Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It’s still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship.

In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. 

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick explores the rise of Christian nationalism in America, its influence on the Supreme Court , and the implications for democracy and civil rights. Featuring Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, their discussion delves into the historical roots, recent legal cases, and the ongoing fight to uphold the separation of church and state in a country that survived two centuries as an open, pluralist refuge for all religions, and then became a Christian nation, seemingly overnight.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump’s actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he’s calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. 

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 directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration’s general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump’s chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ’s fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. 

And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate’s jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There’s always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump’s economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.”  

Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump’s America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump’s first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The machinery to enable Stephen Miller’s darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration’s expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. 

Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. 

If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick’s guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance law. He is Chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket. 

In the past few weeks, Donald Trump’s election denialism has kicked into high gear, just as his poll numbers hit new lows. Elias tells us the FBI/DNI raid to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Steve Bannon’s new threats to surround polling places with ICE officers in November, show an administration that is prototyping new mechanisms for election subversion and voter suppression. But the public has power in this scenario, especially if they start paying attention to elections and voting rights now, rather than the day before November 3rd, 2026.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government agents detaining and disappearing people. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is in conversation with Joseph Margulies, Professor of Practice of Government at Cornell University. Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 “War on Terror”, an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review: The Moral Stupefaction of America. Margulies explains how, when we allow obscure legal language to overshadow moral imperatives, we can end up in very dark places. The line from waterboarding at black sites to executing American citizens in the streets is a straight one. And there will be a lawyer willing to write a memo for all of it. 

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn’t apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE’s lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this member-exclusive episode, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court’s fact-free foray into Trump v. Cook, a case that economists warn could crater the economy. President Donald Trump spent the first weeks of his second stint in the White House firing a lot of people from government agencies. For the most part, the High Court’s conservative justices let it slide, in line with their general “he’s the President, let him do it” posture. But Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was different. In August, Trump fired off a post on Truth Social, then sacked Cook a few days later, leaving a huge question mark hanging over the independence of the Fed.  Turns out, that’s a very big deal for anyone who wants to avoid hyperinflation and economic disaster. During Wednesday’s arguments, it was clear that even Trump’s hand-picked justices felt as though they would like to avoid such catastrophes. What ensued was more about feelings, fear, and frustration than law, but that may be the best we can hope for. 

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 directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.