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

Billionaires Had a Bad Week at the Supreme Court

Dec 9, 2023

This podcast explores a Supreme Court case that could weaken the government's ability to collect taxes from the wealthy. It discusses the background, motivations, and implications of the case. The episode also delves into the controversial relationship between Justice Alito and corporate lawyer David Rifkin, their fabrication of evidence, and potential perjury and fraud. Additionally, it analyzes the behavior of justices during oral arguments and their resistance to acknowledging the truth.

48:39

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

The Moors v. United States case highlights potential bias and conflicts of interest due to the close association between conservative lawyer David Rifkin and Justice Alito.

The fabrications and misrepresentations made by the plaintiffs in the case undermine the credibility of their argument against the tax provision.

Deep dives

The Moors v. United States case challenges a tax provision

The Moors v. United States case revolves around a challenge to a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that imposed a one-time tax on Americans with shares in foreign corporations. The plaintiffs argue that it is unconstitutional to tax these shares because they have not been cashed out or turned into profits. However, it has been revealed that the main plaintiff, Charles Moore, had a significant role in the corporation and received reimbursements and dividends, contradicting the claim that they had no control or received any payments from the company.

Introduction

3min

Constitutional Challenge to Tax Collection from the Wealthy

3min

Taxation case at the United States Supreme Court

13min

Importance of Testing for HIV and History of the 16th Amendment

3min

Analyzing a Historical Case and Recent Oral Arguments

10min

Analysis of the Supreme Court Case and Lawyers Involved

2min

Justice Alito's Controversial Relationship and Fabrication of Evidence

11min

Behavior and Conduct during Oral Arguments

4min

When Moore v United States landed on the Supreme Court docket, it threatened to take a big swing at any future wealth tax and maybe cut the legs out from under the government’s ability to collect a lot of other tax. But as arguments unfolded Tuesday at One, First Street, it became clear that some of the Justices had studied up on the tax code and were cooling on blowing a big hole in it.

To understand why Moore made it all the way up to SCOTUS in the first place, and why the facts don’t match claims from the plaintiffs, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by law professor and author of Big Dirty Money, Professor Jennifer Taub. Together they talk about the billions behind the case, the tax law, and the arguments inside the chamber.

Next, Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Mark Stern, who covered Moore for the magazine, to discuss Justice Alito's non-recusal from the case, his BFF David Rivkin Jr., and why the plaintiffs Mr and Mrs Moore bear a striking resemblance to some other, recent, fabled SCOTUS plaintiffs.

In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Mark Stern hangs on to talk about the Title VII case this week that didn’t go *that badly*, and why that’s still not good, and to explain why Justice Elena Kagan has had it up to here with false first principles.

Dahlia’s book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout.

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