Leah, Melissa, and Kate weigh the implications of Bloomberg’s scoop on EMTALA (apparently someone at the court got a little trigger-happy with the upload button). Then they take a look at today’s two official opinions–is a $13,000 bribe equivalent to buying someone Chipotle? Coach Kavanaugh has thoughts. And did the government strong-arm social media companies into censoring content? There’s a word for that: jawboning.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in its traditional fashion: a box of printed copies for those journalists in the press room, and furious SCOTUS website refreshing for those who were not.
Murthy v Missouri was one of the closely watched social media cases of the term, about “jawboning” or when and if the government can ask/prod/urge private social media companies to moderate content in the interest of things like public health or election integrity, or whether such conduct constitutes censorship. Snyder v US concerned corruption and the difference between bribes and gratuities under a federal corruption law.
Somewhere in between the publishing of these opinions, however, the court inadvertently and very briefly published what may or may not be its opinion in a pair of emergency abortion cases, Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States. The Court spokeswoman urged us all to pay no attention to the early draft. Chaos ensued. On this extra, members-only episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to get our arms around a day of big news, including the “now you see it, now you don’t” abortion news at the highest court in the land.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
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 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.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions in its traditional fashion: a box of printed copies for those journalists in the press room, and furious SCOTUS website refreshing for those who were not.
Murthy v Missouri was one of the closely watched social media cases of the term, about “jawboning” or when and if the government can ask/prod/urge private social media companies to moderate content in the interest of things like public health or election integrity, or whether such conduct constitutes censorship. Snyder v US concerned corruption and the difference between bribes and gratuities under a federal corruption law.
Somewhere in between the publishing of these opinions, however, the court inadvertently and very briefly published what may or may not be its opinion in a pair of emergency abortion cases, Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States. The Court spokeswoman urged us all to pay no attention to the early draft. Chaos ensued. On this extra, members-only episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to try to get our arms around a day of big news, including the “now you see it, now you don’t” abortion news at the highest court in the land.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
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 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.
As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun. Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining. Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case. We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace ourselves for many more in the week or so to come.
We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has used Georgia’s RICO statute against everyone from public school teachers to environmental protesters to a former President of the United States. This week we examine Willis's massive 88-page RICO indictment of rapper Young Thug and 27 other associates of YSL, the Atlanta record label which her office alleges is also operating as a violent street gang. Matt shakes his geriatric millennial first at the scourge of mumble rap before breaking down what has already become the longest criminal trial in Georgia history and the injustice of prosecutors using an artist’s lyrics against them in court.
Finally, we break down this month’s most listener-requested story: judge Ural Glanville’s inexplicable decision not only to secretly meet with a prosecutor and one of the state’s most important witnesses without defense counsel present, but to sentence Young Thug’s attorney to 20 days in jail simply for noticing that he wasn’t supposed to. What is going on here, and could there possibly be a good explanation for it?
As we wait for SCOTUS opinions in cases about presidential immunity, emergency abortions, the future of the administrative state, and more, we did a rowdy live show at the Howard Theatre in Washington, DC! It was one for the books-- The Second Gentleman, Doug Emhoff, joined us to reflect on the second anniversary of Dobbs. Friend of the pod Commander Steve Vladeck filled in as guest host. And former Attorney General Eric Holder joined us to talk about the Court's decision in a case about domestic violence offenders obtaining guns, analyze possible paths for court reform, and lighten the mood with a game of This or That.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Another major case for the “not a loss/not exactly a win” pile this term at SCOTUS. A majority of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said what we knew all along - adjudicated domestic abusers shouldn’t hold onto second amendment rights and the guns that they are statistically, horrifyingly, apt to use to harm their intimate partners. In an 8-1 decision in United States v Rahimi, the Roberts Court looked frantically for a way to reverse out of – while still technically upholding – its bonkers extreme originalism-fueled Bruen decision from two terms ago.
This week Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Kelly Roskam, the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
Later in the show, Mark and Dahlia look under the hood of Department of State v Munoz - an immigration case decided this week that Justice Sotomayor says is sewing seeds for the end of marriage equality as we know it.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)
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 week: good immigration news! The Biden administration announced on June 17th that it will be moving forward with a plan to offer a pathway to citizenship for immigrants married to U.S. citizens who have been in the country for more than 10 years through a special “parole-in-place” program. Why does current U.S. immigration law make it so difficult--and sometimes impossible--for so many people who are in loving long-term relationships with U.S. citizens to “do it the right way?” Matt breaks down the legal and historical context of the most important executive action on immigration policy since Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012. We then speak with Emily, a U.S. citizen whose husband stands to directly benefit from this policy, for a firsthand account of the realities of living in immigration limbo.
