Leah, Melissa and Kate cover some breaking news, including Biden’s last-minute declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land. Then, it’s a rollicking ride through Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, one of the more entertaining oral arguments of late. Come for the hosts’ sharp legal analysis, stay for Justice Alito’s questions about whether Pornhub features longform journalism.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect on the Court's hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court's opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago.
Donald Trump becomes president again on Monday, and as Joe Biden leaves the White House, we’re on the brink of a massive change in how the law is interpreted. Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing was one of a host of clues this week that we are in for a wild legal and constitutional ride. On this episode of Amicus, host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by constitutional scholar Professor Pamela Karlan to pick through what we learned this week about what the law is and what it is about to become –– from Jack Smith’s report, to the new (presumptive) Attorney General of the United States’ apparent ignorance of birthright citizenship and therefore the 14th amendment.
In the first emergency episode of 2025, Kate, Leah and Melissa break down the Court’s unanimous decision to uphold the upcoming TikTok ban in the United States. They cover the implications and possible unintended consequences, and Leah bids farewell to her personal Chinese spy.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
OA1113 - Special counsel Jack Smith recently resigned and turned final reports in each of Donald Trump’s federal cases to Attorney General Merrick Garland. We examine the enigma of the man and the complexity of his mission before reviewing his final conclusions and charging decisions. How does this compare to the Mueller Report? Why was Trump never charged under the Insurrection Act? And will Aileen Cannon really get away with keeping the second volume on Trump’s illegal retention of classified documents from ever reaching the four (4) people the AG has decided should be allowed to read it?
Finally, Matt drops a rare PSA footnote to explain why sometimes the very best thing that we can do to support our local immigrant communities is nothing at all.
But who will watch the doozy watchers? We will. We watched Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing, but our focus might have been a bit different than elsewhere. Here at Doozywatch(tm) HQ our concern wasn't with Hegseth as much, because every single one of us and them already knows he isn't fit to be Secretary of Defense. Our focus, and the focus on today's OA is - how did the Democrats do? We've been quite nervous about to what extent the Democrats will obey in advance. So what did this hearing tell us? Lydia Smith is here and lordy there are tapes! Then, it's Thomas Takes the Bar Exam 55! That means we've got the answer to last week's question, as well as a fresh new one. Heather Varanini is in the house!
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!
As Inauguration Day approaches, anxiety and uncertainty, even dread, mixes with the optimism of some in the American polity. Many express a mix of apathy, weariness, or hopelessness, with a sentiment akin to “wake me in four years.” What would they find when awakened? We begin to take a look ahead, in part by looking behind and evaluating how our own earlier prognostications have turned out. We start with abortion and the Dobbs case, as it loomed large in recent years and clearly continues to reverberate and feeds resentment on one side, activism on the other. What lies ahead for the law, the Court, and the people? CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.
We're giving everyone half of this Law'd Awful Movies! We watched John Eastman's... documentary? Whatever it is, a strange nonprofit called the Madison Media Fund produced it, and held the premiere at Mar-a-Lago ahead of its, you guessed it, January 6th release date. You'll hear straight from Eastman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeff Clark, and...Lawrence Lessig regarding Eastman's election "theory." Special Guest Lydia joins us to tackle the folks behind the making of this film, and you won't believe the stuff she's uncovered.
Leah, Melissa & Kate dive headfirst into an already busy 2025 by detailing the Republican attempt to steal a North Carolina Supreme Court seat, looking at the just-argued TikTok case, parsing through Donald Trump’s various legal challenges, and more. Then, the hosts speak with Michelle Adams, professor of law at the University of Michigan about her book The Containment: Detroit, The Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North.
To support disaster relief efforts in Los Angeles, you can make a donation at votesaveamerica.com/relief
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
While Donald J Trump was virtually fuming at his sentencing hearing in Judge Juan Merchan’s New York City courtroom on Friday morning, the nine justices of the US Supreme Court were taking their seats for oral arguments in the so-called TikTok ban case. And while it only took 40 minutes for the president elect’s sentence of an ‘unconditional discharge’ to be pronounced, the arguments over national security, the First Amendment, and an app that 170 million Americans use took a couple of hours longer.
Amicus has an analysis of all of it. First, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss whether and how Trump’s sentence matters, and what it tells us about the Supreme Court under Trump 2.0. Next, they’re joined by Gautam Hans, clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, who specializes in constitutional law, technology law and policy, to discuss why the Supreme Court seemed so very ready to reach right past the First Amendment and grab for national security in order to uphold the TikTok ban.
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.
