335 episodes

A show about the law and the nine Supreme Court justices who interpret it for the rest of America.

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.

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

    • News
    • 4.6 • 2.9K Ratings

Listen on Apple Podcasts
Requires subscription and macOS 11.4 or higher

A show about the law and the nine Supreme Court justices who interpret it for the rest of America.

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.

Listen on Apple Podcasts
Requires subscription and macOS 11.4 or higher

    BONUS: The Zombie Abortion Law Apocalypse Is Here

    BONUS: The Zombie Abortion Law Apocalypse Is Here

    In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the outrageous ruling that creates (but really, revives) a de facto total ban on abortions in Arizona. They also explain why the EMTALA case from the show isn’t being talked about as much as the recent mifepristone case was.

    This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also 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.

    The Jurisprudence of Bleeding Out

    The Jurisprudence of Bleeding Out

    Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 14th here.
    We shouldn’t be surprised that we have to keep saying it, but here we are: the Supreme Court (notably trained as lawyers) will soon make decisions about how doctors (notably trained as doctors) can treat pregnant patients in the emergency room. Moyle v. United States - consolidated with Idaho v. United States - is the result of an Idaho lawsuit challenging EMTALA, a federal law requiring hospitals to do whatever they can to stabilize whoever comes through their ER doors with a medical emergency. Sometimes this requires abortion care, and for a faction of conservative advocates, this cannot stand.

    Ahead of oral arguments the week after next, we wanted to get a sense of what healthcare looks like for pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies now, and how this case threatens to undermine that care in the future. This week, Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Dr. Dara Kass, an emergency medicine physician, about what EMTALA was built to do, what ER physicians are being asked to do, and what will happen should Idaho prevail in this case.

    Later in the show, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the hullabaloo over when, if, and how Justice Sotomayor should be made to retire and the very gendered work of keeping SCOTUS from going off the rails (any more than it already has).

    In today’s bonus episode only for Slate Plus members Dahlia and Mark discuss the outrageous ruling that creates (but really, revives) a de facto total ban on abortions in Arizona. They also explain why the EMTALA case from the show isn’t being talked about as much as the recent mifepristone case was. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also 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

    • 1 hr 8 min
    BONUS: Florida Abortions, Racial Gerrymanders, Clarence Thomas’ Clerks

    BONUS: Florida Abortions, Racial Gerrymanders, Clarence Thomas’ Clerks

    Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern kick off a separate Amicus Plus conversation for subscribers, discussing the recent rulings from Florida’s Supreme Court on abortion rights and legalizing marijuana. They also discuss the South Carolina redistricting case that’s still stuck somewhere between draft opinions at SCOTUS, despite being argued way back in October, and despite the fact that the delay has cost plaintiffs the opportunity for representation as the racial gerrymander in question slides into place for the 2024 election. Finally, they pull up a chair and help themselves to slice of frittata at brunch with the Thomases, to discuss the Crystal Clanton controversy: her clerking journey, her ties to Justice Clarence Thomas, and the ethical implications of all of it.

    This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also 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.

    When Gag Orders Become Campaign-Performance Indicators

    When Gag Orders Become Campaign-Performance Indicators

    After weeks of the Trump trials (and the run-up to the Trump trials) becoming ever more engrossing spectator sports, both the public and the media may have lost sight of some of the stakes. They also may have lost sight of the truth of what the legal system can actually deliver in terms of protecting democracy from Donald J Trump. 
    On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Juliette Kayyem to dissect Trump's impact on legal, national security, and ideological fronts. Kayyem brings her national security expertise to discuss the evolution of Trump's tactics from stochastic terror to direct incitement. Together, they explore the implications for democracy of a presidential campaign where one candidate issues violent threats and tries to intimidate judges. Kayyem lays out in stark terms the kinds of focus and planning needed in the coming months.
    Juliette Kayyem is a national security expert, Harvard lecturer, CNN analyst, Atlantic contributor, and author of 'The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters.' Avowedly not a lawyer, she approaches America’s political predicament using counter-terrorism approaches to Trump’s movement and preparations for the 2024 elections. 

    Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly bonus 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

    • 40 min
    When RAGA Rhymes with MAGA

    When RAGA Rhymes with MAGA

    It’s not quite red-yarn-on-a-corkboard, but given how often we’ve been thinking about the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) over the years, it may as well be. The group has become a vital component of the conservative legal movement, with pay-to-play access afforded to corporate donors to boot. Despite all the money changing hands and obvious conflicts of interest, few have heard of them - and that’s very intentional.
    This week we’re joined by Lisa Graves of True North Research to talk about how an organization representing the chief legal officers in half the states in the union has become a national policy juggernaut, pushing legislation and litigation to assist polluters, harm women and LGBTQ families, torment immigrants and even steal elections, all absent any significant oversight or consequences. 
    In this week’s bonus plus segment, Slate’s very own Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss coverage of the oral arguments in the mifepristone case (including the hugely significant takeaway most of the analysis missed), and the reasons Neil Gorsuch hates nationwide injunctions. 
    And finally, following on from last week, thinking about the language we use to describe first trimester abortions.
    Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    • 51 min
    How The Mifepristone Case Reached SCOTUS

    How The Mifepristone Case Reached SCOTUS

    Well, it happened again. The hIgHeSt CoUrT will hear arguments Tuesday in a case based on made up facts! This time it’s mifepristone, the abortion drug at the center of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA. 
    The claim was that the FDA approval process (three decades ago), for mifepristone, one of two medication abortion drugs, was haphazard and slapdash.. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine also argued that the FDA’s 2021 decision to allow telemedicine abortion and mailing of abortion pills violates a 19th-century anti-vice law called the Comstock Act.
    This week on the show Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Carrie N. Baker, Smith College professor and author of the forthcoming book Abortion Pills: US History and Politics. Baker says taking away the rights to access abortion pills in the mail could have catastrophic consequences for pregnant people, drug development, and privacy for all Americans.
    In this week’s subscribers-only segment, Slate’s Trump Law correspondent Jeremy Stahl gives us the updates on some of the cases against the former president - including the “a lot ton” of money he owes in New York, like starting on Monday. 
    Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    • 57 min

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5
2.9K Ratings

2.9K Ratings

LynnieGoll ,

Justice SotoMayor retiring

First off all I know is what I’ve learned from watching and listening. With that said, I thank you for all that I have learned from you.

I just wanted to say on the topic of Justice SotoMayor, how fast did you forget about Justice Merrick Garland?!? You don’t think Joe Mansion and Kyrsten Sinema wouldn’t hold that seat open?!?

Thank you for everything!

Meiopic ,

First Slate Plus separate episode

The (wonderful) episode with Juliette Kayyem seems to be duplicated as the slate plus special episode…

midwestBlue ,

apr 6

you can’t include jack smith in holding back court accountability of trump. jack smith is kicking butt aka the Hague prosecutor. merrick garland/hand wringer is to blame for waiting too long to go after criminal trump and he dumped all this responsibility on jack smith. merrick garland needs to resign for his poor job performance.

Top Podcasts In News

Serial
Serial Productions & The New York Times
The Daily
The New York Times
Up First
NPR
The Tucker Carlson Podcast
Tucker Carlson Network
The Ben Shapiro Show
The Daily Wire
The Megyn Kelly Show
SiriusXM

You Might Also Like

Strict Scrutiny
Crooked Media
Political Gabfest
Slate Podcasts
Talking Feds
Harry Litman
#SistersInLaw
Politicon
The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Institute
Stay Tuned with Preet
CAFE

More by Slate Magazine

Slow Burn
Slate Podcasts
Decoder Ring
Slate Podcasts
One Year
Slate Podcasts
Political Gabfest
Slate Podcasts
What Next | Daily News and Analysis
Slate Podcasts
Slate Presents: One Year
Slate Podcasts