Slate Crime and Justice

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

This year’s Supreme Court session loosened laws on official bribery, overturned decades of precedent on regulation, and granted immunity to the president for official actions. On today’s episode of A Word, Jason Johnson is joined by legal analyst Elie Mystal of The Nation. They review the Court’s most important decisions, and talk about the political implications and the potential fall out for ordinary Americans. 

Guest: Legal analyst Elie Mystal

Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola

Want more A Word? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately 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/awordplus to get access wherever you listen.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States and the administrative state in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as well as the future of Joe Biden’s nomination to be re-elected president.

Here are some notes and references from this week’s show:

Supreme Court of the United States: Opinions of the Court – 2023, including Trump v. United States, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, and SEC v. Jarkesy

Matt Gluck, Hyemin Han, and Katherine Pompilio for Lawfare: The Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision

Perry Stein for The Washington Post: Justice Sotomayor dissent: ‘The President is now a king above the law’

Gary J. Schmitt and Joseph M. Bessette for the American Enterprise Institute: The Hamilton-Madison Split over Executive Power

Dan Pfeiffer for The Message Box: Why the Dem Panic over the Debate is Getting Worse

‘Will Rogers Today’: Will Rogers on Politics

Tim Miller for The Bulwark: Dear Dems: The Gaslighting Isn’t Helping Matters

Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies and Mark Walsh: Consider the wild gray squirrel, Kagan rebukes her colleagues as court overrules Chevron

Mark Sherman for AP: The Supreme Court rules for a North Dakota truck stop in a new blow to federal regulators

How to Save a Country from The New Republic: The Administrative State Is Under Attack

Congressional Research Service: The Major Questions Doctrine

Eric Berger for Dorf on Law: Is Loper Bright a Big Deal? and Michael C. Dorf: Could Congress Reinstate Chevron?

Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen, and Katie Lobosco for CNN: How the Supreme Court’s blockbuster ‘Chevron’ ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy

Here are this week’s chatters:

Emily: Paul Sabin of Yale University and City of New Haven: East Rock park 

John: Dave McMenamin for ESPN: Lakers pick Bronny James in NBA draft; LeBron ‘emotional’

David: City Cast DC and Ross Andersen for The Atlantic: The Search for America’s Atlantis

Listener chatter from Jen in Denver, Colorado: Brandy Zadrozny and Jon Schuppe for NBC News: Who tried to steal Graceland?

For this week’s Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about the joys of summer. See Merry Maids: 15 Fun Things to Make the Most of Summer 2024; NBC: Olympics Paris 2024; and epicurious: Summer. See also Produce bluebook: Nectarine Market Summary and Lemonada Media: Julia Gets Wise with Patti Smith.

In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with Sierra Greer about her new book, Annie Bot: A Novel. And Gabfest Reads now has its own site!

Email your chatters, questions, and comments to [email protected]. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

Podcast production by Cheyna Roth

Research by Julie Huygen

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week the Supreme Court ruled a $6 billion settlement between Purdue Pharma and victims of the opioid crisis could not move forward, because it granted immunity to the Sackler family, the principal owners of Purdue. For one of the litigants, a mother who has lost two sons to overdoses, the decision felt like “a sucker punch.”

Guest: Cheryl Juaire, part of the bankruptcy settlement with Purdue Pharma and founder of the non-profit organization Team Sharing, a support group for parents who have lost kids to overdoses.

Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.

Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents enjoy “substantial immunity” from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, which includes absolute immunity for “core constitutional duties” and “presumptive immunity” for “official acts.” 

All good news for one Donald J. Trump. How bad is it for the rest of us? 

Guest: Richard Hasen, law professor at UCLA and director of UCLA Law’s Safeguarding Democracy Project.

Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.

Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 contests. It should also come as no surprise who will benefit from these decisions (rich people with yachts). 

Host Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern and Professor Pam Karlan, co-director of Stanford law school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to go over Friday’s rulings and to break down what it means that federal agencies will no longer be able to, you know, do anything reasonable.

Listen to an interview with a doctor helping unhoused people in Grants Pass, OR.

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!)

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama. 

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!)

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon and David Plotz discuss the recent Supreme Court rulings on emergency abortions and guns with Yale Law School’s Linda Greenhouse and Congressman Jamaal Bowman’s loss in a New York Democratic primary.

Here are some notes and references from this week’s show:

Supreme Court of the United States: Moyle v. United States; United States v. Rahimi; and Murthy v. Missouri

Greg Stohr, Kimberly Robinson, and Lydia Wheeler for Bloomberg: Supreme Court Poised to Allow Emergency Abortions in Idaho

Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears to allow emergency abortions in Idaho and Supreme Court upholds bar on guns under domestic-violence restraining orders

Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez for The Idaho Capital Sun: Idaho’s OB-GYN exodus throws women in rural towns into a care void

Eleanor Klibanoff for The Texas Tribune: Emergency rooms not required to perform life-saving abortions, federal appeals court rules

Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed, and Devan Cole for CNN: Supreme Court issues report on Dobbs leak but says it hasn’t identified the leaker

Mark Joseph Stern for Slate: Supreme Court Inadvertently Reveals Confounding Late Change in Trump Ballot Ruling and Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern: John Roberts Tried to Clean Up Clarence Thomas’ Mess. He May Have Invited More Chaos.

Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times: The Supreme Court Steps Back From the Edge and How John Roberts Lost His Court

Michael C. Dorf for Dorf on Law: Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence in Rahimi Contains a Whopper of an Error (or Worse) and The Hidden Merits Ruling in Murthy v. Missouri

Gregory Krieg for CNN: George Latimer defeats House ‘squad’ member Jamaal Bowman in historic New York Democratic primary

Michelle Goldberg for The New York Times: The War in Gaza Is Splintering the Democratic Party

Ben Davis for The Guardian: The Aipac-funded candidate defeated Jamaal Bowman. But at what cost?

Peter Beinart for The Beinart Notebook: Jamaal Bowman’s Courage

Jon Murray, Seth Klamann, and Nick Coltrain for The Denver Post: Five takeaways from Colorado’s primaries as voters give Lauren Boebert new life, pick a Denver DA and more

Anthony Adragna and Nicholas Wu for Politico: AIPAC offshoot spending heavily to beat Cori Bush in her primary

Colby Itkowitz, Emily Guskin, and Scott Clement for The Washington Post: Trump trusted more than Biden on democracy among key swing-state voters

Here are this week’s chatters:

Emily: Dismantling Mass Incarceration: A Handbook for Change by Premal Dharia, James Forman, Jr., and Maria Hawilo and Karin Brulliard for The Washington Post: For millionaire and four hunters, a wild Western lawsuit over public land

Linda: Thelma from Magnolia Pictures & Magnet Releasing and Aisha Harris, Bob Mondello, Bedatri D. Choudhury, Liz Metzger, Mike Katzif, and Jessica Reedy for NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour: June Squibb’s ‘Thelma’ is the wrong grandma to mess with

David: Hark and David Plotz for Hark’s The Conversation: Campaign Trail 2024

Listener chatter from William Wagner in Green Bay, Wisconsin: Sam Anderson with illustrations by Gaia Alari for The New York Times: Walnut and Me and Sam Anderson: Animal podcast

For this week’s Slate Plus bonus segment, David and Emily talk with Linda Greenhouse about Murthy v. Missouri.

In the next Gabfest Reads, David talks with Sierra Greer about her new book, Annie Bot: A Novel.

Email your chatters, questions, and comments to [email protected]. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

Podcast production by Cheyna Roth

Research by Julie Huygen

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 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!)

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court is soon expected to decide Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case where a town’s efforts to remove unhoused people from its parks became “cruel and unusual,” according to lower courts.

Guest: Dr. Bruce Murray, chief medical officer for the Mobile Integrative Navigation Team (MINT) in Josephine County, Oregon.

Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.

Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices