Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Our All-Star SCOTUS End-of-Term Breakfast Table

Released on July 2, 2025, by Slate Podcasts

In the episode titled "Our All-Star SCOTUS End-of-Term Breakfast Table," hosted by Dahlia Lithwick, the discussion centers around the recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as the court concludes its term. Featuring esteemed guests Sherilyn Ifill, Jamelle Bouie, and Professor Steve Vladek, the panel delves into the implications of the court's rulings, the dynamics within the conservative majority, and the broader impact on the American legal landscape.

1. Overview of the Supreme Court's Recent Term

The term, which ended on June 27, was marked by five significant decisions and one case poised for reargument in the upcoming fall. The panel emphasizes the importance of "listening to the beats between the notes" to fully grasp the court's actions over the past months. This involves scrutinizing the emergency docket and interpreting the nuances within the written opinions.

Sherilyn Ifill (02:16):
"SCOTUS likes to pride itself on showing its work, and we in the press are very well trained to report on what is visible. But this year, what we don't see happening on stage is sometimes the real story."

2. Analysis of Key Cases

a. Trump v. Casa (00:00 - 07:17)

A focal point of the discussion is the case Trump v. Casa, which became a symbol of the court's approach to executive power and its stance on lower courts. The decision, while not adjudicating the merits of birthright citizenship, underscored the court's willingness to reshape the relationship between the Supreme Court and federal district courts.

Steve Vladek (04:35):
"The Supreme Court is claiming all this power and then not actually exercising it."

Sherilyn Ifill (07:17):
"Did we know that the Supreme Court was, like, this hostile to district courts, let's say, five or 10 years ago? Something has happened that has amped this up to the highest levels?"

b. Planned Parenthood v. Medina (37:51)

The court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Medina was criticized for undermining the Medicaid statute, effectively allowing states to defund qualified providers like Planned Parenthood without recourse for patients seeking care.

Dahlia Lithwick (37:18):
"They had to allow states to defund these providers, which is an attack on civil rights laws enacted after the Civil War to protect individual rights."

c. Mahmoud v. Taylor and Scrametti v. United States (39:46 - 50:49)

These cases epitomize the court's engagement in culture war issues, such as the rights of parents to control their children's exposure to LGBTQ content in schools and bans on gender-affirming care for minors. The panel highlights the court's selective use of history and its influence on modern jurisprudence.

Jamelle Bouie (39:46):
"The majority is using history in a malleable way, deploying it towards narrow and particular ends."

Dahlia Lithwick (47:45):
"This court is determining a fearsome path where public education as a public good is being eroded by allowing individual objections to dictate curricular content."

3. The Conservative Majority's Judicial Approach

The panel critiques the SCOTUS conservative majority for what they perceive as an overreach of judicial power, sidelining lower courts, and selectively interpreting historical contexts to justify decisions that align with their ideological stance.

Steve Vladek (10:52):
"The majority is invested in preserving its power, especially in contexts where it can rein in the powers of other institutions."

Dahlia Lithwick (16:11):
"These justices are no longer judging. They are creating an infrastructure that allows them to freestyle decisions based on their will, which is an attack on the legal system itself."

4. Impact on Lower Courts and District Judges

A significant concern raised is the Supreme Court's diminishing regard for the authority of federal district courts, leading to a precarious balance within the judiciary. The panel discusses the danger this poses to the rule of law and the safety of judges.

Sherilyn Ifill (19:28):
"Threats against district court judges are about as serious as it gets, and the court's approach is dangerously cavalier regarding their safety and the integrity of the legal system."

Jamelle Bouie (46:23):
"The court's diminishing respect for lower courts undermines public faith in the judiciary as an institution."

5. Use and Misuse of Historical Context in Judicial Opinions

The discussion delves into how the conservative majority employs historical analysis in their rulings, often favoring a narrow interpretation that supports their judicial philosophy while disregarding broader historical narratives.

Jamelle Bouie (22:29):
"The majority's use of history is narrowly focused on influential figures and institutions, ignoring the broader societal perspectives that offer a more comprehensive understanding of constitutional issues."

Dahlia Lithwick (26:01):
"This selective use of history allows the court to reconstruct past events to fit their desired outcomes, rather than impartially uncovering historical truths."

6. Implications for Democracy and the Legal System

The panel expresses deep concern over the Supreme Court's trajectory, suggesting that the court's actions are steering the nation away from democratic principles by enabling unchecked executive power and eroding the checks and balances that are fundamental to American governance.

Jamelle Bouie (54:13):
"The court's refusal to engage in balanced judicial decision-making threatens democratic decision-making and undermines public institutions."

Steve Vladek (56:09):
"By consistently giving ground to unchecked executive actions, the court facilitates a dangerous concentration of power that could lead to the erosion of democratic norms."

7. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

As the term concludes, the panel underscores the precarious state of the judiciary, with the conservative majority pushing boundaries that may have long-term detrimental effects on the legal system and democratic institutions. They call for vigilance in maintaining the integrity of judicial processes and the protection of lower court authorities.

Dahlia Lithwick (52:27):
"Trump knows exactly how far he can go, and the court is facilitating that by allowing his agenda to proceed without substantial challenges."

Jamelle Bouie (58:51):
"The court's inaction in the face of escalating executive overreach is allowing a cascade of power consolidation that threatens the very foundations of our democracy."

Notable Quotes:

• Dahlia Lithwick (02:16):
  "SCOTUS likes to pride itself on showing its work, and we in the press are very well trained to report on what is visible. But this year, what we don't see happening on stage is sometimes the real story."

• Steve Vladek (04:35):
  "The Supreme Court is claiming all this power and then not actually exercising it."

• Sherilyn Ifill (07:17):
  "Did we know that the Supreme Court was, like, this hostile to district courts, let's say, five or 10 years ago? Something has happened that has amped this up to the highest levels?"

• Jamelle Bouie (22:29):
  "The majority's use of history is narrowly focused on influential figures and institutions, ignoring the broader societal perspectives that offer a more comprehensive understanding of constitutional issues."

• Dahlia Lithwick (16:11):
  "These justices are no longer judging. They are creating an infrastructure that allows them to freestyle decisions based on their will, which is an attack on the legal system itself."

This comprehensive discussion highlights the burgeoning tensions within the U.S. judicial system, emphasizing the need for continued scrutiny and advocacy to preserve the foundational principles of law and democracy.