Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show.
If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
While all eyes and brains are on what SCOTUS thinks about making Trump emperor-king, a lesser known case will be heard Monday that could have a huge impact on how social media can (or cannot) keep election workers safe this year. Murthy v. Missouri arrives at the high court as the result a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a group of social media users—including some doctors and right-wing commentators—who argued that officials in the Biden administration censored their online speech about COVID-19, the 2020 election, among other issues The plaintiffs don’t claim that the administration directly silenced their speech. Instead, they argue that, by working with social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation, the government unlawfully chilled the free expression of their ideas.
Gowri Ramachandran serves as deputy director in the Brennan Center’s Democracy program.The amicus brief filed by her team from the Brennan Center in Murthy draws the Justices attention to another aspect of election disinformation. Ramachandran explains to host Dahlia Lithwick that combating election disinformation has always been important, but it is especially critical now, as election workers struggle to keep on top of voting issues.
Later in the show for Slate plus subscribers, Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals taking a swing at teens’ access to contraception, and a new effort to combat the scourge of judge-shopping.
Emergency Bonus Pod! - Fani Willis and the Odor of Mendacity Judge MacAfee has issued a ruling on the Fani Willis disqualification motion. Get the OA breakdown with a full analysis and plenty of opinion and context. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
Episode 1014 We begin by pouring a Tequila Sunrise out for the charges against three memorabilia collectors charged with stealing old Eagles lyrics, in which the unexpected airing of 6,000 pages of Don Henley's dirty laundry had Manhattan prosecutors realizing last week that they truly could check out anytime they liked. Matt then takes us through Fulton County Judge Scott MacAfee's decision to dismiss 6 of the 41 pending counts against Trump and his goons. Can Trump still be prosecuted for his "perfect phone call" to GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger? And what does a guy have to do to solicit someone to violate an oath around here, anyway? We then turn some much-needed light on to Texas's most recent attempt to enforce federal immigration law before finishing up with some good immigration news out of--also Texas? 1. Order on Defendants' Special Demurrers (J. McAfee, 3/13/24) 2. Georgia Code Sec. 15-4-7 (Criminal Solicitation) 3. Georgia Code Sec. 16-10-1 (Violation of Oath by Public Officer) 4. Fulton County indictment of Trump et al (8/14/2023) 5. Judge David Ezra's decision in U.S. v. TX (2/29/24)(granting injunction against SB4) 6. Arizona v. U.S. (2012)(striking down most of AZ SB1070) 7. Judge Drew Tipton's decision in Texas v. DHS (finding no standing for TX to challenge Biden's CHNV parole program) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 5! Ok so last week revealed to us that the "hot unbreakable streak" was not, in fact, unbreakable. No one could have seen this coming though, so no use in playing the blame game. Thomas comes into the week 5-2. Will he go to 5-4? Or 7-2? Or perhaps the other possible record? Find out! Then, we get 2 new questions! It's personal injury, and also... personal injury? Maybe? We'll see!
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.
The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment. We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with. We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find. Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge? And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
Episode 1013 Today, we get to meet Azul Uribe. Azul lived most of her life in the US as a devout Mormon, doing her best to get by in a sea of Whiteness. She even made jokes at her own expense about being undocumented. That all changed when she was arrested at age 22 under bizarre and very unlucky circumstances. She was put in ICE detention. Treated terribly. Strip searched multiple times. She then found out those jokes... weren't. Despite being a college student, Azul faced deportation from the only home she'd ever known. Join us as we hear Azul's fascinating and heartbreaking story, in all its raw humanity. And we learn more about our immigration system, and its raw inhumanity.
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.
It’s not just the justices on the Supreme Court who can’t seem to agree with each other anymore. As we slide into Trump v. Biden 2 (The Second One), it seems like voters can’t seem to come to a consensus on just about anything either, including the facts they are arguing over. Author and superstar litigator Barbara McQuade argues in her new book Attack From Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America the information we consume is crucial to the health of our democracy. She speaks with Dahlia Lithwick about America’s problems with dis- and mis-information, and how we can solve them.
In this week’s Amicus Plus members-only segment, Dahlia is joined by her co-pilot in the jurisprudence news cockpit, Mark Joseph Stern to talk about President Biden's SOTU SCOTUS FU, why Alabama's legislative quick fix for its theocratic state supreme court's IVF decision is unlikely to hold, and the meta story of the meta data in the liberal justices’ concurrence in Monday’s Supreme Court decision to restore former President Trump to the Colorado primary ballot.
This segment 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.
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.
