I am pleased to introduce you all to Heather Varanini! In her role as Director of Academic Achievement, Heather spends her days helping students succeed in law school and prepare for the Bar. She's onboard to serve as the Official Opening Arguments Bar Tutor and teach us a lot along the way! In this episode we'll hear more about her journey and the values that she brings to her work; for this week, we do a full Bar Question and Answer to give a sense of what we're in for with her! The traditional staggered Q&A will commence next time!
As we stand poised at the threshold of June, we brace ourselves for the fire hose of opinions headed our way in the next four or so weeks.
But why? Why –even as the Court is taking on fewer cases – is there an absolute dogpile of decisions, with no map for what will come down or when, beyond a SCOTUS-adjacent cottage industry in soothsaying and advance-panic and guessing? Dahlia Lithwick takes us through a whirlwind of Supreme Court decisions and controversies, expertly assisted by Professor Steve Vladeck (whose New York Times bestseller The Shadow Docketcame out in paperback this week) and Mark Joseph Stern in untangling the complex web of legal, political, and personal dramas enveloping the nation's highest court. From Justice Alito's flag-flying fiasco, to the forces shaping the court’s docket, to its divisive rulings, this episode could well be titled “Why Are They Like This?” As the court's term hurtles towards its frenetic close, Dahlia and her guests dissect the legal and ethical ramifications of the justices' actions, both on and off the bench. Tune in to this must-listen episode of Amicus for an eye-opening exploration of the Supreme Court's turbulent session, the ideological battles at play, and what it all could mean for the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. Whether you're a legal aficionado or simply concerned about the direction of the country, this episode is the end-of-term preview you really need to understand what the heck is happening over the next few weeks.
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.
Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence.
A second Alito flag has hit the news, we have election results out of Fulton County, and the jury is nearly out in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Matt also answers patron questions about how things could go wrong with the jury between now and the verdict, as well as why juries everywhere are so rarely sequestered anymore.
After a brief detour past a very important class-action suit against Hershey’s for the insufficient jauntiness of its Halloween candy, we turn to our main story: International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants to be issued against leaders of both Hamas and Israel. How does The Hague have jurisdiction to prosecute the prime minister of a country which has flatly refused to recognize its authority--or, for that matter, Palestinians who carried out the attacks of October 7, 2023 in the territory of that same country? Matt explains the background and recent history of humanity’s first standing international criminal tribunal as we consider what this moment means for Israel, Palestine, and the world.
In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy.
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.
In the third and final part of our How Originalism Ate the Law series, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Justice Todd Eddins of the Hawaii Supreme Court and Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap. Being trapped by originalism is a choice, one that judges, lawyers, and the American people do not have to accede to. Our expert panel offers ideas and action points for pushing back against a mode of constitutional interpretation that has had deadly consequences. And they answer questions from our listeners.
More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one.
With the recent news that a sitting Supreme Court justice was publicly displaying support for Trump’s attempted coup in the days between January 6, 2021 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, it’s time to ask: Is Samuel Alito actually worse than our very low opinion of him? Also who could have possibly known that a hard-right Reagan/Buckley conservative who has been publicly advocating for ending abortion rights since 1985 would turn out to be the ultra-right Trump/Scalia conservative who ended abortion rights in 2022? We take these questions on after a quick look at the latest low point in Rudy Guiliani’s long, steep, and often hilarious fall from grace. (N.B.: there’s so much more to talk about here than we could possibly fit into an hour, we didn’t even get to his awful decisions on the death penalty, among many other things.)
Finally, we learn the answer to last week’s T3BE question and consider the multifarious liabilities of stocking a private lake full of piranhas.
Leah and Melissa catch up on the Alitos' upside-down flag situation, an opinion preserving the funding structure of the CFPB, and a racial gerrymandering case out of Texas.
The giveaway starts TODAY and ends May 24 at 11:59pm PT. We’ll be picking a winner on/around 5/28 so be sure to keep an eye on your comment. For the full rules, check out the link here: https://crooked.com/strictgiveaway/
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Justice Samuel Alito’s wife didn’t attend the January 6th 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally (unlike fellow SCOTUS spouse Ginni Thomas), but in January 2021, in a leafy Alexandria, Virginia cul-de-sac, the New York Times reports that the Alito household was engaged in a MAGA-infused front yard spat with the neighbors, even as the Justice was deciding cases regarding that very election at the highest court in the land. Justice Alito told the New York Times his wife was responsible for the upside down stars and stripes flying from their flagpole and that it was in retaliation for an an anti-Trump sign.
It’s unseemly. Undoubtedly unethical. But this intra-suburban squabble, and the very clear implications it has for a public already aware of the Supreme Court’s dwindling legitimacy, is unlikely to evoke shame, amends, or recusal from Justice Alito. On this week’s Amicus, American legal exceptionalism sliced three ways: Dahlia Lithwick on the Justice and the Flag, Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl on how Donald J. Trump’s criminal hush money trial ends, and Congressman Jamie Raskin on concrete steps to supreme court reform, how to get back the rights the Supreme Court has taken away, and what a binding ethics code would look like.
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.
