OA1163 - No really. That's a real stat. It may actually be WORSE than that. So uh... how in the hell? Professor Valena Beety is here to break it down. She's done a ton of great work in this area, and has a new legal research paper, "Unfit": Gender, Ableism and Reproductive Wrongful Convictions by Valena Elizabeth Beety, which goes into this and much more!
Content note:this episode does involve discussion of events where young children died. We don't dwell on these events much at all other than to mention them as needed.
With apologies for Dan's horrendous audio quality: we catch up on the latest emergency-docket happenings and debate whether Trump v. Wilcox is a big deal or small potatoes. We also catch up on listener feedback and, for the first time in a long time, play a couple of messages received on our voicemail line (314-649-3790 for anyone else who wants to chime in).
Live from Capital Turnaround in Washington, D.C., Leah, Kate, and Melissa wade right into the swamp, breaking down the (very weird, very disturbing) sexual harassment claims against Texas’s ex-solicitor general, Judd Stone and holding their noses to read Coach Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion on the National Environmental Policy Act. Then, the hosts welcome special guests Ambassador Norm Eisen and Emily Amick, author of the Substack, Emily in Your Phone, to talk about the avalanche of litigation against the Trump administration and reproductive rights (and wrongs), respectively.
The end (of the Supreme Court term) is nigh. This week, Amicus goes into June Opinionpalooza mode with some meta-analysis of what to look out for as the Supreme Court delivers dozens of decisions over the next month or so. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern say this is a term-ending unlike any other, partly because the number of cases pinging onto the high court’s shadow docket means the term may never really, truly, actually, end. And even when the shadow docket cases are decided, there is no real law that emerges, just a few lines of unsigned chicken scratch. Beyond the big merits cases concerning everything from birthright citizenship to healthcare for trans minors to racial gerrymandering to defunding Planned Parenthood, and beyond the brief, unbriefed, unargued emergency docket cases, the Supreme Court’s conservatives are in a power struggle with the very president they crowned quasi-king.
In a conversation recorded live on Friday at the WBUR Festival in Boston, Mark is joined by Professor Jed Shugerman of Boston University Law School, where they discuss the bad originalism and poor judgment that led to the Roberts’ court’s embrace of a little something called unitary executive theory that has become the Trump administration’s carte blanche.
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.
Get Slate’s latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. https://slate.com/legalbrief
OA1162 - It’s all good news from our favorite branch of government today! We review recent judicial wins in everything from illegal deportations to tariffs to the Trump administration’s wars on international students, private law firms, and common-sense understandings of the expression “foreign policy.” Plus, Matt shares a footnote from the front lines of Trump’s mass deportation efforts to explain why an immigration judge 2000 miles away just left him an angry voicemail.
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!
Check out the OALinktreefor 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 atcreatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.
This past week, the Supreme Court issued stays of injunctions which lower courts had issued, those injunctions blocking the firings of officials on statutorily independent agencies. In doing so, the Court may have pointed to an imminent overruling of Humphrey’s Executor, possibly removing existing limitations on the unitary executive theory. At the same time, the Court moved to protect the Federal Reserve, or at least markets’ perception of the independence of that crucial Board. Several justices reacted strongly, led by Justice Kagan, who found fault not only in the ruling regarding the injunction, but in the behavior of the President in bringing this case on in the first place. We take a deeper look at these controversies. Meanwhile, the Court deadlocked in a religious freedom case, and surprisingly, we see a connection between these two events. And some other tidbits, as well. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
OA1161 - Micah Herskind is an activist, Harvard law student, and most recently a co-editor of the essay collection No Cop City, No Cop World with Mariah Parker and Kamau Franklin. We welcome Micah on to discuss his experience with Atlanta’s Stop Cop City movement and the lessons which activists and advocates around the US can learn from it in these times of mass dissent in the face of American authoritarianism.
Check out the OALinktreefor 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 atcreatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.
Melissa, Leah, and Kate kick the show off with a look at the Court’s 4-4 deadlock on Oklahoma’s religious charter school case. Then, it’s a romp through the shadow docket, Judge Jim Ho’s sweaty pleas for attention, Kristi Noem’s humiliating Senate hearing, and selections from Trump’s fascism grab bag. Leah also speaks with Professor Noah Rosenblum of NYU School of Law about the 6-3 decision from the Court allowing the president to fire federal commissioners without cause.
This week’s episode attempts to understand the ways in which the law of Trump unfolds along two tracks at the same time. First, Mark Joseph Stern joins us to talk about the Supreme Court’s decision to let Trump fire the heads of independent agencies, undermining a 90-year-old precedent in an unsigned, two-page decision on the shadow docket. This is a case in which Donald Trump’s agenda perfectly aligns with the wishlist of the conservative supermajority that controls the court. But if the court keeps giving Trump free passes to break the law now, why should we expect him to respect the court when it tries to draw the line later?
Then Dahlia Lithwick talks to the University of Chicago’s Aziz Huq about the idea of a “dual state,” a legal arrangement in which seismic changes happen in ways that are not perceptible to the bulk of the citizens. Drawing from the work of a Jewish lawyer who witnessed the dual state operate in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Huq explains that authoritarians can seize the levers of the law to persecute disfavored groups, without disturbing the idea of the rule of law for the great majority of the nation.
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.
