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

The hosts analyze the recent DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Trump's immunity claims. They discuss the potential legal steps Trump may take and the possibility of the Supreme Court granting a stay. Mention of a subscription offer to Slate Plus for exclusive content and ad-free listening.

This episode explores the historical context and constitutional law of the Trump v. Anderson case, highlighting the significance of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its potential disqualification of Trump. It also discusses recent rulings on abortion and the Voting Rights Act, and delves into the drafters' intent behind the 14th Amendment and its aim to prevent future insurrections.

This podcast explores the implications of Donald Trump's defamation trial, his misogyny in politics, and the impact on women and the justice system. It also discusses the Supreme Court's decision on immigration and the conservative turn on capital punishment.

The podcast discusses the immigration fight on the US-Mexico border, the Texas administration's intervention in federal police powers, the Supreme Court's response, SB4's impact on immigration, Texas' control over immigration law, state interference in federal enforcement along the border, the push to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, power grabs and the fragility of democracy, and the erosion of civil rights for immigrant communities and women's reproductive rights.

Discussions on ongoing legal issues involving Donald Trump, including his immunity appeal and the Trump Organization civil fraud trial. Exploring the Supreme Court's power to shape the law and policy by selecting cases and questions. Examining the significance of the Loperbright Enterprises v Raimundo case and concerns about transparency and accountability. Highlighting the court's expanded powers and the need to prioritize deciding cases based on the law.

Exploring the myth-making and religious fervor that fueled the Capitol attack, the possibility of Trump's return, and the normalization of violence. Delving into the concept of civil war triggered by conspiracy theories and the debate surrounding Ashley Babbitt's classification as a martyr or a terrorist.

The podcast discusses the worst moments of the US Supreme Court in 2023, including Chief Justice John Roberts' lack of seriousness in a stalking case and Justice Samuel Alito's lack of substance in his opinions. They also criticize Roberts for disrespecting the Senate Judiciary Committee and explore the declining tradition of Congress regulating the court. Additionally, they discuss how justices are adjusting under media scrutiny and anticipation for future discussions.

The podcast discusses recent rulings that disqualified Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado and explores the legal debate surrounding his inclusion. It analyzes dissenting arguments in a Supreme Court ruling on insurrection and discusses ongoing cases, including the events of January 6th and the question of presidential immunity. The chapter also emphasizes the importance of holding Trump accountable and the role of the rule of law in achieving justice.

The podcast discusses the personal stories of women in Texas who were denied abortions, highlighting the emotional and physical challenges they faced. It explores the ongoing litigation to challenge the Texas abortion ban and the impact of restrictive abortion laws on women's lives. The episode also features an interview with the lead plaintiff in a landmark abortion case and a discussion on the legal risks faced by physicians providing abortions in Texas.

This podcast explores a Supreme Court case that could weaken the government's ability to collect taxes from the wealthy. It discusses the background, motivations, and implications of the case. The episode also delves into the controversial relationship between Justice Alito and corporate lawyer David Rifkin, their fabrication of evidence, and potential perjury and fraud. Additionally, it analyzes the behavior of justices during oral arguments and their resistance to acknowledging the truth.