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

Chris Wray Just Made Way For Something Even Worse Than Kash Patel

35 snips

Dec 14, 2024

Guest

Sam Sankar

Guest

Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate specializing in legal affairs, and Sam Sankar, Senior VP at Earthjustice, delve into the alarming implications of FBI Director Christopher Wray's potential resignation. Stern explains how this shift could undermine the rule of law. Meanwhile, Sankar discusses a pivotal Supreme Court case on a railroad project that threatens environmentally sensitive areas, revealing the growing tension between environmental protection and infrastructure development at a time of climate crisis.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Wray's Resignation Implications

FBI Director Christopher Wray's resignation allows Trump to install a loyalist.
This has dire implications for the rule of law and the FBI's independence.

INSIGHT

Worse Than Patel

Wray's resignation presents a worse scenario than Kash Patel's potential appointment.
Trump can now install an acting director, potentially more damaging than Patel.

INSIGHT

Limited Options

Had Wray been fired, Trump's options would have been more limited legally.
Wray's voluntary departure gives Trump greater power to manipulate the FBI.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Last week, we examined the deeply worrying prospect of Kash Patel, FBI director. This week, that possibility became even more worrisome with respect to the future of the FBI, all sparked by current director Christopher Wray’s announcement of his intention to step down. To kick off this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, who explains why Wray’s decision is very bad news for the law and the rule of law.

Next, the planet: Last summer, we tried to absorb the sheer scale of the shift in the constitutional landscape following a run of cases at the end of the last term that gave the courts the power to reshape the administrative state from the bench, and to impede the tools of the environmental protection trade at a time when the climate is in crisis. But the news cycle moved on and the global climate alarm got snoozed again. That alarm was surely ringing again at One, First Street this week, when a case that could reshape the nation’s biggest environmental law was argued at the Supreme Court.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado comes to the court as a dispute over how much review is due to a railroad plan that will carry waxy, crude oil through environmentally sensitive areas, and send said waxy crude on its way to already polluted and health blighted gulf communities. Sam Sankar of Earth Justice was on hand to explain how this weedy case paints a very clear picture of the Supreme Court conservative majority’s fondness for grabbing cases that are vehicles for achieving their preferred policy outcomes, but then finding themselves in a bit of a pickle when its time to craft a new test for an old problem.

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.

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