Leah and Kate analyze the ramifications of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump's immunity case... seven whole weeks from now. They also recap the arguments in a case about whether the federal government can ban bump stocks, a device that turns a semi-automatic rifle into, essentially, a machine gun. Plus, evelyn douek joins the pod to recap arguments in a case about whether social media content moderation is censorship and therefore violates the First Amendment.
It was a wild week at the High Court (another seven days crammed with a year’s worth of news). SCOTUS heard cases about bump stocks, and how Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would do as Facebook content moderators. The Supreme Court also finally found the time to put a thumb on the scale for serially indicted alleged insurrector-in-chief former President Donald J Trump. We’ll talk about all those things with Slate’s very own Mark Joseph Stern.
But what we’re really focused on this week is the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision finding that frozen embryos are children, and the unshakeable sense that the coverage of this so far has had a slightly myopic quality, as though this case is purely about IVF, and carving out IVF, when in fact the entire movement for fetal personhood sweeps in many more people and rights than just those seeking assisted reproductive technology. We’re joined by a preeminent expert on matters of law, medicine, reproductive health, and biotechnologies, Dr. Michele Goodwin. Dr. Goodwin is the author of Policing The Womb: Invisible Women and The Criminalization of Motherhood. She explains (again) why we should have seen this decision coming from miles (and centuries) away.
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.
Later, in the Slate Plus segment, Mark returns to discuss this week’s SCOTUS arguments and the big news that legislative turtle and legal hellscape architect Mitch McConnell will be stepping down from his role as leader of Republicans in the Senate later this year.
Episode 1010 It was the worst of Dons, it was the worst of Dons. Eagles singer Don Henley was not taking it easy in a New York City courtroom this week in his testimony against three memorabilia-collecting desperadoes who had to bring their alibis to face charges of conspiring to sell stolen (?) legal pads filled with Henley's drafts of "Hotel California"-era lyrics. Will the court find that these defendants are hiding their lyin' eyes, or is the Manhattan DA's case against them already gone? New kid in town Matt takes his legal analysis to the limit one more time. We move on to some Trump updates, including the Supreme Court's decision to take his extremely unserious claims of Presidential immunity for all crimes seriously and complications to the defense's effort to disqualify Fani Willis from the Fulton County prosecution. Oh also, Trump doesn't want to pay any money and is complaining to the court on account of "I don't like this."
If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
We’re back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team. It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take. Will it matter? This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode. CLE is available from podcast.njsba.com.
Looks like we have to add a new segment to the show: Fetal Personhood Watch. Leah, Melissa, and Kate break down the decision from the Alabama Supreme Court that ruled frozen embryos used in IVF treatment are "extrauterine children." They also recap the oral arguments the US Supreme Court heard last week, including a bonkers case about EPA regulations. And then, for a special Court Culture segment, Sherrilyn Ifill joins the pod to talk about launching a new center about the Fourteenth Amendment at Howard University School of Law.
Episode 1009 The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 has been making headlines with its promises to set the next Republican president up with a full staff of loyal civil servants and a 920-page executive branch playbook--but what is actually in this thing, and what can we learn from it? Matt takes us through some disturbing echoes of 1933 Germany, which was a famously chill and cool time, showing us how the legal system has historically been used to turn democracies into autocracies. We learn that laws with the most boring names are often the scariest, and about the administrative violence of a well-timed memo. 1. Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership (2023) 2. Presidential Personnel Database (Project 2025 job application) 3. Nazi Telegram with instructions for Kristallnacht (Nov 10, 1938)
If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia and Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern discuss the bonkers but very very real implications of the Alabama Supreme Court decision to bestow personhood on embryos being used in fertility treatment, creating an impossible legal landscape for clinics and those struggling to become pregnant. Next, they sift through Justice Samuel Alito’s grievance debris in a recent dissent to find the deeply worrying signposts toward overturning equal marriage rights. Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pleads with SCOTUS to clear up the mess it made of gun laws with its decision in Bruen.
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.
Episode 1008 Today we are serving up a tasteful pairing of radically destructive activism from one supreme court with a refreshing adherence to basic Constitutional law from another. We start in Alabama, where the state's highest court just found with no any apparent legal, factual, or moral justification whatsoever that a few hundred frozen cells are legally equivalent to a "child"--because God, probably? Unclear! We then review a recent example of the U.S. Supreme Court doing exactly what it is supposed to do: reviewing and unanimously reversing an obvious Constitutional violation, in this case one which put a man who had been acquitted on mental health grounds at risk of the death penalty. 1. Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C. 2. Ketanji Brown Jackson's decision for a unanimous court in McElrath v. Georgia, 601 U.S. ____ (2024) [PDF] 3. Free downloadable version of the Century Schoolbook typeface
If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
