Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Episode: “No Right Is Safe”
Release Date: June 28, 2025

Hosted by Dalia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, this episode of Amicus delves into the tumultuous conclusion of the October 2024 Supreme Court term. The hosts dissect a series of landmark decisions that signify a profound shift in American jurisprudence, highlighting concerns about the erosion of democratic pillars and the expansion of executive power.

1. Supreme Court Term Overview

Dalia Lithwick opens the episode by setting the stage for a Supreme Court term marked by significant decisions that challenge established constitutional norms. She remarks:

"The October 2024 term has seen a slow but unrelenting erosion of so many of the pillars of American democracy..." [01:35]

Mark Joseph Stern concurs, emphasizing the chilling impact of the court's actions on government regulatory power and judicial precedent.

2. Birthright Citizenship Nationwide Injunctions Case

The centerpiece of the episode is the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump Vacasa case concerning birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions. Dalia notes the unexpected severity of the ruling:

"It's hard to overstate how disastrous this really is." [03:56]

Mark provides historical context, explaining how the Supreme Court's recent stance contrasts sharply with its previous inaction during Biden's administration:

"For four years, key elements of Biden's agenda were halted nationwide by these judges, and the Supreme Court not only refused to step in..." [05:42]

Despite indications that the court might uphold the 14th Amendment's protections, Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, rejecting nationwide injunctions and prioritizing executive authority over broad judicial remedies. Mark interprets this as a strategic move to empower then-President Trump, suggesting:

"The majority is made up of six justices who just think that Republican presidents have a greater claim to legitimacy..." [05:42]

Dalia and Mark express deep concern over the practical implications, including the burden placed on individual plaintiffs to seek legal remedies without broader judicial support.

3. Dissents and Judicial Rhetoric

The episode explores the fierce dissents from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who view the decision as an existential threat to the rule of law. Dalia highlights the stark contrast in judicial tones:

"We both see this as an utter, unmitigated disaster." [16:08]

Justice Jackson's dissent warns of a "collective demise," while Sotomayor accuses the majority of enabling "Trump's lawlessness." The hosts discuss the personal animosity evident in the majority opinion, noting:

"Justice Barrett says, Justice Jackson, you're not even worth seriously engaging with." [16:08]

4. Mahmoud v. Taylor: Parental Rights and Public Education

Another significant case discussed is Mahmoud v. Taylor, which grants parents the right to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books in public schools. Dalia outlines the implications:

"The kids have to stand up and walk out and wait in the hallway while the teacher reads Uncle Bobby's Wedding." [29:02]

Mark condemns the decision as "bigoted and deeply homophobic," arguing that it undermines public education's foundational goals. He emphasizes the harmful message it sends to LGBTQ children and their families:

"It is a vile opinion and a vile holding, and it is going to harm many, many, many, many children..." [34:34]

5. Other Landmark Decisions

The hosts briefly touch upon additional rulings, including:

• Medicaid and Planned Parenthood: The Supreme Court's decision restricts Medicaid patients' ability to sue for choosing their healthcare providers, posing a severe threat to access for lower-income and minority groups.

• Texas Age Verification Law: Upheld by the court, this law lowers the bar for restricting online speech intended to protect children, thereby eroding First Amendment protections [47:12].

• Voting Rights Act: Postponed decisions could signal further dismantling of voting protections, reinforcing fears of an "imperial Supreme Court" [50:40].

6. Implications and Future Outlook

Dalia and Mark reflect on the broader implications of the court's decisions, expressing concern over the concentration of power within the judiciary and executive branches. They warn of a "monarchical presidency" supported by an "imperial court," leaving Congress and lower courts powerless to counteract unilateral executive actions [51:27].

Mark summarizes the dire landscape:

"Whatever little flashes of independence and integrity that we got earlier in the term... were a mirage." [51:27]

7. Final Thoughts and Call to Action

As the episode concludes, Dalia urges listeners to engage in meaningful discussions about the erosion of constitutional rights and the importance of defending democratic institutions. She emphasizes the need for collective action to protect civil liberties against judicial and executive overreach [55:16].

Notable Quotes:

• “... the Supreme Court does not believe that district courts have meaningful authority to protect the entire nation from Trump's lawless extremes...” — Mark Joseph Stern [24:08]

• “Today, the court constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices.” — Mark Joseph Stern [33:45]

• “This is the end of democracy as we know it.” — Justice Jackson, as interpreted by Mark Joseph Stern [16:08]

Conclusion:

This episode of Amicus paints a sobering picture of the current Supreme Court's trajectory, highlighting a series of decisions that undermine foundational democratic principles and expand executive power. Dalia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern call for heightened awareness and proactive measures to safeguard constitutional rights in the face of mounting judicial overreach.