Melissa, Leah, and Kate recap oral arguments in cases about January 6, political corruption, malicious prosecution claims, and the right to counsel. They also break down a batch of decisions, and look ahead to how SCOTUS may address state bans on gender-affirming care.
Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.
The first criminal trial of Donald Trump is finally here. This week, hundreds of possible jurors filed through Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom in lower Manhattan. The selection process was a preview of some of the challenges and pitfalls in the first ever criminal trial of a sitting or former President. On this week’s show, Slate’s senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern sits down with Slate jurisprudence editor and Chief Law of Trump™ correspondent Jeremy Stahl to discuss what we learned this week, and what we can expect when the trial truly gets underway next week.
In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern welcome Justice Clarence Thomas back from his long weekend, with a close listen to the January 6th case that was argued before the court on Tuesday.Fischer v United States is raising more alarm bells about the conservative justices’ posture toward armed insurrection. They also dig into Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion in a potentially tricky TitleVII case that, miraculously for this court, went pretty well in terms of civil rights protections in the workplace. Listen 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.
We have a jury! The preliminaries are nearly complete in the first criminal trial of a former president in US history, and we take this opportunity to review what we know so far about the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Donald Trump for funneling hush money to Stormy Daniels three weeks before the 2016 election. How did they pick a jury so quickly? What is DA Alvin Bragg's theory of the case? Could "retweets are not endorsements" actually be a loophole to a gag order?
The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from one of the 350 January 6th rioters charged under a 2002 statute passed by Congress in the wake of the many crimes of Enron. How did Congress's attempt to close a loophole which made it legal for some corporate criminals to destroy evidence so long as they did it by themselves open the door to the prosecution of violent insurrectionists? Is there a new, secret meaning to the word "otherwise" that only lawyers know? Is the Supreme Court really about to agree with the defendant that the words "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding [including in Congress], or attempts to do so" clearly do not apply to him--a person clearly on video violently attempting to obstruct, influence, and/or impede an official proceeding of Congress? We also consider the potential disruption to Jack Smith's DC prosecution of Trump, of which this statute is the basis for one of the four pending charges in that case.
For the first time in U.S. history, articles of impeachment brought by the House have been dismissed by the Senate without a trial. Why was the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for doing his job in a way that Republicans didn't like (a.k.a. a "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor") so totally dead on arrival? We pay zero respects to what we can only hope will go down as by far the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments. (See OA bonus episode of 2/11/24 for our breakdown of the House's articles of impeachment).
Meanwhile in Florida, Fort Pierce's finest (and only) federal judge has returned fire after Trump prosecutor Jack Smith had the untrammeled nerve to notice in writing that Fort Pierce's only federal judge really sucks at her job (see OA 1016 & 1020). Fortunately for everyone however, it turns out the only person responsible for her many mistakes is--Jack Smith?
As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really - and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes. CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.
After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies.
April 15th marks two significant events in US history: the 11th anniversary of Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev's bombing of the Boston Marathon, and the first day of jury selection in the first criminal trial of a former US President. These two very different situations both share one important legal question: how do you select a jury from a city full of people who not only know a defendant by name but have good reasons to despise them?
Boston residents Matt and Casey share their own memories of the day that changed their city forever before breaking down the trial of surviving bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev and ensuing appeals of his death sentence to the 1st Circuit and Supreme Court. We examine why the U.S. publicly announced that it would not be reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, and debate whether or not the defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence during the penalty phase that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have participated in a triple homicide two years earlier to prove his influence over his younger brother. What can Clarence Thomas's decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence tell us about how Trump trial judges might handle jury selection? And what might be next following the 1st Circuit's recent findings on juror bias?
In the next two weeks, SCOTUS will hear arguments in cases on political corruption, criminalizing houselessness, whether a state abortion ban can override a federal policy permitting abortion in emergency medical care, the statute under which most January 6th defendants were convicted-- and if that weren’t enough, Donald Trump’s request for immunity in the January 6th case against him. After previewing all these cases, Kate, Leah, and Melissa also provide updates on the total abortion ban and ballot initiative happening in Arizona, and the latest shenanigans out of the Fifth Circuit.
Got a question for our upcoming mailbag episode? Submit it here!
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 14th here.
We shouldn’t be surprised that we have to keep saying it, but here we are: the Supreme Court (notably trained as lawyers) will soon make decisions about how doctors (notably trained as doctors) can treat pregnant patients in the emergency room. Moyle v. United States - consolidated with Idaho v. United States - is the result of an Idaho lawsuit challenging EMTALA, a federal law requiring hospitals to do whatever they can to stabilize whoever comes through their ER doors with a medical emergency. Sometimes this requires abortion care, and for a faction of conservative advocates, this cannot stand.
Ahead of oral arguments the week after next, we wanted to get a sense of what healthcare looks like for pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies now, and how this case threatens to undermine that care in the future. This week, Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Dr. Dara Kass, an emergency medicine physician, about what EMTALA was built to do, what ER physicians are being asked to do, and what will happen should Idaho prevail in this case.
Later in the show, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the hullabaloo over when, if, and how Justice Sotomayor should be made to retire and the very gendered work of keeping SCOTUS from going off the rails (any more than it already has).
In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members Dahlia and Mark discuss the outrageous ruling that creates (but really, revives) a de facto total ban on abortions in Arizona. They also explain why the EMTALA case from the show isn’t being talked about as much as the recent mifepristone case was. 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.
Courts in Arizona and Florida have both ended abortion rights in very different (but both terrible) ways this month. Did Arizona actually resurrect a 160-year law passed decades before it was even a state? And how weird can it get when you go full originalist on a law that is younger than most people in Florida?
Before we get there, Matt opens by sharing his experience with the OJ Simpson trial at the age of 14 and how it shaped his understanding of US criminal law. We then make sure to pay appropriate respects to the violent domestic abuser who (do we even have to say "allegedly" anymore?) brutally murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994.
Also, two different countries have committed extreme and unprecedented violations of international law involving embassies in the past week. How does the Vienna Convention protect diplomatic posts, and what actually happens when these international agreements are broken?
The first of the Trump trials will finally begin in New York in one business day! How does jury selection even work in a case where everyone on the planet has an opinion about the defendant?
