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

Former President Donald J Trump keeps figuring out ways to escape criminal liability. The Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into the insurrection case and delayed sentencing in the campaign finance hush money case, while a Florida judge helped him slip out from under charges of recklessly mishandling classified documents… at least, for now. But Trump has seen less success defending himself in civil courtrooms - including two judgments against him in defamation cases brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump owes tens of millions of dollars. On this episode of our series “The Law According to Trump,” is the civil court path to holding Trump to account in a way that actually sticks? Damon Hewitt, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, speaks with host Andrea Bernstein about his case that uses the 150-year-old KKK Act to make Trump face consequences for his actions on January 6th. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By jo

The power of the presidential pardon is a holdover from America’s colonial roots. But no one had used it like former President Trump. Over and over he kept pardoning his allies, and then, he’d welcome them back into the fold. . It seemed like he was rewarding these criminals for their loyalty, and belittling whole categories of crime, like fraud, campaign finance violations, and corruption. Is that what was really happening? This week in our series called The Law According to Trump, we go deeper into Trump’s use of the pardon with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. Torres-Spelliscy is a professor of law at Stetson University and the author of Corporate Citizen?: An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State and Political Brands. Torres-Spelliscy speaks with host Andrea Bernstein about how Trump’s pardoning has hurt democracy, and what it means for the future of the country.    This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus epis

Even before he was president, Donald Trump was known for stiffing his lawyers. But considering how the stakes changed once he took the Oval Office, not getting paid seemed like a pleasant option. During and after his presidency, lawyers who represented Trump have pleaded guilty in election fraud cases, campaign finance cases and more. So why do they keep representing him? Is this risk of jailtime worth the reward of…well, what is the reward? In this next installment of The Law According to Trump, another lawyer speaks with us about representing Donald Trump. Danya Perry is Michael Cohen’s attorney (yes, that Michael Cohen). She offers insight into why lawyers still want to represent Trump, and what the ethical implications are - personally and professionally.  This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directl

In the first in a new series, The Law According to Trump,  Amicus begins an extensive exploration of Donald Trump's tumultuous relationship with the courts and legal system, focusing on Trump's use of lawyers and lawsuits to enhance his brand, wealth, and power. In the past few months, attention has rightly been on several blockbuster federal cases involving former President Trump, all the way up to and including his immunity case at the Supreme Court, but Trump’s history with the law goes back much further and is much broader than the election subversion cases.  While Dahlia Lithwick takes a well-deserved break, Amicus is very lucky to have award-winning investigative journalist Andrea Bernstein in the host chair. Andrea has covered five trials against Trump or his company for NPR, is the author of American Oligarchs: the Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power, and she has also hosted three podcasts that touch on Trump and the law, including, most recently “We Don’t Talk About Leonard.” Th

It’s not just us feeling exhausted right? It’s been a totally wild past few weeks. That’s why we are taking off the next few weeks to bring you a special series we’re calling “The Law According to Trump.” Andrea Bernstein, the host of WNYC’s Trump Inc., will be stepping into the host chair for Dahlia Lithwick in the month of August to explain how the former president uses the law to his advantage, and how he has gamed the judicial system to his advantage for decades before he entered political life. Andrea joins Dahlia to preview the series. Later in the show, Dahlia talks with Judge David S. Tatel. Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and became prominent for both his jurisprudence and his blindness. His new memoir, Vision, was published last month and every young lawyer should read it. On this week’s show Judge Tatel discusses the book, which details his experience on the federal appeals court and his blindness. They also talk about his concerns for the cu

So President Biden finally signaled an openness to maybe possibly thinking about Supreme Court reform. Too little, too late, perhaps - but also, desperately needed, certainly. The US Supreme Court views itself as separate and apart from all other courts - including international counterparts. What could Americans learn from other courts? One of the world’s most respected jurists, retired Canadian Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, joins Dahlia Lithwick on this week’s Amicus for a very special conversation about the role of constitutional courts in democracy, and where SCOTUS may be veering off track.  Without Precedent: The Supreme Life of Rosie Abella 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.

The judge overseeing the stolen classified documents case at former President Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Club has dismissed the case, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. This decision will likely be appealed. It’s a big swing, on a Trump trial question that’s very possibly heading on a fast track up to the United States Supreme Court. That sinking feeling is becoming pretty familiar, huh? In a special episode of Amicus for our Slate Plus subscribers, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Matthew Seligman who had argued for the constitutionality of the special counsel last month in Judge Cannon’s courtroom in Florida.  This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to the full version 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

Administrative law may not sound sexy. And maybe that’s because it truly isn’t sexy. But it is at the very center of the biggest decisions this past Supreme Court term, and also widely misunderstood. In this week’s show, we asked Georgetown Law School’s Professor Lisa Heinzerling to come back to help hack through the thorny thicket of administrative law so we can more fully understand the ramifications of a clutch of cases handed down this term that – taken together – rearrange the whole project of modern government. The Supreme Court’s biggest power grab for a generation isn’t just about bestowing new and huge powers upon itself, it’s also about shifting power from agencies established in the public interest to corporations, industry and billionaires.  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

What just happened??? Despite going into June clear-eyed and well informed about the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, the number of huge cases before it, and the alarming stakes in so many of those cases…we are, nonetheless, shocked. The October 2023 term came to a shuddering end on Monday July 1st and Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Steve Vladeck and Mary Anne Franks are here to help parse some monumental decisions, some smaller cases with big ramifications, and what we can understand about the Justices who made those decisions for the rest of us, and the Justices who dissented.  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!) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority rounded out the term by gifting massive unprecedented power to commit criminal wrongdoing to presidents. A court that already put a thumb on the scale for former President Donald J Trump by slow talking and slow walking the immunity case in exactly the way he hoped, has now thrown out the scale in favor of a brand new sweeping, monarchic immunity ruling in favor of the former president and any future insurrection-prone presidents. Trump v United States provides that US Presidents may enjoy wide-ranging immunity from criminal prosecution because coups are constitutional as long as you make them official. This episode delves into the decision’s implications for democracy, and for presidential power, while also providing historical context. We also look ahead to the legal battles looming in the various Trump trials at all their various stages. What does this do to the Georgia indictments? The classified documents case? And the felony counts for which Trump will be senten

While most everyone was reacting to Thursday’s Presidential debate, we had our eyes trained on the Supreme Court. It was again (surprise!) bad. SCOTUS determined that sleeping outside was illegal in Grants Pass v Johnson. They limited the scope by which insurrectionists could be charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 in Fischer v United States. The unelected robed leaders then laid a finishing blow in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, overturning the decades-long guidance of the longstanding Chevron doctrine and upending the ways in which government agencies can regulate the things they regulate like; clean air, water, firearms your retirement account and oh, medical care.   This term has signaled something especially troubling. While you can certainly be concerned about Trump or Biden being president once again, you should be more worried about how the justices at the Supreme Court have basically made themselves the end-all-be-all of every legislative matter, regardless who wins presidential contes

What’s this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That’s right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders’) long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency’s ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big admini

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, Da

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 f

A bump stock is an attachment that converts a semi automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire as many as 800 rounds per minute - an intensity of gunfire matched by machine guns. The deadliest mass shooting carried out by a single shooter in US history - the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre - was enabled by a bump stock. On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era bump stock ban introduced in the wake of that tragedy, in which 60 people were killed and hundreds more injured. Writing for a perfectly partisan six to three majority, gun enthusiast and ultra conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, decided the administration had overstepped its authority enacting the ban, and based the decision in a very technical, very weird reading of the statute. On this Opinionpalooza edition of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s senior writer on the courts and the law - Mark Stern, and David Pucino, Legal Director & Deputy Chief Counsel of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Together, they discuss

What do you call a case where there’s no standing and yet the lawsuit is still standing? FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine AKA the mifepristone case, AKA the case that tried to raise a zombie law from the dead, and will now continue to roam the lower courts in search of a national abortion ban.  While the Comstock Act was not mentioned in the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to maintain the legal status quo on abortion pills, the overton window just got wedged open a little wider. In this Opinionpalooza extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss SCOTUS’ abortion pill decision in depth and explore the consequences of a case that was doomed to fail before even this Supreme Court, but is also doomed to return to haunt us. 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 alre

Over the past 15 years, the journalist and author Katherine Stewart has been charting the rise of Christian Nationalism in the United States. On this week’s Amicus, Stewart joins Dahlia Lithwick and Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to discuss the worrying signs of the growing power of extremist christian ideologies at the highest court in the land. Together, they trace shifts in jurisprudence that have emboldened and empowered some of the most extreme fringes of the extreme Christian right, and explain how the changing legal landscape is enabling right wing religious fever dreams to become explicit policy in a document like Project 2025. They all agree on this one thing: This is an episode about much more than flags.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a jury in Lower Manhattan responded with “guilty” to all 34 felony counts in former President and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s hush money trial on Thursday, dozens and dozens more questions began to swirl. Will Trump appeal? On what grounds? Will Justice Juan Merchan sentence Trump to jail time? Will the US Supreme Court intervene? Is the gag order still active and in place? Luckily, we have the perfect guest on Amicus to answer all those questions to the extent that it is humanly and expert lawyerly possible. Ryan Goodman is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16). He is also the founding co-editor-in-chief of the national security online forum, Just Security, a vital resource if you are trying to follow the many trials and appeals of Donald J Trump. Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and week

Business as usual at the Supreme Court is the institutional response to the unusual business of Justice Samuel Alito’s letter writing about his flag-flying wife. In this bonus episode for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern knit together the yarns of jurisprudence with injudicious symbolic support for insurrection and christian nationalism - so you don’t get lost in this tangle. As the justices hand down cases and turn down congressional requests for recusal, Dahlia and Mark trace the link between bending the facts and discarding the record to suit Justice Alito’s narrative in his opinions, in his non application of the ethics code, and in his lack of humility in the flag fiasco. 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 “

After six weeks of arguments and testimony and a little under 12 hours of deliberation, a Manhattan jury voted to convict former President Trump of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl, who was in court for the historic guilty verdict and has followed the case over the past six weeks, to talk about how the verdict was reached, what comes next, and why the former President is unlikely to be headed to jail any time soon. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices