Opening Arguments - Did the Trump Colorado Decision Make You Feel Crazy? You’re Not Alone.

Episode 1012   Does anyone else feel like the Supreme Court decided a part of the Constitution just doesn't exist anymore? Perhaps you're like Listener Thomas S, who found this decision absolutely nuts. If so, you're in luck, because in this episode of OA, Thomas throws every argument at actual lawyer Matt Cameron for why this decision sucked. How does the actual lawyer feel? Did SCOTUS get it right actually? Find out!  

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.

Amarica's Constitution - Happy Anniversary Mr. Lincoln from the Court

The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was.  An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong.  Concurrences that are dissents.  A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices.  Notorious cases cited with approval.  The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error.  The autopsy begins.

Opening Arguments - T3BE Week 4! Firefighters’ Rule and Interstate Commerce

Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 4!   Thomas comes into this week on a HOT, some would say, UNBREAKABLE, streak! 5-0. So, naturally, he aced questions 6 and 7, right? You'll find out! After those answers, we get questions 8 and 9, pictured below! What the hell is the firefighters' rule? And are drycleaners interstate commerce?  

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.

Strict Scrutiny - SCOTUS Restores Trump to the Colorado Ballot, Unanimously (Kind Of)

The Supreme Court released its opinion in Trump v. Anderson, saying Colorado and other states can't disqualify Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down the (expected) outcome, the (heinous) reasoning and what it means going forward. One guess as to which justice has BDUE (big Dolores Umbridge energy).

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

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Yes, You Can Vote for an Insurrectionist

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 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.


ROTATING RED LIGHT!!! The Supreme Court ruled early Monday that alleged insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the Colorado republican primary ballot, and that no state may remove him, even if they want to. That’s Congress’ job. The 9-0 decision wasn’t unexpected, but the broad reasoning used by five of the court’s conservative justices certainly was, to the chagrin of the liberals and Amy Coney Barrett. 


In this special emergency episode, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s very own pocket justice league, Mark Joseph Stern and Jeremy Stahl, to discuss what this blockbuster result in Anderson says about the court’s consolidation of power and how it has helped Trump in so many ways. 


Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Opening Arguments - MAGA Fascists Try To Ban Drag and Fail. Repeatedly.

Episode 1011   Here's one for everyone who enjoys stories about terrible people losing in court! Casey stops by to review Alito's complaint to America's managers about the devastating cost of marriage equality: the exclusion of anti-LGBTQ bigots from juries. Matt breaks down the total failure of state attempts to ban drag shows and why the actual First Amendment keeps winning over the one that the kinds of people who yell the most about the First Amendment seem to think that they are yelling about.   1. Thomas/Alito statement in 2020 denial of Kim Davis's cert petition (2020) 2. Alito's concurrence in denial of cert in Missouri Dept of Corrections v. Finney (2024) 3. Trial court decision in Friends of Georges v. Mulroy (TN drag show ban) 4. Trial court decision in Florida-ORL v. Griffin (FL drag show ban) 5. Trial court decision in Woodlands Pride v. Paxton (TX drag show ban)

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.

Strict Scrutiny - Content Moderation, Machine Guns, and Trump’s Trial Calendar

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. 

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

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - The IVF Decision We Should Have Seen Coming

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. 

Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Opening Arguments - A Tale of Two Dons in Criminal Court

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.