Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, And The Courts

This week, the Senate held four days of hearings on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. What did we learn about Gorsuch from his 20-odd hours in the hot seat? Did the Democrats gain anything of value from the testimony? Did Gorsuch say anything of substance? And, in the end, will the hearings even matter? In this bonus episode, we reflect on the hearings with veteran political operative Ron Klain and Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video lecture service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast

After a successful blockade of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, the GOP-led Senate will convene hearings this week on President Trump’s pick for the Court’s year-old vacancy. Considering all that has happened in the past year, how should Democrats handle the proceedings? On this week’s episode, we put that question to U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  We also sit down with veteran journalist Tom Rosenstiel to discuss his debut novel Shining City, a timely thriller about the inner-workings of a controversial Supreme Court nomination. Tom describes how his decades of political reporting informed the book, and reflects on some of the parallels between reality and fiction. Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Blue Apron. Create delicious, home-cooked meals with fresh ingred

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced an abrupt about-face on voting rights, essentially walking away from a lawsuit against a harsh voter-ID law in Texas. We discuss the reversal and its implications with Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She was one of the lawyers in the strange position of arguing the case in court this week, the day after the DOJ reversed course. We also sit down with Jeffrey Fisher, who argued an important immigration-related case at the Supreme Court his week. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions asks whether a legal immigrant can be deported for something that counts as a serious crime in some states, but not others. It also previews a question likely to play a big role in Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings: how much deference courts should give federal agencies when interpreting the meaning of laws. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand usin

In 2010, a Mexican teenager in Juarez was shot to death by a Border Patrol agent on the U.S. side of the border. In Hernandez v. Mesa, set for argument next week, the Supreme Court will determine whether the boy’s parents can sue the agent in U.S. courts. We are joined by Deepak Gupta, the family’s attorney, to discuss the case and its potential implications on American intelligence activities abroad.  We also sit down with Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring to discuss this week’s ruling by a federal judge in one of the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s travel ban. Herring explains why Virginia joined the plaintiffs in that suit, and what the role of state attorneys general will be in the next four years of the Trump era.                                                                                            Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. A

A little more than a week after President Trump announced his ban on travel from a handful of majority-Muslim nations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week refused to lift a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the new rule. This week, Dahlia sits down with fellow Slate legal writers Mark Joseph Stern and Jeremy Stahl for a special off-week episode to discuss the ruling and its implications. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In an elaborately choreographed prime-time ceremony this week, President Trump tapped Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court seat that has been vacant for almost a year. We sit down with the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Elizabeth Wydra to examine Judge Gorsuch’s judicial record, whether he really is “Scalia 2.0,” and the difficult choices confronting Senate Democrats in the wake of this nomination.  We also consider the ramifications of reports that some U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are defying federal court orders around Trump’s new travel restrictions. Slate staffers Mark Joseph Stern and Leon Neyfakh tell us what they learned from constitutional law scholars about the possibility of a standoff between two branches of the federal government. (Read our Slate piece on the subject here.) Finally, we zero in on one of the many lawsuits filed this week against Trump’s executive order. Aziz v. Trump centers on a pair of young men who were en route to join their father in Michigan when t

Can a group of wrongfully-detained noncitizens sue high-ranking Bush Administration officials for violating their rights in the days following 9/11? That’s the central question in Ziglar v Abbasi, which was argued this week at the Supreme Court. On today’s episode, we hear from Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented the former detainees.  We also consider Lee v. Tam, another big case argued at the high court on Wednesday. It centers on a trademark claim by the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants. That claim was denied on the grounds that the name was disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” Simon Tam joins us to tell the story of his band’s name, and to make the case that the government isn’t equipped to be deciding who is and isn’t using language disparagingly.    Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is

In the lead-up to November’s presidential election, Donald Trump released a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees in what many saw as an effort to mollify conservatives who tend to worry about these sorts of things. Now, that list has reportedly been narrowed to eight. On this episode, we sit down with William Jay, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, to discuss Scalia’s possible successors. We also speak with Jack Robinson, a lawyer for the special-needs student at the center of Endrew F. v Douglas City School District. The case is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court next week, and Robinson explains why special-education advocates are watching the case so closely. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Get $50 toward any mattress purcha

“[N]o person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” These words, from Article I of the U.S. Constitution, make it unambiguously clear to many legal scholars that Donald Trump will be committing an impeachable offense by not relinquishing an ownership stake in his multiple companies before Jan 20.  Zephyr Teachout is among those scholars, and joins us to explain why corruption in the presidency was such anathema to the nation’s founders. In the remainder of today’s episode, we share a few highlights from a recent symposium about the current state of free speech on campus. The event was organized by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. You can watch videos of the entire two-day event here. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive m

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McCrory v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, two challenges to Republican gerrymandering efforts that resulted in the creation of majority-minority voting districts. At issue is whether lawmakers in Virginia and North Carolina were motivated primarily by racial considerations or only secondarily so. Marc Elias, the lawyer who represented the challengers in both cases, joins us to explain why the distinction is so critical. We also consider the revolt that’s underway in the Electoral College. A small group of electors calling themselves the Hamilton Electors are seeking to be unbound from state requirements that they vote as their state voted. Legal scholar Carolyn Shapiro explains why she believes the Hamilton Electors should be taken seriously. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus

Just a few weeks into the era of President-elect Donald Trump, and already there is a lot of bruising around the edges of the Constitution. The past few weeks have brought talk of Muslim registries, jail time for flag burners, restrictions on voting and the sweet mystery of the Emoluments Clause. This week, we sit down with U.S. Senator Chris Coons to discuss how much of this talk we should take seriously, and where the true threats to Americans’ constitutional protections lie. We also speak with Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, about the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans. In 2011, Katyal issued an official apology for the role of one of his predecessors in that case. Korematsu v United Stateshas been in the news again recently, after one Trump surrogate cited it as a “precedent” for a possible Trump Administration program that would require the registration of immigrants from a handful of predominantly Muslim countries. Transcript

In the days leading up to Election Day, conservative legal scholar Orin Kerr explained why he would be crossing the aisle to vote for a Democrat. On this episode, he tells us why the prospect of a President Trump frightened him so much, and what we can expect in the way of checks and balances on executive power for the next four years. We also speak with Garrett Epps, who wrote in The Atlantic this week that Trump is “a figure out of authoritarian politics, not the American tradition.” Epps observes that Trump has expressed contempt for nearly every article in the Bill of Rights, and deserves to be taken at his word. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder, many states made changes to their voting laws that may disproportionately harm minorities. This week, lawyers in Ohio filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court requesting a suspension of voting restrictions in their state. One of those lawyers, Subodh Chandra, joins us to explain why. We also speak with Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, about the potential impact of Donald Trump’s recent warnings about vote-rigging. She explains why long-term neglect of our voting infrastructure is a much bigger threat than either vote tampering or self-styled poll watchers. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winni

After President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March, there was widespread speculation that opposing his confirmation hearings could have political costs for Republican senators. But seven months later, it’s not clear how much the GOP’s continued obstructionism will matter to voters next month. On this episode, we discuss Obama’s handling of the Supreme Court vacancy with White House Counsel Neil Eggleston and Brian Deese, Senior Adviser to the President. We also take a closer look at Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, an important case about jury bias that was argued at the Supreme Court this week. Jeffrey Fisher, who represented the petitioner, joins us to explain why blatantly racist comments uttered by a juror in a criminal trial should invalidate that trial’s verdict.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.  Amicus is brought to you by The

The 2016 Supreme Court term gets underway next week, but don’t get too excited. Eager to avoid any more 4-4 split decisions, the eight remaining justices have cobbled together a caseload that steers clear of the big social questions that defined the court’s past two terms. SCOTUSblog founder and publisher Tom Goldstein joins us for our annual survey of what’s ahead.  We also speak with former federal judge Shira Scheindlin. In 2013, she ruled that stop-and-frisk tactics were being used unconstitutionally by the NYPD. Because of that ruling, she was accused this week by Donald Trump of being “very against police.”  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.  Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with hundreds of engaging lectures taught by top professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus

We kick off a brand new season of our podcast with an episode devoted to the member of the Supreme Court bench who has garnered by far the most headlines since our last episode. That’s right, it’s the slavish fangirl edition of Amicus, in which we cave to the pressure of our listeners and fête the woman who had the temerity to call Donald Trump a “faker” this past July.  Joining us to discuss the cultural phenomenon that is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is MSNBC national reporter Irin Carmon, co-author of the bestselling biography Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We also hear from Cooper Sirwatka, a New York attorney and proud wearer of a full-color RBG tattoo.  Amicus is brought to you by Upstanders, a new podcast from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Hear stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to create positive change in their communities. Listen and subscribe to Upstanders on iTunes now. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members.

On Monday, the Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of Texas’ omnibus abortion law known as HB2. The 5-3 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was a big win for abortion rights advocates, many of whom expected things to turn out the other way. On today’s show, we speak with Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of the abortion provider that challenged the Texas law. We also sit down with Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern to recap the highlights – and lowlights – of one a Supreme Court term that was chock-full of unexpected twists and turns.   Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Learn more at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Wunder Capital. Invest in large-scale solar project across the US. Create an account for free at Wundercapital.com/amicus. Invest in Wunder Capital’s solar funds. Do well and do good. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Lea

Marriage equality. Voting Rights. Obamacare. These are among the many enormously consequential causes that have fallen to Donald Verrilli to defend at the Supreme Court over the past five years. On this week’s episode, he looks back on some of the highlights – and lowlights – of his term as U.S. Solicitor General. We’re also joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to discuss this week’s big affirmative action win at the Supreme Court. Many court-watchers were surprised by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote in Fisher v University of Texas, but not Ifill. She tells us why. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here.  Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Right now, Amicus listeners can stream Influence: Mastering Life’s Most Powerful Skill—and hundreds of other co

Much of the legal world’s attention was focused this week on Donald Trump’s attacks on Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud cases in California. The outrage centered on Trump’s insistence that the fact of Curiel’s Mexican ancestry should disqualify him from the case, considering Trump’s declared intent to build a border wall. We discuss Trump’s stance – and its historical antecedents – with Deborah Rhode, founding director of Stanford University’s Center on Ethics. And we sit down with Jeffrey Rosen to talk about the far-reaching legal mind of Justice Louis Brandeis, confirmed to the Supreme Court 100 years ago this month. Rosen is the author of the new book Louis D. Brandeis: An American Prophet.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Sign up for a free Slate Plus trial here.  Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Right now, Amicus listeners can stream Influence: Mastering

Despite many appearances to the contrary, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer this week told an interviewer that the Court has not been diminished by the Senate’s inability to fill its empty seat. On this episode, Dahlia considers that claim with The Atlantic’s Garrett Epps. She is also joined by legal scholar Jonathan Adler, who weighs in on Donald Trump’s recently released shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees. Adler counts himself among the conservatives who are deeply troubled by the prospect of Trump’s impact on the judiciary were he to be elected president. You can listen to past episodes of Amicus here. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here.  Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. For a limit