Big Law Stands Up

Summary

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Episode: Big Law Stands Up

Release Date: March 15, 2025

---

Introduction and Context

In this compelling episode of Amicus, Slate's podcast exploring the intricacies of law and the Supreme Court, host Dahlia Lithwick engages in a profound dialogue with Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The conversation delves into the tensions between law and politics, especially in the backdrop of the Trump administration's controversial actions. The episode, titled "Big Law Stands Up," provides listeners with an in-depth analysis of how legal professionals navigate unprecedented challenges to uphold the rule of law.

---

The Rule of Law vs. Political Chaos

Dahlia Lithwick opens the discussion by highlighting the dichotomy observed during the Trump administration: while the executive branch engaged in acts perceived as unlawful—such as attempts to dismantle the Department of Education and the mysterious disappearance of a green card holder—judicial bodies across the nation responded with temporary restraining orders, injunctions, and reinstatements of government workers dismissed without cause.

Notable Quote:

Preet Bharara [01:19]: "What if a judicial order is ignored? Well, if there is hell to pay for ignoring a judicial order, then it won't be ignored."

This sets the stage for examining whether the rule of law can remain steadfast amidst political turmoil.

---

The Interplay Between Law and Politics

Lithwick probes into the nuanced balance lawyers like Bharara must maintain between adhering to legal principles and navigating political pressures. She observes that the legal profession often finds itself straddling the fine line where law converges with politics, questioning whether this boundary is merely theoretical or under threat in the current climate.

Notable Quote:

Dahlia Lithwick [03:12]: "This feels like a really important moment to talk about lawyers and law."

Bharara concurs, elaborating on how legal frameworks can become indistinct when not diligently upheld, emphasizing the indispensable role of lawyers in maintaining accountability and justice across the political spectrum.

---

The Crucial Role of Lawyers

Bharara underscores the multifaceted responsibilities of lawyers beyond mere legal representation. He asserts that lawyers are pivotal in various societal functions—including holding politicians accountable, rectifying injustices, and safeguarding civil rights—highlighting their role as essential pillars in the legal and political apparatus.

Notable Quote:

Preet Bharara [04:31]: "They are really important cogs in the massive system of law and politics that you describe. But they're really important."

He further emphasizes that the integrity and actions of lawyers directly impact the efficacy of the legal system, especially in times when political forces aim to undermine judicial processes.

---

Challenges Faced by Legal Professionals

The conversation shifts to specific instances where legal professionals stood against executive overreach. Lithwick references cases like Judge Beryl Howell's ruling in the Perkins Coie case and Judge William Alsop's decisions regarding the mass firings of probationary workers. These cases exemplify robust legal challenges to executive actions perceived as unlawful.

Notable Quote:

Dahlia Lithwick [07:18]: "I really believe that that vision of lawyers as kind of doing the work was really vindicated in courts around the country."

However, Bharara points out the fragility of this legal-bilateral commitment when one party disregards judicial norms, questioning the system's resilience under such pressures.

---

The Executive Order Targeting Perkins Coie

A significant portion of the discussion centers around an executive order aimed at the law firm Perkins Coie. The administration's attempt to disparage and restrict the firm's operations is dissected, revealing the administration's broader strategy to retaliate against legal entities unfavorable to its agenda.

Notable Quote:

Preet Bharara [17:42]: "It's just batshit crazy... that's nuts. It's so nuts that nobody anticipates... shows that Trump and his people have more imagination for ill will and bad conduct."

Bharara criticizes the executive order's provisions, which include terminating government contracts, denying access to federal buildings, and revoking security clearances for Perkins Coie employees. He argues that such measures are not only unprecedented but also a blatant abuse of executive power under the guise of national security.

---

Judicial Neutrality and the Role of Sanctions

The discussion further explores the judiciary's role in maintaining neutrality and enforcing rules. Lithwick raises concerns about the lack of sanctions against lawyers who breach judicial orders, pondering whether the system allows for judicial vulnerabilities when faced with non-compliance.

Notable Quote:

Preet Bharara [13:33]: "Judges are human beings... they're just human beings who are, we hope, acting in good faith."

Bharara acknowledges the discretionary power judges hold and the challenges they face in enforcing sanctions, especially in politically charged cases. He advocates for consistent application of sanctions to uphold judicial authority and prevent the erosion of legal norms.

---

Public Engagement and Citizen Responsibility

As the conversation progresses, Lithwick and Bharara discuss the crucial role of public engagement in sustaining the rule of law. They express concerns over a passive public that relies solely on courts to rectify injustices, rather than actively participating in democratic processes to hold elected officials accountable.

Notable Quote:

Preet Bharara [34:31]: "People have to pay attention. People can't tune out. People have to be involved and they have to make their anger known."

Bharara stresses that the effectiveness of the legal system is contingent upon an informed and active citizenry that supports and enforces legal norms through democratic means, especially during elections.

---

Conclusion and Takeaways

In wrapping up the episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Preet Bharara reflect on the precarious state of the legal system amidst increasing political interference. They underscore the necessity for lawyers to remain steadfast, judges to enforce rules impartially, and the public to remain vigilant and engaged.

Notable Quote:

Preet Bharara [37:36]: "The power imbalance was that more voting humans were prepared to throw out someone like Liz Cheney than keep Liz Cheney in for the sin of pointing out honorably the legal, moral and constitutional failings of the sitting President of the United States."

The episode concludes with a poignant reminder that the integrity of the rule of law depends not only on legal professionals and the judiciary but also significantly on the active participation and accountability maintained by the citizenry.

---

Final Thoughts

"Big Law Stands Up" serves as a crucial examination of the current challenges facing the American legal system. Through insightful dialogue, Dahlia Lithwick and Preet Bharara illuminate the delicate balance between law and politics, the indispensable role of lawyers, and the pressing need for public engagement to preserve democratic institutions. This episode is an essential listen for anyone interested in understanding the interplay between legal structures and political forces in shaping justice and accountability in the United States.

Transcript

[Dahlia Lithwick]

This episode is brought to you by Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Hosted by Katie Milkman, an award winning behavioral scientist and author of the best selling book how to Change. Choiceology is a show about the psychology and economics behind our decisions. Hear true stories from Nobel laureates, authors, athletes and everyday people about why we do the things we do. Listen to [e-mail] podcast or wherever you listen. This podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states.

[Preet Bharara]

What if a judicial order is ignored? Well, if there is hell to pay for ignoring a judicial order, then it won't be ignored.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Hi and welcome back to Amicus. This is Slate's podcast about the law and the Supreme Court and the rule of law. I'm Dahlia Lithwick. This week has seen kind of equal and opposite reactions on the law to lawlessness access, with the Trump administration ramping up really horrifically unlawful actions ranging from trying to shutter the Department of Education to terrorizing Columbia University, to disappearing a green card holder without due process. But at the same time, judges in courts around the country are handing out temporary restraining orders and injunctions and they are reinstating government workers fired without cause. Now, nobody's going to fault you for being unable to keep up with all of this. That's what we're here for. And this week's guest is Alon Avatar. I think for the proposition that the rule of law can always stay a step ahead of the rule of chaos, even in really challenging political times. Preet Bharara is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He served there from 2009 to 2017. Before serving as U.S. attorney, he was Chief Counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer. He now is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence and Adjunct professor of Law at NYU School of He wrote the New York Times bestseller called Doing Justice A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law. He is also the host of the Stay Tuned with Preet and Cafe Insider podcasts on the Vox Media Podcast Network. Preet Bharara welcome back to Amicus.

[Preet Bharara]

Thanks for having me.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

This feels like a really important moment to talk about lawyers and law.

[Preet Bharara]

I bet you say that to all the moments.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Well, to talk about lawyers in law. I actually don't Say to the law professors. To them, I say some doctriny thing that immediately puts listeners to sleep. Listen, I think that one of the reasons I really needed to hear from you this week is I think we're back at this paradox that we're always at, in some sense, which is the law is just political, except when it's not political. And I think lawyers, especially you, live sort of on that line between law and politics. And I'm really struck by the fact, thinking about your career, that most of it was an effort to stay on the law side of the line, really mindfully and purposefully. And whether it was investigating the U.S. attorney scandal for the Justice Department or getting jammed by political demands at the start of the first Trump era, I think that you are really well positioned to help me understand whether that line between law and politics is just imaginary or if we're just in a moment where we all learn that, at least in the first seven weeks of the Trump administration, 2.0, politics is just everything.

[Preet Bharara]

Because you're a lawyer. I was going to object. Compound question, but I won't look. I think that any line, this is a theme of the class I teach at nyu. It's a theme of my book. It's a theme of my sort of time in public service and post public service. Any line, whether it's a statute, a regulation, a guideline, a rule, can be blurred into complete indistinction unless the people who are subject to those lines care about them and enforce them properly and inhabit the roles that they're supposed to inhabit, whether they're an advocate for one side, an advocate for the other side, or the neutral, supposedly neutral arbitrator or arbiter who's supposed to decide how it comes out. There's a line between this and that that's enshrined in statute. If a prosecutor decides they don't want to prosecute it, then that line sort of doesn't matter anymore with respect to the conduct that it attempts to reach. Has it been obliterated? No. Is it being blurred further? Absolutely, yes. And I thought we should start this conversation, or at least I want to set the table for this conversation. It is very popular and has always been popular to make fun of lawyers, to deride lawyers, to denigrate lawyers. And I get that, and we deserve, in this profession, particularly the practicing ones, a lot of what we get. But so many things are dependent on lawyers who act in good faith within the rule of law, no matter what side of the political spectrum you find yourself, if you want Accountability. I mean, obviously there are other ways to get these things, but often centrally and directly, they require lawyers, people with access to the courts who are trained in a profession and are officers of the court. If you want accountability, it will take a lawyer. If you want to be made whole, it takes a lawyer. If you want to vindicate your civil rights, it takes a lawyer. If you want to hold politicians to account, it may take a lawyer. If you want to make sure there's less corruption on Wall street, it may take a lawyer. If you want to correct a wrong, right an injustice, get someone innocent out of prison, although it may have been lawyers who were the cause of that miscarriage of justice, it will take lawyers to get them out. So I just want to make sure that we take a moment, and I don't mean to be self indulgent about the profession, but they are really important cogs, I guess, in the massive system of law and politics that you describe. But they're really important. And how they conduct themselves and how they are monitored and overseen and on other occasions, as we'll talk about, chilled from doing what they're supposed to do and what our system wants them to do. That's all really important stuff.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

It's really important. And I think this week I really believe, tell me if I'm wrong, that that vision of lawyers as kind of doing the work was really vindicated in courts around the country. We have Judge Beryl Howell in the Perkins Coie case. We'll talk about that in a minute. We have Judge William Alsop in the case brought by the unions about the mass firings of probationary workers. And really good, impressive lawyering by folks challenging Trump moves. But you said something really interesting when you started your answer, which is that in some sense you need both sides to abide by the sort of norms and rules, rules and the idea of fact and facticity and the idea that if you offer up a declaration, just to use the Judge Alsop example, and then you withdraw it because it's probably not true, then you're only seeing one side abide by the rules. And I'm really struck by what I think is the fragility of this bargain at this moment, where you have Justice Department lawyers either kind of like hiding the ball, not showing up. Right. We had a court order that somebody show up in Judge Alsup's court. He just didn't show. And I guess I'm wondering if that sense of it takes both sides, a kind of real bilateral commitment to these principles you just laid out and that when one side doesn't play, does the system still hold?

[Preet Bharara]

Yeah, because I think it's not a bilateral arrangement to keep borrowing from foreign policy and diplomacy. It's a trilateral enterprise. You have the one side, you have the other side, and then you have the court. And when one side acts like a shit and the other side acts in good faith, so long as the third party, the neutral arbiter, the judge, in most of these cases, a federal district court judge or an appeals court judge, if they're doing the right thing, acting in good faith and understanding their authority and power properly, then the system actually works. So, for example, you talked about some instances of making things up if the judge is doing his or her job. It's really hard to gaslight. It's really easy to gaslight at a Republican or Democratic National Convention. It's really easy to gaslight at a rally. It's really easy to gaslight, dare I say it, even on a podcast. Although not when you're the neutral arbiter, Dalia. But for lawyers from the Justice Department to go in and say you have no evidence that Elon Musk has any formal role with the Doge, much less that he's in charge of the Doge. And then like two freaking days later or three days later, whatever the time period was the sitting President of the United States of America at his joint address to Congress, says about the Doge, which Elon Musk is in charge of, to applause from half the room, Musk is there and takes a bow. That kind of not playing ball and not being straight in court goes back to your earlier question in the scenario you painted. But so long as the judge has the authority to be neutral and look at the facts and say, I think there's a problem here, he seems to be the head of the Doge, then it's okay. Which is why the other chilling and scary thing about all this is if you're really trying to upset the legal system and overthrow it in some sense, and some people might think that's an overstatement, but if you look at what's going on, I think it's a sincere worry. If you believe in this trilateral system that I just discussed, what the bad faith side needs is the ability to undermine the judges. You have this crazy hand wringing, screaming for the heads of judges, doxxing judges and their families if they don't like one decision. At the district court level, you had Mike Lee calling a decision a temporary few day tro, a judicial coup, when your side basically has the majority of judges in the courts and a two thirds majority in the Supreme Court. That's a coup. You have other people calling at the slightest whim for the impeachment of judges. There's an intimidation program going on with respect to judges to try to do the thing that I said you can't do unless you take the judges out of the equation. So I'm glad you're highlighting it because it's very, very important and very worrisome.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And I think the quick follow on I'd have to that and I'm curious what you think is that there's two pieces of kneecapping that third party, the judge. The one is, as you say, and we've seen this already with lawyers howling once they get out of court, that judge was unfair. She should be disbarred. I can't believe she talked to my lawyers that way. So there's that. And then, as you say, it scales up to the systemic. We want impeachments. We are naming judges. We're naming their clerks, really going after them. There's a second piece, Preet, that almost I think is more pernicious. And I feel like I think the judges are doing it to themselves. And that is sanctions. If you do not show up in my court when I summon you here, there must be sanctions. And we are not yet. Unless I'm missing something at the point where judge, in other words, judges, I think, again, I think this week was a watershed week where judges are mad and they're naming it and they're saying, you know, bring me the guy so I can test whether that declaration is true. This is in the case of Charge Ezell, but judges are not sanctioning yet. They are not fining yet. And I wonder if my sense of it, and I hope I'm wrong about this, is there is no chance that a judge is going to sanction a Justice Department lawyer because then they will have failed.

[Preet Bharara]

I don't know. I think, look, judges are human beings. In the class that I mentioned already that I teach at NYU Law School, we're going to talk about judges for the next three classes. And the most important point I make is that they're just people. They're largely successful lawyers. And then often as a capstone to their career, whether they're young or not, they become judges. But they're just human beings who are, we hope, acting in good faith and are better practitioners and wiser and have more discretion than the average lawyer. That's why they got elevated. And that's why they got vetted and passed the vet and got confirmed and look, and they're all different and some judges are more likely to sanction than other judges. I'd like to see one of these cases in front of Judge Rakoff from the district where I was U.S. attorney. I have watched him sanction people for lesser things. I think it may be the case that in politically fraught cases you want to use sanctions as a last resort, but I think it's just as good to just rule in favor of the party that is not acting in bad faith.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

More with Preet Bharara after a quick break. This show is brought to you by Blueland. You don't have time to research every single product that you use in your home and that's why you need Blueland's Eco eco friendly cleaning products. They're certified safe and clean by the EPA and they get the job done without you having to worry about the impact they'll have on your family. Blueland's refillable cleaning products are so easy to use. You fill your reusable bottles with water, drop in their tablets and wait for them to dissolve. Refills start at just $2.25 and right now I am absolutely loving their laundry tablets, which are so easy. One and done. Throw it in and they smell incredible. Blueland has a special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.comamicus. you won't want to miss this. Blueland.comamicus for 15% off. That's blueland.comamicus to get 15% off foreign this episode is brought to you by Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Choiceology is a show all about the psychology and economics behind our decisions. Each episode shares the latest research in behavioral science and dives into themes like can we learn to make smarter decisions? And the power of do overs. The show is hosted by Katie Milkman. She's an award winning behavioral scientist, professor at the Wharton School, and author of the best selling book how to Change. In each episode, Katie talks to authors, historians, athletes, Nobel laureates, and everyday people about why we make irrational choices and how we can make better ones to avoid costly mistakes. Listen and [e-mail] podcast or find it wherever you listen. And now more from our conversation with Preet Bharara. So Preet, I know you and Joyce talked about the Executive order specifically targeting Perkins Coie on your Insider podcast, but I really think this builds on what your very first answer to me which is the special role of lawyers and particularly in country, the right to have an attorney. And I would love for you to sort of build on the idea that, you know, we were all a little bit quiet in our profession when Covington was attacked the week before. And I, and I do think, you know, you have this foot in many, many worlds and I'd love for you to translate for us what it means in the most nuts and bolts visceral way when the president goes after a law firm.

[Preet Bharara]

Well, first let me use the high minded academic terms. It's just batshit crazy. Yes, it's so batshit crazy in the following sense, and maybe this is an indictment of lawyers and podcasters and lawyer podcasters alike, that even though it was broadcast and telegraphed and stated explicitly by the President when he was a candidate this time around, and by his minions, one of whom has now become the Director of the FBI, another of whom has now become the Attorney General of the United States, they said they're going to go after people. Right? And we all warned about that. I'm sure you talked about it. We talked about it. I'm not aware of anybody who predicted that that would include and it would be so insidious as to be applicable to not just the individuals who pissed them off, as far as I know, by the way, they have not gone after Mark Elias personally who was at his own law firm, the Elias Law Group. I think it's called for making them look like idiots and fools because he won basically every case challenging the 2020 election results.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And let's just clarify, Mark was at Perkins Coie. That's.

[Preet Bharara]

Well, I was about to get there. Nobody would have been shocked if there was some, you know, we might have criticized it. And there's a whole bushel of reasons why that would be problematic, but at least that was something that might have been anticipated. What was not anticipated? That part of the retribution and revenge tour would include a crazy, crippling, potentially executive order naming Mark Elias prior law firm by name and saying basically any client you have that has government contracts, the government agencies need to review and cancel those contracts. Perkins Coie lawyers whereby the way Mark Elias doesn't practice anymore and hasn't for a few years, you're not going to be conditionally barred from coming into government buildings. I guess we have Zoom these days, but you can't represent your clients properly unless you're able to go into various government buildings if you have a government facing practice. And so to move against a firm that has something like 1200 lawyers, 2400 or so employees, because you are angry at the results gotten by a former lawyer of that firm is crazy. And so that's sort of the particulars of why that's nuts. It's so nuts that nobody anticipates, at least I don't remember anybody anticipating that kind of a move, which shows that Trump and his people have more imagination for ill will and bad conduct. I don't think people on Wall street predicted these last couple of weeks. Tariffs today, no tariffs tomorrow. Tariffs today, no tariffs tomorrow. It's crazy time. And what it goes at to go to. I think what you were first getting at, we have a constitution, we have a code, a criminal code, we have a civil code, we have rules of evidence, we have all of that and we have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and we have Fifth Amendment right to due process, and we have a First Amendment right to expression and assembly and redress of grievances and all of that. But what you also have is a culture and a traditional that I think is as close to sacrosanct as various pieces of text in the Constitution that people are entitled to lawyers, they're entitled to lawyers of their choice, and that lawyers are not to be conflated with their clients. And that lawyers should be honored and the legal profession should be honored in the sense that even people accused of heinous crimes. The famous example of John Adams representing the redcoats is used so often it may be overused. But this understanding that lawyers are involved in a certain kind of enterprise that is separate and apart from taking up and embracing the views or approving of the conduct of their clients, that's a fundamental principle here that is under attack, which is more scary than all the other stuff. I think ultimately.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And can you talk for one quick minute? There were sort of five sections of the executive order. Only three came up at the hearing in Judge Howells court. But can you just briefly, you alluded to one which seemed to bar Perkins Coie lawyers from entering federal buildings, I guess, including courthouses. What were the three provisions that were challenged and what was the basis sort of the predicate that we're going to talk in a minute about Williams and Connolly defending Perkins Cooie. But what was the sort of constitutional challenge?

[Preet Bharara]

Yeah, so we should point out that the Perkins Coie firm has retained another preeminent law firm, Williamson Connolly, that filed a fairly lengthy and substantial and I think fairly powerful complaint on a number of grounds that I already mentioned this First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment. But its description of the punishment is as follows. One, terminating government contracts with firm clients, thereby driving away current and prospective clients. Two, denying all members and employees of the firm access to federal buildings and meetings or other engagement with federal employees and three, immediately suspending and possibly revoking security clearances for all firm employees. And the basis of that further to your question was broadly speaking, a claim by the administration that the firm represents and has represented a national security threat to the country for, among other things, having involvement in the commissioning of Fusion GPS and the creation of the Steele dossier, which has been discredited in a number of respects and which a lot of people don't like and they have good reason not to like. And they have bootstrapped that into a continuing and ongoing national security threat, obviously for the reason that that's where a president and administration has the widest legal and constitutional latitude to do whatever the hell they want. You know, that's essentially what the lawyer for the government in a very, very difficult case to make logically and on principle. Basically the argument is, and you tell me if there's more nuance to this that I'm not giving him credit for. You know, all these questions you ask, doesn't really matter. President says there's a national security problem, he can do anything he wants. That's where we're at.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Look, that's where we're at, you know, on the disappearing of a Columbia green card holder. Right. That's where we're at on the claim that we are now in some ex national security deportation moment. It's the claim that, you know, I mean, we just keep seeing that claim over and over again.

[Preet Bharara]

But the reason for it, right, Dalia, is it's the so called trump card.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Yes.

[Preet Bharara]

If you can legitimately say something is, you know, the example that I always heard when I worked in the Senate when there was a debate over, about over classification. That's when it makes the most sense because people will give, and rightly so, a lot of deference to, you know, good faith, actual national security concerns. 100%. Hey, we can't post the nuclear codes. That's a national security threat. Damn right it is. I don't care how far to the right or the left you are and how much of a pacifist you may be unless you live on a different planet and don't understand the English language or any kind of logic or self protection, you understand that. On the other hand, this is the example that I would hear often to keep classified what Dick Cheney had for lunch during the Iraq War That's a little more dubious. But those kinds of things and things that sound as silly as that were protected or brought under the umbrella and rubric of national security. And it's an easy and facile way to do it. And combined with the immunity decision from last year, that gives Donald Trump lots and lots of immunity. The combination of those two things, when wielded in bad faith and as retribution, as it is being done here in an outlandish way, is really a problem.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And we can pile up the TikTok ban. Right. National security. We can pile up tariffs to Canada, fentanyl crisis on the northern border. I mean, this is just. You're absolutely right. And I think that.

[Preet Bharara]

And when you oppose it, you can be painted as unpatriotic and hating your country because it's national security. What's your problem?

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And I think it's really important to say that judges who you said up top, and I think it's worth restating, are small c, conservative by nature and very, very manifestly aware that they are not national security experts. Right. I mean, there's a reason that there is massive deference because they don't purport to know whether something is in fact a national security threat. I want you to go back and.

[Preet Bharara]

There'S, there's a whole. I'm sorry, there's a whole special court.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Yes.

[Preet Bharara]

Called the FISA court. Right. Which is a concession that not every district court judge or appeals court judge in the country on the federal level, even though it's very difficult to get, you have to be appointed by the president. You have to be supported, generally speaking, by both state senators. You have to be confirmed by the Senate, generally speaking, judges are very, very good and very, very smart and very, very seasoned. But even then, in the field of FISA and FISA surveillance, there's a next culling and selection among that group of distinguished jurists to find people who are qualified to hear those national security matters.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

We are going to take a quick break. This show is sponsored by DeleteMe. DeleteMe makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete Me is a subscription service that removes your personal information and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Sign up and provide Deleteme with exactly what information you want deleted, and their experts take it from there. So if you're concerned about your personal information, check out DeleteMe. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by Signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for all our Amicus listeners today. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting amicus to 64,000. The only way to get 20% off is to text amicus to 64,000. That's amicus to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. This episode is brought to you by NetSuite. What does the future hold for business? Ask nine experts, you'll get 10 answers. Until then, over 41,000 businesses have future proofed their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP bringing accounting, financial management, inventory and HR into one fluid platform with one unified business management suite. There's one source of truth giving you the visibility and control you need to make quick decisions. With real time insights and forecasting, you're peering into the future with actionable data. When you're closing the books in days, not weeks, you're spending less time looking backwards and more time on what's next. Whether your company is earning millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you respond to immediate challenges and sees your biggest opportunities. Speaking of opportunity, download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning at netsuite.com amicus. The guide is free to you at net netsuite.com amicus netsuite.com amicus did you know the average person eats and drinks about a credit card's worth of plastic every week? Everyday products make their way into the water supply and generate microplastics that we end up ingesting. So Blueland set out to eliminate the need for single use plastic in the products that people reach for the most. Blueland's refillable cleaning products are incredibly easy to use. You fill up your adorable reusable bottles with water, you drop in little tablets and you wait for them to dissolve and refills start at $2.25. I've started using them. They smell amazing, but not strong. They're free from dyes and harsh chemicals. They don't make me cough. And my husband has gone completely wild for the dishwasher tablet. Blueland has a special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.comamicus. you won't want to miss this. Blueland.comamicus for 15% off. That's blueland.comamicus to get 15% off. And now more from our conversation with Prepara. Can we talk for a brief moment about what it signified that I think you're exactly Right, Preet? I think a lot of law firms were just kind of gut punched by Covington, gut punched again by Perkins, Couey, Williams, Connolly stepping in. There were 14 lawyers on that signature block. They were not shy about saying, like, we're all in. And I think it signifies something. And I actually think there was a really rather remarkable moment in that hearing on Wednesday where Judge Howell thanked them and was at pains to say, I have enormous respect for Williams and Connolly, enormous respect for them taking this case, when not every law firm would. Someone had to do this. And props to you for stepping up. That felt very consequential to me.

[Preet Bharara]

Look, law firms are not pro bono offices. Lots of firms do pro bono work. They are ongoing concerns. They are often in the case of Perkins Coie, as set forth in the complaint Billion Dollar Plus Enterprises, the whole case with respect to Perkins Coie and the basis on which the temporary restraining order was sought was largely based on the claim, very unrebutted, that this kind of executive order could be an existential threat to the firm. And they have hundreds, thousands of employees who need to make a living and bring food to the table and pay the bills. By the way, they're not all high flying, powerful lawyers who are partners in making lots and lots of money. There are paralegals, and there are junior associates, and there are schedulers, and there are secretaries and there are staff. There's all sorts of folks whose livelihood any business has to care about, whether you're a restaurant chain or you're a law firm. I think individual law firms have to make up their own minds about this. But it is a very, very tough position to be in when you're trying to do right by the law. But you're also trying to make sure that you don't unduly threaten and risk the livelihoods of thousands of people who work in your place of business. So I think it's just very tough.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Now, I want to ask you the big existential question. You can be my existential tooth fairy today. Because I think that what I'm seeing around the country.

[Preet Bharara]

Should I quote from Camus?

[Dahlia Lithwick]

I want you to.

[Preet Bharara]

The law died today. Or was it yesterday?

[Dahlia Lithwick]

That may be where we're headed, but I'm hearing a lot of people saying to me, like, I'm gonna just kind of lean back because the courts have got this and that turns, you know, lighting the Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh votive candle. And I think that we're in this funny paradox. It's a version of the law of politics paradox, which is we're too in love with the law as the fix here. And I just would love to ask you if we're at this moment that again, I've said it three times. I really think it's important that lawyers are saying, like, I'm in it. I'm gonna fight this. And we've got judges saying like, get out of here with your lying lies. But I just slightly wonder if we're training the public to believe too much that the courts alone are gonna solve this. And I wonder what the role is for a public that is. Oh my God, the popping popcorn emoji, like, that's been like since Mueller makes me crazy pretty. What are we doing about saying there's a lot of Runway beyond which law and the courts can't go? And how do we think about that in a moment when the law, I think, has surged into the breach?

[Preet Bharara]

Well, I'm going to give an answer partially that won't endear me to anyone. And that is there was a time for that and it was called the 2024 election. And I said repeatedly, as did others, that, you know, these cases involving Donald Trump and all sorts of other things are important and the rule of law is important. But there's a mass of people in the country who kind of looked at the legal process, whether it was the Manhattan DA's case or special counsel Jack Smith as a replacement for the ballot, that they were going to be, you know, mana from heaven and were going to be their saviors when that can only happen at the ballot box. And it failed at the ballot box. So this may not have been the way you intended the question to be interpreted by me, but the most, like all these things we talked at the beginning of this conversation about these lines and the lines don't matter if people don't observe them. They're not self executing. And you know what causes people to observe the freaking lines when the public insists on it. In other words, if the public freaks out that that a senator from their state who may be Republican doesn't exercise his or her constitutional authority in a co equal branch of government to do the right thing, then the law tends not to matter. Look, the second impeachment of Donald Trump was a legal proceeding. It was a constitutional legal proceeding. And there were rules that we talk about and there are precedents. And the fact that I believe truly, if there could have been a anonymous vote, Trump would have been removed from, you know, not allowed to return to office. Right. They fell a few votes short. So you can blame the senators if you want. I think there's an argument you got to look deeper. It seems to me that this is the great worry that your question presents. Even if the courts have this and they rule a certain way that's consistent with the rule of law and protective of American democracy and the interests that are at stake in that particular case, if the decision is ignored, we're in the shit. Well, if there is hell to pay for ignoring a judicial order, then it won't be ignored. If everyone's going to be thrown out of office, if there's going to be a landslide victory in the opposite direction, which is what I would think should happen. But I don't know. And that's why I'm worried about all these attacks on judges and the impeach, impeach and the throw them out. Let's adopt other kinds of limitations on the courts because I worry that some of that is either an intentional or unintentional testing of the waters to see, well, what would happen if a judge rules against us and we don't want to listen to it, if the public doesn't care, if the public's not going to turn people out of office, if senators are not getting mail, they're not getting phone calls about it, then it can be done, right? So I think I sort of answered your question. People have to pay attention. People can't tune out. People have to be involved and they have to make their anger known.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

I think I actually love what you just said, Preet, because you've upended my original construction. We walked into this conversation saying all of law is politics except when it's not. And I think what you're saying is, and you're making me think of the fact that confirmation hearings are quasi legal, quasi political actions. So as you said, the impeachment, so are these intensely political legal cases. They're both. And I think that the space in which the public has to really, really kind of get in the game is the reckoning with the fact that this is not I'll just sort of lay back and let Judge Alsop handle this. It is saying both as a sort of like marker of you have crossed a line that you've just described. But also as there is learned helplessness and asking the question, is this a constitutional crisis? I'm going to wait for a law professor to tell me, right, look, the.

[Preet Bharara]

Fields are empty this time around. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm not casting aspersions on hard working folks who have had enough. But the fields were full of protesters the first time out. You don't have that now. And I've heard you're not the first person who has used the term learned helplessness and that we've got to worry about. Look, you know, Lincoln said, and Nancy Pelosi, as a modern politician, cited it all the time. With public sentiment, anything is possible. Without it, nothing is possible. Well, that goes gangbusters for these issues, too. The reason why these Republican senators are so craven is because they know that the opposite reaction will happen, that the people in their district will rise up if they take a position contrary to Trump. That's why Liz Cheney lost by like 4 billion votes, even though there were not 4 billion people in her district. And so you can blame Trump, right? You can blame the member. But the power imbalance was that more voting humans were prepared to throw out someone like Liz Cheney than keep Liz Cheney in for the sin of pointing out honorably the legal, moral and constitutional failings of the sitting President of the United States. And so long as that continues to be the case, were in trouble.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Preet Bharara is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He served from 2009 to 2017. Before that, he was chief counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer. He's a distinguished scholar in residence and adjunct professor of law at NYU School of Law. He also wrote the amazing New York Times bestseller Doing Justice A Prosecutor's Thoughts on Crime, Punishment, and the Rule of Law. Please catch him on his podcast. Stay tuned with Preet and also Cafe Ins on the Vox Media Podcast Network. Preet, always a joy to talk to you and thank you for being here.

[Preet Bharara]

Thank you so much.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And that is all for this episode. Thank you so much for listening and thank you so much for your letters and your questions and your thoughts and comments. You can keep in [e-mail] or you can find [e-mail] AMICUSpodcast do not miss our bonus bonus episode for Slate plus members. I'm joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia, the Supreme Court granting cert in a case about conversion therapy, and about Trump administration officials openly defying district court orders. You can subscribe to Slate plus directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or you can visit slate.com to get access wherever you listen. That episode is available for you to listen to right now. We'll see you there. Sarah Burningham is Amicus's senior producer. Our producer is Patrick Fort. Hilary Fry is Slate's editor in chief, Susan Matthews is executive editor and Ben Richmond is our senior Director of operations. We will be back with another episode of Amicus next week.

[Leon Nayfak]

I'm Leon Nayfak and I'm the host of Slow Burn. Watergate. Before I started working on this show, everything I knew about Watergate came from the movie all the President's Men. Do you remember how it ended? Woodward and Bernstein are sitting at their typewriters clacking away. And then there's this rapid montage of newspaper stories about campaign aides and White House officials getting convicted of crimes. About audio tapes coming out that prove Nixon's involvement in the COVID up. The last story we see is Nixon resigns. It takes a little over a minute in a movie. In real life, it took about two years.

[Preet Bharara]

Five men were arrested early Saturday while.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Trying to to install eavesdropping equipment.

[Preet Bharara]

It's known as the Watergate Incident.

[Leon Nayfak]

What was it like to experience those two years in real time? What were people thinking and feeling as the break in at Democratic Party headquarters went from a weird little caper to a constitutional crisis that brought down the President? The downfall of Richard Nixon was stranger, wilder, and more exciting than you can imagine. Over the course of eight episodes, this show is going to capture what it was like to live through the greatest political scandals of the 20th century. With today's headlines once again full of corruption, collusion and dirty tricks, it's time for another look at the gate that started it all. Subscribe to Slow Burn now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Preet Bharara]

Hi, I'm Josh Levine. My podcast, the Queen tells the story of Linda Taylor. She was a con artist, a kidnapper, and maybe even a murderer. She was also given the title the Welfare Queen and her story was used by Ronald Reagan to justify slashing aid to the poor. Now it's time to hear her real story. Over the course of four episodes, you'll find out what was done to Linda Taylor, what she did to others, and what was done in her name. The great lesson of this for me.

[Leon Nayfak]

Is that people will come to their.

[Preet Bharara]

Own conclusions based on what their preference prejudices are. Subscribe to the Queen on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening right now.