The Supreme Court Is Again Mired in a Mess Of Its Own Making
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.
Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don't.
Although Thursday's arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump's unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem disturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in. Un-paywalled episodes' description:
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
