Legal expert Dahlia Lithwick and professor Rick Hasen discuss the Supreme Court's handling of Trump's immunity claim, the fight for voting rights, and overlooked social media cases. Plus, the implications of Alabama's embryo personhood ruling and Alito's dissent on marriage equality.

Fani Willis, Chief Law of Trump correspondent, discusses the challenges in prosecuting Trump and associates, including ethical violations and proving personal benefit. The podcast also explores judicial oversight, conflicts of interest, and the influence of dark money in the legal system. Lastly, the discussion touches on navigating post-Trump era challenges and the need for a cross-ideological coalition to confront authoritarian threats in the judicial system.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court Thursday in Trump v. Anderson revealed a lot about some of the justices’ commitment to the primacy of originalism. Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss why his organization took up and pursued the long shot case to try to keep former President Donald J Trump off the ballot in Colorado. While the Supreme Court appeared to have little appetite for taking the big swing to find that Trump had disqualified himself from office when he engaged in an insurrection, Noah insists the case is far from having been in vain - eloquently highlighting the dangerous potential consequences of inaction. It's a chilling reminder of what’s at stake.Next, Dahlia is joined by slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern to discuss whether the liberal justices have some grand bargain in mind as they offered multiple off-ramps for Trump’s side, despite dozens of bipartisan briefs arguing for Trump to be kept off the ballot, the court’s originalist’s sudden concern for consequences in this case, when they have had no interest in weighing the life and death consequences for ordinary people in cases concerning guns and abortion. Finally, they tackle a worrying undercurrent to Thursday’s arguments: an apparent capitulation to threats of chaos and violence as a basis for deciding constitutional cases. In our Slate Plus segment, Mark sticks around to discuss a landmark gun decision out of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and why it’s a problem that DOJ’s special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report declining to prosecute, but affirming that Joe Biden is old (hint: the problem isn’t that he’s old). 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The hosts analyze the recent DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Trump's immunity claims. They discuss the potential legal steps Trump may take and the possibility of the Supreme Court granting a stay. Mention of a subscription offer to Slate Plus for exclusive content and ad-free listening.

This episode explores the historical context and constitutional law of the Trump v. Anderson case, highlighting the significance of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its potential disqualification of Trump. It also discusses recent rulings on abortion and the Voting Rights Act, and delves into the drafters' intent behind the 14th Amendment and its aim to prevent future insurrections.

This podcast explores the implications of Donald Trump's defamation trial, his misogyny in politics, and the impact on women and the justice system. It also discusses the Supreme Court's decision on immigration and the conservative turn on capital punishment.

The podcast discusses the immigration fight on the US-Mexico border, the Texas administration's intervention in federal police powers, the Supreme Court's response, SB4's impact on immigration, Texas' control over immigration law, state interference in federal enforcement along the border, the push to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, power grabs and the fragility of democracy, and the erosion of civil rights for immigrant communities and women's reproductive rights.

Discussions on ongoing legal issues involving Donald Trump, including his immunity appeal and the Trump Organization civil fraud trial. Exploring the Supreme Court's power to shape the law and policy by selecting cases and questions. Examining the significance of the Loperbright Enterprises v Raimundo case and concerns about transparency and accountability. Highlighting the court's expanded powers and the need to prioritize deciding cases based on the law.

Exploring the myth-making and religious fervor that fueled the Capitol attack, the possibility of Trump's return, and the normalization of violence. Delving into the concept of civil war triggered by conspiracy theories and the debate surrounding Ashley Babbitt's classification as a martyr or a terrorist.

The podcast discusses the worst moments of the US Supreme Court in 2023, including Chief Justice John Roberts' lack of seriousness in a stalking case and Justice Samuel Alito's lack of substance in his opinions. They also criticize Roberts for disrespecting the Senate Judiciary Committee and explore the declining tradition of Congress regulating the court. Additionally, they discuss how justices are adjusting under media scrutiny and anticipation for future discussions.