When Elena Kagan is This Angry, You Know Something Has Gone Badly.
If you can't access your feeds, please contact customer support.
Set up manually:
We're sorry, but something went wrong while fetching your podcast feeds. Please contact us at [email protected] for help.
This week's episode attempts to understand the ways in which the law of Trump unfolds along two tracks at the same time. First, Mark Joseph Stern joins us to talk about the Supreme Court's decision to let Trump fire the heads of independent agencies, undermining a 90-year-old precedent in an unsigned, two-page decision on the shadow docket. This is a case in which Donald Trump's agenda perfectly aligns with the wishlist of the conservative supermajority that controls the court. But if the court keeps giving Trump free passes to break the law now, why should we expect him to respect the court when it tries to draw the line later?
Then Dahlia Lithwick talks to the University of Chicago's Aziz Huq about the idea of a “dual state,” a legal arrangement in which seismic changes happen in ways that are not perceptible to the bulk of the citizens. Drawing from the work of a Jewish lawyer who witnessed the dual state operate in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Huq explains that authoritarians can seize the levers of the law to persecute disfavored groups, without disturbing the idea of the rule of law for the great majority of the nation.
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.
Slate
