Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

OA1194 - NY defense attorney Liz Skeen joins to talk about the evolution (or devolution?) or our Miranda rights in the past several decades. How does an actual criminal defense attorney who deals with these issues every day think about them?

Leah and Kate dive into the week’s legal news, explaining how SCOTUS continues to carry water for the Trump administration. They also cover an epic slapdown of the Roberts Court out of Hawaii, Sam Alito’s Italian sojourn, and the DOJ’s refusal to investigate the wads of cash lining border czar Tom Homan’s pockets. Then all three hosts are joined by special guests Sherrilyn Ifill, founding director of the 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy at Howard University, and New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie to discuss the Supreme Court in the years after the Civil War and Reconstruction and why that era, known as the Redemption Court, resonates with today’s legal landscape.

Favorite Things:

• Leah: Trump’s Dream of Infinite Presidential Power, Jamelle Bouie (NYT); Jimmy Kimmel’s comeback monologue (ABC)
• Kate: Chris Hayes’ WITHpod episode with Bill McKibben
• Jamelle: “How Comedy was Destroyed by By an Anti-Reality Doomsday Cult,” Elephant Graveyard (YouTube)
• Sherrilyn: Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation by Zaakir Tameez; King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South by Jeanne Theoharis

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 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

Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The week ended with a Grand Jury Indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for what looks to be a pair of unprovable crimes. Indeed the  US Attorney overseeing the case declined to bring the indictment for that very reason. He’s gone and Donald Trump’s personal insurance lawyer brought the case. Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick discuss what that means for the Justice Department.

Then Yale Law School’s professor Justin Driver reminds us that Supreme Court cases don’t just turn into vapors after they come down in June. The Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision from 2023 has fundamentally changed what college campuses look like and has opened the door to Trump Administration attacks on anything that even looks like racial justice efforts on elite campuses and throughout the country. Any one decision causes legal cascades that can and will be used against us.

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.

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

OA1193 - Could Tylenol sue RFK Jr. for libel? Does the pressure the FCC put on Disney/ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel constitute a First Amendment violation? Is the Trump administration really going to charge rural hospitals $100,000 for the privilege of being able to hire foreign doctors? In today’s Rapid Response Friday we answer all of these recent patron questions and more, and Jenessa shares a personal footnote about her decision to voluntarily take the most specialized bar exam in the US legal system.

1. The Campaign for Accountability’s bar complaint against FCC chairman Brendan Carr 

2. Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, (Presidential Proclamation dated 9/20/2025)

3. US Patent and Trademark Office bar registration page  

We watched the newly-released final episode of HBO’s The Case Against Adnan Syed, and we have questions.  Are the producers really trying to pin the murder of Hae Min Lee on a Black man with obvious mental health issues who was already cleared as a suspect--and did they really need to show the world a fully-nude photo of him to make that case? What is the story that they are trying to tell here, and just how far off is it from the truth? From the libelously deceptive cold open to the slyly deceptive summary of Syed’s post-Serial legal proceedings and beyond, Matt brings his post-conviction expertise to make the case against The Case Against Adnan Syed.

FOOTNOTES

1. SIO354: “Serial's Adnan Syed Conviction Reinstated--What Happened? (w/Matt Cameron) (4/4/2023)

2. OA1067: “Adnan Syed Remains a Convicted Murderer” (9/9/2024)

3. State’s Attorney Ivan Bates’s memorandum in support of his Motion to Withdraw the previously-filed Motion to Vacate Judgment

4. 85-page Court of Appeals decision in Lee v. State reinstating Adnan Syed’s conviction (3/28/2023)

5. State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s Sep 14, 2022 motion to vacate Adnan Syed’s conviction

6. Judge Phinn’s September 19, 2022 order on motion to vacate

7. Attorney General Brian Frosh’s statement re: SA Mosby’s motion to vacate

8. Attorney General’s fiery response to Adnan Syed’s motion to disqualify AG’s office from representing the state of Maryland in this appeal

9. More on the feud between the Attorney General and Baltimore City State’s Attorney over the Adnan Syed conviction: “Maryland AG questions integrity of process used to exonerate Adnan Syed,” Maryland Daily Record (10/25/2022) 

10. Full transcription of prosecutor’s handwritten note which Mosby alleged constituted Brady evidence and more information in this Baltimore Banner story: “Was Adnan Syed Note Misinterpreted?” Baltimore Banner, (11/1/2022) 

11. Appellant Young Lee’s brief in Lee v. State 

12. Defendant Adnan Syed’s brief in Lee v. State

13. 2019 Court of Appeals decision finding ineffective assistance of prior counsel in Adnan Syed’s case, but not enough prejudice to justify a new trial: State v. Syed :: 2019 :: Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions 

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Born Equal is being read - by academics, pundits, historians, and citizens.  Reaction has begun to pour in, and discussion has begun.  In this episode, we bring you some of the very best flavor of such discussion - an academic symposium held at Penn Carey Law School on the book.  Professors Kate Shaw and Kermit Roosevelt each read the work with great care and deliver extensive remarks on the book, pointing out themes and insights - and raising questions.  Oh, so many questions.  Professor Amar then responds in the moment, and students in the audience pose their own queries.  The constitutional conversation continues, and is never complete.  But this one in particular will go on, as there were so many important questions raised that they could never be answered in this short interval.  But you will thrill to deep engagement and fascinating perspectives from this all-star panel of great thinkers.  Meanwhile, we also have a bonus for you: the great historian Gordon Wood has weighed in having read the book, and his extended remarks can be found at akhilamar.com/podcast.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

OA1192 - This week in Still Good Law: Katz v. U.S., the 1967 Warren Court case which on its face decided that the Fourth Amendment may apply to a public phone booth. But that’s hardly all: the federal prosecution of nationally-famous bookie Charles Katz also completely changed the entire framework for how U.S. courts understand and interpret the law of searches and seizures and completely upended the concept of Fourth Amendment privacy as it had been understood up until that time. Matt provides the background on Katz and how this case made it to the Supreme Court, Jenessa considers the mental health benefits of being left alone by the government, and we talk through how important this vital holding might still be at a time when we have all given up so many of our privacy rights just by living in 2025.

1. Katz v. U.S. (1967)

2. Goldman v.US (1942)

3. Silverman v. US (1967)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Leah is joined by guest co-host Skye Perryman, president & CEO of Democracy Forward, to discuss the week’s news, including the continued pushback on the shadow docket from the lower courts and Trump’s boundless abuse of Article II. Then Kate, Melissa, and Leah — along with special guest Sherrilyn Ifill — take a look at the impact of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, three years into her time on the Supreme Court.

Favorite things:

• Skye: Sierra Ferrell
• Leah: The Summer I Turned Pretty (Amazon); Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Cause, Ta-Nehisi Coates (Vanity Fair); Miolin Bakery, Brooklyn; L’Appartement 4F, Brooklyn & Manhattan 
• Kate: Pennsylvania Supreme Court election (get involved at Vote Save America)

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 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

Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dahlia Lithwick talks to First Amendment law professor Mary Anne Franks to explore the inversion of free speech in America this past week, and to trace the ways our assumptions about the First Amendment helped to tip us into this upside-down. Dr. Franks, author of Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment, explains the contradictions inherent in free-speech absolutism, the role of government in suppressing dissent, and the impact of media and entertainment on public discourse. What are we to make of a movement that screamed “jawboning” and “censorship” for a decade, but when handed power enthusiastically enacts actual governmental speech suppression and censorship? And what does the First Amendment mean if the powerful are consistently afforded maximum power in the “marketplace of ideas”?

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.

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

OA1191 - In today’s Rapid Response Friday, we examine some of the legal questions raised as the Trump administration throws as much political capital as possible behind the recent assassination of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk and their implications for the future of the First Amendment rights they claim to revere Kirk for championing. Is there any legal basis for Trump to designate a “domestic terrorist group,” let alone one that even his FBI has previously admitted doesn’t exist? Matt looks back to the first Trump term to try to understand what is coming. We then examine how the states are getting around the FDA’s limitations on the COVID-19 vaccine and the latest in Trump’s litigious war on the media before closing things out with a fun footnote on the only other time in US history that a US President has sued someone for libel.

Independent media matters more than ever now that mainstream media is compromised beyond any ability to report the truth about this administration. Support the show, join the community, and enjoy bonus content and ad-free listening at patreon.com/law! Don't forget to leave a 5-star review and share the show with your friends!

1. Tyler Robinson indictment (filed 9/16/2025)

2. 18 USC 2331 (federal definition of “domestic terrorism”)

3. “Memorandum on Inadmissibility of Persons Affiliated with Antifa Based on Organized Criminal Activity” (1/5/2021)

4. “Documents Show Trump Officials Used Secret Terrorism Unit to Question Lawyers at the Border,” Dara Lind, ProPublica (5/14/2021)

5. “Migrant Caravan in Tijuana with ties to El Paso Texas,” DHS Field Information Report (10/18/2019)

6. “Trump v. New York Times Company” (complaint filed 9/15/2025)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!