Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

Legal and national security expert Juliette Kayyem joins the podcast to dissect Trump's impact on legal, national security, and ideological fronts. They discuss Trump's use of threats and intimidation in his campaign, the need for focus and planning for the upcoming months, and the implications for democracy. Kayyem provides insights from a counter-terrorism perspective and preparation for the 2024 elections.

Lisa Graves from True North Research discusses the influence of the Republican Attorneys General Association, revealing pay-to-play schemes and manipulation in legal and legislative outcomes. The discussion highlights connections to corporate funding, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Leonard Leo's Supreme Court influence. The role of the Rule of Law Defense Fund in election controversy and the impact of state attorneys general on anti-abortion laws are also explored.

The podcast explores the legal battle over mifepristone, FDA approval, and telemedicine abortion, highlighting the impact on reproductive rights. Carrie N. Baker discusses the potential consequences of restricting access to abortion pills through mail. The show also covers legal challenges against former President Trump and his financial obligations.

A case at SCOTUS on online censorship by government agencies and social media, affecting election workers' safety. Brennan Center's amicus brief highlights election disinformation concerns. Later, discussion on 5th U.S. Circuit Court and teen contraception access.

The podcast discusses the prevalence of disinformation in America, focusing on how it affects democracy. They analyze the recent Supreme Court decision involving Trump and explore the challenges of misinformation in politics. Member-exclusive segment covers Biden's SCOTUS statement, Alabama's state supreme court, and liberal justices' concurrence in restoring Trump to the Colorado primary ballot.

Supreme Court rules on Trump's eligibility for Colorado ballot despite insurrectionist ties. Conservative justices consolidate power while liberals and Barrett disagree. Analysis of limited accountability post January 6 insurrection. Legal battle over 14th amendment enforcement and state authority to disqualify presidential candidates.

SCOTUS heard cases on bump stocks and Facebook moderation, sided with Trump. Alabama court's frozen embryos ruling sparks debate on fetal personhood. Dr. Michele Goodwin explains the historical and legal context behind the decision.

Legal expert Dahlia Lithwick and professor Rick Hasen discuss the Supreme Court's handling of Trump's immunity claim, the fight for voting rights, and overlooked social media cases. Plus, the implications of Alabama's embryo personhood ruling and Alito's dissent on marriage equality.

Fani Willis, Chief Law of Trump correspondent, discusses the challenges in prosecuting Trump and associates, including ethical violations and proving personal benefit. The podcast also explores judicial oversight, conflicts of interest, and the influence of dark money in the legal system. Lastly, the discussion touches on navigating post-Trump era challenges and the need for a cross-ideological coalition to confront authoritarian threats in the judicial system.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court Thursday in Trump v. Anderson revealed a lot about some of the justices’ commitment to the primacy of originalism. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss why his organization took up and pursued the long shot case to try to keep former President Donald J Trump off the ballot in Colorado. While the Supreme Court appeared to have little appetite for taking the big swing to find that Trump had disqualified himself from office when he engaged in an insurrection, Noah insists the case is far from having been in vain - eloquently highlighting the dangerous potential consequences of inaction. It's a chilling reminder of what’s at stake.Next, Dahlia is joined by slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern to discuss whether the liberal justices have some grand bargain in mind as they offered multiple off-ramps for Trump’s side, despite dozens of bipartisan briefs arguing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, the court’s originalist’s sudden concern for consequences in this case, when they have had no interest in weighing the life and death consequences for ordinary people in cases concerning guns and abortion. Finally, they tackle a worrying undercurrent to Thursday’s arguments: an apparent capitulation to threats of chaos and violence as a basis for deciding constitutional cases. In our Slate Plus segment, Mark sticks around to discuss a landmark gun decision out of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and why it’s a problem that DOJ’s special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report declining to prosecute, but affirming that Joe Biden is old (hint: the problem isn’t that he’s old). 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.