies into censoring content? There’s a word for that: jawboning.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in its traditional fashion: a box of printed copies for those journalists in the press room, and furious SCOTUS website refreshing for those who were not.
Murthy v Missouri was one of the closely watched social media cases of the term, about “jawboning” or when and if the government can ask/prod/urge private social media companies to moderate content in the interest of things like public health or election integrity, or whether such conduct constitutes censorship. Snyder v US concerned corruption and the difference between bribes and gratuities under a federal corruption law.
Somewhere in between the publishing of these opinions, however, the court inadvertently and very briefly published what may or may not be its opinion in a pair of emergency abortion cases, Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States. The Court spokeswoman urged us all to pay no attention to the early draft. Chaos ensued. On this extra, members-only episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to get our arms around a day of big news, including the “now you see it, now you don’t” abortion news at the highest court in the land.
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!)
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it 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.
As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun. Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining. Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case. We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace ourselves for many more in the week or so to come.
We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
