A program about the law, and the nine Supreme Court justices who interpret it for the rest of America. Part of the Panoply Network.
What counts as “obstruction of justice?” And, should judges pay any attention to Trump’s Twitter feed?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg biographer Irin Carmon joins Dahlia to reflect on how the diminutive Supreme Court justice came to loom so large in the consciousness of young feminists. Dahlia also speaks with the proud owner of an RBG tattoo.
The Supreme Court caps off one of its twistiest-turniest terms ever with a strong defense of abortion rights. Dahlia speaks with the woman behind Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt. And she recaps the term’s highlights with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern.
On his last day in office, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tells Dahlia what it’s been like to argue the government’s most consequential cases at the high court. Also – why Justice Anthony Kennedy cast a clutch vote for affirmative action.
Dahlia sits down with Stanford Law School’s Deborah Rhode to discuss Donald Trump’s attack on the judge in the Trump University fraud lawsuits. And she talks with legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen about the astonishing legal mind of Justice Louis Brandeis.
Is the eight-member Supreme Court a diminvished body? Dahlia mulls that question with fellow court watchers Garrett Epps and Jonathan Adler. And they consider what we should make of Donald Trump’s recently released Supreme Court nomination shortlist.
Dahlia and the National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro listen to highlights from the Supreme Court’s 2015 term. And she speaks with Politico’s Josh Gerstein about the recent non-developments in the non-confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland.
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonnell v. U.S., the former Virginia governor’s appeal of his 2014 corruption conviction. On this episode, former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells Dahlia why she believes McDonnell should walk free.
Dahlia previews United States v. Texas – this week’s big immigration case – with Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center. She also hears from Sen. Al Franken about the latest in the standoff over Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland.
More than two weeks into the standoff over Merrick Garland’s nomination to SCOTUS, GOP leaders show no sign of backing down. Legal scholar Geoffrey Stone tells Dahlia that this stonewalling is not only unprecedented, but unjustifiable as well.
This week, SCOTUS heard arguments in Zubik v Burwell, the latest challenge to Obamacare. In it, a group of religious nonprofits are challenging the govt.’s workaround for employers who don’t want anything to do with getting birth control to their workers.
It was a big week at SCOTUS, as a newly-balanced Court turned to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, its first abortion case in nine years. We discuss the case with legal scholar Pamela Karlan and listen to some highlights from oral arguments.
A week after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of his former clerks shares fond memories of a mentor with whom she didn’t always agree politically. And a legal scholar explains why Scalia didn’t always remain true to his originalist principles.
On this episode, Dahlia asks why the Supreme Court has been almost absent as a campaign issue, despite the fact that the next president could have the opportunity to reshape the Court’s bench. She is joined by UC-Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.
In Heffernan v City of Paterson, the Supreme Court must decide whether a government worker can be punished for a political belief his employers attribute to him. This week, Dahlia speaks with lawyers on both sides of the topsy-turvy case.
This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could undercut the ability of public sector unions to raise money. Dahlia is joined by Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro and U. of Michigan’s Sam Bagenstos, who submitted briefs on opposite sides of the case.
What is the meaning of “one person, one vote? That’s the main question in Evenwel v. Abbott, argued this week at SCOTUS. Dahlia speaks with experts on both sides of the case. And she plays a few highlights from the week’s big affirmative action case.
A half-century after Brown v. Board, should courts still be in the business of integrating public schools? Dahlia sits down with legal historian Risa Golubuff to discuss the backdrop to the term’s big affirmative action case, Fisher v Univ. of Texas.
Dahlia speaks with Carter Phillips, the lawyer who represented Tyson Foods at SCOTUS this week in its attempt to dismiss a class action suit by workers. She also considers the love-hate relationship between presidential hopefuls and the high court.
As serious questions about lethal injection protocols continue to swirl, Dahlia speaks with The Marshall Project’s Andrew Cohen about where the Supreme Court currently stands on the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Dahlia sits down with Linda Hirshman, author of “Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World.” Hirshman recounts the two women’s rise to the bench and reflects on the impact they’
Dahlia is joined by The Atlantic’s Garrett Epps to parse the latest batch of 5-4 decisions from SCOTUS. They included rulings on immigration, free speech, and the death penalty, and involved some strange alliances among the Justices.
This week, Dahlia speaks with a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas about the strong stances that Thomas has been taking recently. And she asks what’s at stake in a big challenge to “One Person One Vote” that SCOTUS will take up next term.
This week we learned that Natalie Portman will play a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a new film about the Supreme Court Justice. On this episode, Dahlia and her guests consider the recent explosion of Court-related dramatizations on the stage and screen.
This week, we take you inside the courtroom for the recent gay marriage case at the Supreme Court. Dahlia listens to highlights of oral arguments with Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, one of the lawyers who represented same-sex couples in the historic case.
In anticipation of big decisions on marriage equality and Obamacare, many are talking about the balance of political power on the Supreme Court. Dahlia Lithwick speaks with two court watchers about the extent to which the Justices are political actors.
On April 28, the Supreme Court will finally take up the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. Dahlia Lithwick previews the cases with Paul Smith, the lawyer involved in the 2003 gay rights case that helped set the stage for this historic event.
How should the EPA weigh costs when regulating toxic emissions? Dahlia Lithwick speaks with lawyers on both sides of a Supreme Court case posing that question. And she reviews the highlights of a case testing the limits of free speech on license plates.
Seven years after ruling that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have turned its back on the remaining detainees there. On this week’s episode, we ask why.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act -- King v. Burwell -- Dahlia Lithwick hears from experts on both sides of what could be the most important case in the Court’s entire term.
As the Supreme Court prepares to revisit the constitutionality of lethal injection, Dahlia Lithwick speaks with two experts about the controversial drugs being used for execution and whether the capital punishment system can be repaired.
Dahlia Lithwick talks to Andrew Pincus, the lawyer who brought a Supreme Court challenge this week to a law banning fundraising by judicial candidates. And she hears from the NAACP’s Sherrilyn Ifill on the latest challenge to the Fair Housing Act.
Dahlia Lithwick talks to Joan Biskupic, the author of a new Reuters study about the elite "one-percent" group of lawyers who bring most of the cases at the Supreme Court. She also hears from two of these super-lawyers -- Tom Goldstein and Paul Clement
Dahlia Lithwick talks to rap music scholar Charis Kubrin about Elonis v. U.S., and about how courts are using rap lyrics in criminal proceedings. She also hears from Sam Bagenstos, who argued this week’s pregnancy discrimination case Young v. United Par
With an execution looming, Dahlia Lithwick revisits Panetti v. Quarterman, a case involving mental illness and the death penalty. Her guests are Scott Panetti’s lawyer Kathryn Kase and Brandon Garrett of the University of Virginia.
Fresh off oral arguments in the Supreme Court, Alyza Lewin discusses Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which asks if Congress or the President has ultimate authority over passports. Plus, Yates v. U.S. debates whether grouper should qualify as "tangible objects."
On Ep. 4 of Amicus, a pre-election special. Dahlia sits down with UC Irvine law professor Rick Hasen, founder of Election Law Blog, to survey the landscape of state voter ID laws. They consider the effect of recent headlines on voters' confidence in...
On Ep. 3 of Amicus, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick talks with the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin about his recent interview with President Obama on Obama’s judicial legacy. Then Dahlia welcomes Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer who won last...
On Ep. 2 of Amicus, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and former acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger discuss the Surpreme Court’s recent non-decisions about abortion and voter I.D. laws. Then Dahlia talks with Joan Biskupic, author of a new...
On Ep. 1 of Amicus, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick discusses the opening of the Surpreme Court’s new term with Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog. Dahlia also welcomes Douglas Laycock, who argued the case of a Muslim prisoner who wants to...