The Trump executive order on birthright citizenship has been banging around the lower federal courts for months now, with court after court opining on its unconstitutionality and issuing injunctions against it that span the nation. The Supreme Court took cert on the question of whether such national injunctions are appropriate, and if not, how the relief that appears indicated can be offered. Along the way questions of the merits poked their way through, with interesting results. In this episode you will hear from the justices and the attorneys, and you will hear Professor Amar doing his Howard Cosell halftime highlights imitation, opining on their arguments, responses, and questions, and offering a holistic approach to the case as well as some new theories on how to think about citizenship in this context. A “clip episode” as only Amarica’s Constitution does it. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
Divided Argument - Friends with Oprah Winfrey
We're back with another unexpectedly short and timely episode, focusing on last Friday's emergency docket decision in AARP v. Trump. We also spend a few minutes on a few other orders: the administration's partial victory in Noem v. National TPS Alliance and a puzzling mass recusal.
Opening Arguments - It Took Years, but Guatemala Held a Brutal Dictator Accountable. What Can We Learn?
OA1159 - We are so pleased to have Temple Law Professor Rachel López on the show to discuss her work in shining light and digitally preserving court records related to the trials following the Guatemalan Civil War. Not only is the archiving of this material so important to those impacted by the government regime over the 30 year conflict, it also demonstrates early examples of transitional justice and what we might learn from it when applying it in the future to governments that commit human rights abuses. Listen in to hear the efforts she undertook to be sure these stories would not be forgotten.
-
Truth Commission Report (February 1999)
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.
Strict Scrutiny - Will the Courts Let Trump End Birthright Citizenship?
May is supposed to be the calm before June’s opinion storm in SCOTUS-land, but not in Trump’s America. Melissa, Kate, and Leah kick off the show with the latest news, including Stephen Miller’s habeas suspension fantasies and the president’s blatant disregard of the emoluments clause when it comes to free jumbo jets. Then, the hosts are joined by professor Elora Mukherjee of Columbia Law School to break down last week’s oral arguments in the Court’s blockbuster birthright citizenship case.
Hosts’ favorite things:
- Kate: Second Life: Having a Child in the Digital Age, Amanda Hess; Harvard Paid $27 for a Copy of Magna Carta. Surprise! It’s an Original, Stephen Castle (NYT)
- Leah: My Friends, Fredrik Backman; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on All Rise News;
- Melissa: Weight Watchers Got One Thing Very Right, Jennifer Rubin (NYT); This Is Big: How the Founder of Weight Watchers Changed the World -- And Me, Marisa Meltzer; Forever (Netflix)
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - SCOTUS Is About to Suffer Buyers Remorse, Again
Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don’t.
Although Thursday’s arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump’s unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in.
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
Divided Argument - A Trees Guy in a Forest Court
We reflect on the death of Justice Souter and sort out some loose ends from the last episode. We then dig into the Court's only opinion from Thursday, Barnes v. Felix, which we previewed with friend of the show Orin Kerr back in February at Stanford. Along the way we make a short detour into generative AI and its potential for SCOTUS research. Most importantly, we react to the oral argument in Trump v. Casa, the shadow docket case that's about (or, isn't about?) President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.
Opening Arguments - The Birthright Citizenship Case Is Actually Something Differently Terrible
OA1158 - We start off with some patron questions about what to do when ICE comes to your neighborhood, the one thing that the world’s most annoying white libertarians got right, and how to best exercise the very few rights US citizens have coming back into the country. Then in our main story: This week the Supreme Court heard arguments over birthright citizenship--or did it? Matt explains how they might do something even worse than expected while still striking down Trump’s attempt to end the Constitutional right to citizenship for everyone born on US soil by executive order.
Finally, we polish off today’s episode with a meaty footnote about the lies and tyranny of a very different kind of would-be monarch.
-
“Sense of the community” memo dated 4/7/25 finding that Tren de Aragua is not working with the Venezuelan government
Amarica's Constitution - A Judicious Life, Part One – Special Guests Dean Heather Gerken and Judge Kevin Newsom
With the passing of Justice David Souter, the legal establishment has lost one of its most honored members. In this and our next episode, we pay tribute to the man and his work with the help of an amazing roster of his former clerks, friends, and colleagues. We begin with Judge Kevin Newsom from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Dean of the Yale Law School, Heather Gerken, who share their experience working closely with the Justice on the Supreme Court, as well as his role in their lives that did and does inspire them. Meanwhile, Akhil, who considered the Justice a good friend and role model, offers an in-depth look at various aspects of the Justice, including why a Justice who disagreed with Akhil on method and, in many cases, substance, nevertheless is regarded by him as one of the great Justices in American history. In our next episode we will have more guests whom we will reveal in the discussion during this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
Opening Arguments - Getting Our Dramshop Act Together
After some Thomas-Lydia nonsense and updates, Heather gives us the answer to question 68, a fiendishly difficult real property one. Did you get the right answer? Then we get a new question 69!
If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!
To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.
Opening Arguments - The Supreme Court Sucks. But at Least We Can Talk to Leah Litman About It!
OA1157 - Leah Litman is a co-host of Crooked Media’s Strict Scrutiny podcast and professor at University of Michigan Law School, and most recently the author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. We are pleased to welcome Professor Litman to discuss everything from what it’s like to teach American Constitutional law 2025 to what the Supreme Court has in common with the Bluth family.
-
Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, Leah Litman (2025)
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!
This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.