President Trump continues to wield the ax in a manner consistent with Unitary Executive theory. The question is, is it also consistent with the Constitution, and with the various statutes on the books that are at odds with that theory? Professor Calabresi returns for more discussion of this crucial question; in this episode, Akhil is pressing a number of challenges to the theory. Among these is an important example from the early Republic, which indeed followed soon after the Decision of 1789, which is so heavily relied upon by proponents of the unitary executive. History, text, structure - all come together in a lively debate.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means
On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Trump administration's effort to withhold $2 billion promised for foreign aid work. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Court’s decision to reject the Trump administration's request to halt a lower court's order, by a five to four vote, compelling the State Department to resume payments. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices, Justice Samuel Alito offered a “stunned” dissent, reacting to the Court’s surprising rebuke to the Trump administration with few facts but plenty of fury.
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.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means
On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Trump administration's effort to withhold $2 billion promised for foreign aid work. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Court’s decision to reject the Trump administration's request to halt a lower court's order, by a five to four vote, compelling the State Department to resume payments. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices, Justice Samuel Alito offered a “stunned” dissent, reacting to the Court’s surprising rebuke to the Trump administration with few facts but plenty of fury.
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.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Opening Arguments - As Trump Drones On, Democrats Resistance Takes Different Forms
OA1133 and T3BE61 - Lydia joins today to discuss Trump's 3/4/2025 address to Congress regarding his vision for the next 4 years. Leading up to the evening, there were reports that quite a few Democrats would opt to not attend. We highlight the different approaches folks in the party took to resist in the face of chaos and authoritarianism, and discuss what we might do if we were in that position.
After that, Professor Heather Varanini comes in to share the answer to T3BE60 and present the next question in the Bar Exam!
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!
Opening Arguments - DOGE Is Defying Court Orders. Will the Supreme Court Care?
OA1132 - We resume our regularly scheduled rapid response to law in the news, starting with some good news (really) from the Supreme Court! Then: some-not-so-good news from the Supreme Court on the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the US Agency for International Development. Why did a federal judge need to issue an order confirming that he really meant it when he told the new administration to resume paying out the funds that Congress intended, and why does John Roberts seem to be taking this nonsense seriously? Matt then provides some context for a recent announcement regarding the Trump administration’s intention to require all undocumented people to register with DHS before dropping a footnote with recent developments in the unbelievable story of the most (allegedly) felonious Supreme Court litigator in modern US history.
-
Glossip v. Oklahoma (Feb. 25, 2025)
-
Complete docket for Global Health Council v. Trump
-
Letter to the editor of the New York Times from NY Congressional representative Emmanuel Celler opposing alien registration (May 25, 1925)
-
Indictment in U.S. v. Goldstein(1/16/25)
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!
Strict Scrutiny - Pod Save the Separation of Powers
Leah, Melissa, and Kate once again wade through the latest malevolence from the Trump White House in a segment they’re now calling “Pod Save the Separation of Powers.” Then, they turn to what’s going on at One First Street, covering some new opinions, as well as this week’s arguments, including a case about “reverse discrimination.”
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - When the Lawyers are Lawless
This past week has seen firings at the Pentagon, an Executive Order targeting a private law firm, the installation of a podcaster and January 6 denialist as #2 at the FBI, and an incident in which an audience member at an Idaho townhall was wrestled to the ground and led away in zip ties by private security that answer to no lawful police entity. Is this what happens when the lawyers, police officers, military officials and other law enforcement organizations who are meant to keep us all safe, are sidelined or conscripted into lawless behavior?
On this week’s episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent, editor at Just Security and author of the substack The Freedom Academy with Asha Rangappa. Asha explains what happens when people who are hellbent on using the law to break the law achieve positions of power, and whether the safeguards still in place can hold.
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 - Blake Lively v Justin Baldoni
That's right, we interrupt your regularly scheduled rapid response Friday (sorry...) to give you the first episode in the new Gavel Gavel series!!! And, Gavel Gavel is now PUBLIC!
The legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni might feel like just "celebrity gossip," but there is so much here. It has fiercly divided the internet, with one group certain that Justin Baldoni is a sexual harsser, and the other group certain that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are devious plotters who lied about an innocent man in order to take over a movie. How are we to know the truth? Well, fortunately there are going on thousands of pages of legal documents to comb through. The answers are there, for the few among us that are willing to actually read them. This series will do just that.
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!
Divided Argument - Natural Side Effect
Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities.
Opening Arguments - ‘Run for Something’ Is Stronger Than Ever. We’re Going to Need It.
OA 1130 and T3BE60 - We're so excited to kick off this episode with an interview with Amanda Litman, the co-founder and President of an amazing organization called Run for Something. We discuss who they are and how they support folks in state and local races in all 50 states, answer questions for those who may be listening and considering throwing their hat in the ring to run for political office, and get energized from Amanda's contagious hope for what can very much come in 2026 and 2028 if we put in the work now.
After our chat with Amanda, Thomas meets up with Professor Heather Varanini to reveal the answer to T3BE59, and tackle the next question! Be sure to stick around for our T3BE winners and patron shoutouts!
If you're feeling inspired and hopeful after today's show, consider making a donation to Run for Something to help elevate progressive leaders in state and local elections across the country! And if you're thinking you might Run for Something, check out their resources to help you along every step of the way!
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!