Republicans thought they were going to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas but they didn't count on... AL GREEN! There has been so much in the news that Matt and I thought we'd do some bonus recording, both to give you fine folks more content and also to keep practicing and getting into the groove. Matt breaks down the absurd Articles of Impeachment that some Republican intern typed up. Then we talk about the border bill Republicans demanded but then... fought against after Trump said to.
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.
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court Thursday in Trump v. Anderson revealed a lot about some of the justices’ commitment to the primacy of originalism. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss why his organization took up and pursued the long shot case to try to keep former President Donald J Trump off the ballot in Colorado. While the Supreme Court appeared to have little appetite for taking the big swing to find that Trump had disqualified himself from office when he engaged in an insurrection, Noah insists the case is far from having been in vain - eloquently highlighting the dangerous potential consequences of inaction. It's a chilling reminder of what’s at stake.
Next, Dahlia is joined by slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern to discuss whether the liberal justices have some grand bargain in mind as they offered multiple off-ramps for Trump’s side, despite dozens of bipartisan briefs arguing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, the court’s originalist’s sudden concern for consequences in this case, when they have had no interest in weighing the life and death consequences for ordinary people in cases concerning guns and abortion. Finally, they tackle a worrying undercurrent to Thursday’s arguments: an apparent capitulation to threats of chaos and violence as a basis for deciding constitutional cases.
In our Slate Plus segment, Mark sticks around to discuss a landmark gun decision out of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and why it’s a problem that DOJ’s special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report declining to prosecute, but affirming that Joe Biden is old (hint: the problem isn’t that he’s old).
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.
This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa!
In Episode 1003, Thomas and Matt are joined by Matt's partner, Casey, to discuss what's been going on with District Attorney Fani Willis down in Fulton County, Georgia. Perhaps you've heard about a scandal involving a relationship and a messy divorce... But how severe is it? How much of it is real, and how much is MAGA disinfo? What is likely to happen? Find out!
Casey was a prosecutor at the state level for more than 15 years. She has extensive experience in both trial and appellate litigation, including a substantial caseload of major felony and homicide matters. So not only are they a prosecutor and a defense attorney, but Matt and Casey also bring some extra insight when it comes to relationships between lawyers, as they are a real-life married lawyer couple!
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.
This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa
In episode 1002, we get to know Matt Cameron. He talks about his background, his legal practice and areas of expertise. I ask him about the case he is most proud of, and you will not believe what it took for him to win it! Then I ask him about the case he most regrets, and... wow. Let's just say Matt does incredibly difficult and important work.
You do not want to miss this one, these stories are so compelling, and they make me so excited going forward with OA and Matt onboard!
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.
Due to several good court thingies, this podcast is now hosted by Thomas Smith. Not too much can be said, but this episode contains a bit of how we got here, and the plan for the future.
If you'd like to support the show, please pledge at patreon.com/law and get your hands on the first lawsode with Matt Cameron! Plus lots of bonus things coming.
For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.
Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake. We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses. We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation. CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
This morning, the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit ruled that Donald Trump doesn't have immunity in the D.C. election interference case. Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down the D.C. Circuit's decision, Trump's arguments and whether or not it was all worth the wait.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Subscribe to Slate Plus to unlock the full version of this emergency episode.
After weeks of waiting, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a decision in Donald J Trump’s appeal for sweeping immunity from prosecution for any of his actions while in office on grounds of a kind of post-presidential enduring presidenty-ness. The panel of three judges wrote: “We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,”
In this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern and Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl to answer the huge questions this decision now sparks - will the Supreme Court step in? If so, when? Are there votes to stay the decision while the court mulls, or to expedite a hearing? All of this, of course, is set against the countdown to November 2024 and whether Donald Trump will be tried for alleged criminal acts to overturn the 2020 election before the American People go to the ballot box this time.
To subscribe on Apple Podcasts, just click “Try Free” at the top of the Amicus show page.
As a Slate Plus member, not only will you unlock exclusive, subscriber-only Amicus content, but you’ll also get ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts—shows like Political Gabfest, Slow Burn, and What Next.
This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case about whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president, or whether he's disqualified from doing so by a provision of the 14th Amendment that prevents individuals from holding public office if they've engaged in insurrection. As part of the preview of the arguments, Kate, Melissa, and Leah welcome Rick Hasen, author of A Real Right To Vote: How A Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard Democracy.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
There haven’t been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week’s arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that’s almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms.
In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Slate’s judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act.
