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

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.

President Trump REALLY wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. He’s fallen hard for this 200-year-old law that would allow him to deploy active duty military to enforce civilian law on American streets. On this week’s Amicus podcast, co-host Mark Joseph Stern is joined by Professor Steve Vladeck, a nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court, federal courts, national security law, and military justice. They discuss what’s been stopping Trump from invoking the act so far, why he has no legal authority to do so right now, and what happens if he does it anyway.
Next, Mark talks to Julia Gegenheimer, former special litigation counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section, and now a special litigation counsel at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. Julia and Mark discuss the remaining paths to justice after the killing of Renee Good and examine what happens when the DOJ abandons its duty to seek accountability and vindicate civil rights.

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.