Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts

Episode: "Renee Good and Trump’s Age of Immunity"

Date: January 10, 2026
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Co-host: Mark Joseph Stern
Guests: Brian Finucan, former attorney advisor, Office of Legal Advisor, U.S. State Department

Episode Overview

This episode explores the chilling legal and political developments under President Trump’s second administration, focusing on the extrajudicial killing of Renee Nicole Good by a masked ICE agent in Minnesota and the U.S. military invasion of Venezuela to arrest its head of state. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern dissect the shifting boundaries of presidential power—especially the notion of presidential and agent immunity—while former State Department legal advisor Brian Finucan adds depth on the domestic and international legal chaos surrounding these events. The hosts grapple with how the law, legal accountability, and even social conscience are contorted by an increasingly autocratic executive.

Main Discussion Themes

• Expanding Claims of Executive Immunity and Power
• Erosion of Legal Accountability and Due Process
• Immediate Events: Killing of Renee Nicole Good; U.S. Invasion of Venezuela
• State vs. Federal Jurisdiction in Law Enforcement Violence
• Congressional and Judicial Responses (or lack thereof)
• The Decline of International Law in American Foreign Policy
• Societal and Historical Lessons on Power and Violence
• Weaponization of Law and the Peril to Liberal Democracy

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Killing of Renee Nicole Good (00:16–12:13)

• The episode opens with a grave recounting of two recent events—a U.S. military invasion of Venezuela and the killing of Renee Nicole Good, an unarmed Minnesota mother, by masked ICE agents.
• On the killing: The hosts describe the brutality and the subsequent federal cover-up, where bystanders tried to help but were blocked and state authorities’ investigations were immediately stymied.

Quote (Lithwick, 00:57):

“Both of these two things reflect a new, emboldened Trump administration that declares you guilty, destroys your life, and then tells people that what they saw with their own eyes never happened.”

• Trump’s claim: He told the New York Times his only limit as president is his conscience.

2. Legal Recourse for State and Local Prosecutors (05:05–07:14)

• Stern explains that while the Trump-controlled DOJ won’t prosecute, Minnesota state law may provide a narrow avenue for justice, despite federal attempts to block evidence and witnesses.
• The shooter can try to move the trial to federal court, but state charges can persist.

Quote (Stern, 05:05):

“The federal courts have given federal agents some immunity under the supremacy clause of the Constitution... But that immunity only applies when their actions were authorized under federal law and... necessary and proper. So when an officer violates federal law or acts unreasonably, unconstitutionally, unlawfully when carrying out their duties, they can face state charges. And in the past, they have.”

• Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty is reportedly pushing to convene a grand jury.

3. Trump’s Limitless Notion of Presidential Power (09:37–12:13)

• The hosts note Trump and allies’ repeated claims that his executive power has no boundaries—over domestic or foreign policy.
• The hosts contrast technical Supreme Court language (about "outer" and "inner perimeters" of immunity) with the gruesome physical reality of unchecked power.

Quote (Lithwick, 09:37):

“We are sitting in a moment in which we are hearing... the president can deport, he can bomb, he can arrest, he can enter into sovereign nations and take over Greenland. He can do whatever he wants.”

4. Skepticism About Legal Accountability (12:13–18:00)

• Stern argues that Trump’s legal advisers know their statements are false, but are pushing the law’s boundaries far beyond Nixon-era precedent.
• Judge Boasberg’s attempt to block deportations was rebuffed by the administration, citing the “mandate of the electorate,” and Congress is now trying to impeach him as retaliation.
• The “rule for the ages” crafted by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision culminates, the hosts argue, in bloodshed and loss of democratic norms.

Quote (Stern, 12:13):

“There will always be a limit to the legal argument that we present here. And we have to push back on a deeper, broader level and say in this country, no one, nobody can ever claim that they have some kind of freestanding authority to murder because they happen to be elected by the American people.”

5. The Universal Threat of Executive Violence (18:00–22:37)

• The conversation shifts to societal lessons: once a president can designate anyone an “enemy,” no one is safe, regardless of social status or background.
• The dangerous error is to assume state violence “can’t happen to me.”

Quote (Lithwick, 18:00):

“If the president can do this, the president can do it to me.”

• Stern expresses despair: "It's a lesson we have to keep learning over and over again somehow, right?” (20:16)

6. Collective Reality and Tribalization (22:37–23:26)

• Discussing Molly Olmsted’s work, the hosts note that society didn’t even need “deepfakes”—people already believe the version of events their political tribe offers, regardless of video evidence.

7. U.S. Invasion of Venezuela: Legality and Precedent (23:26–46:32)

Segment start: 23:26. Guest: Brian Finucan.

• Trump ordered the military invasion of Venezuela (“Don Row Doctrine” or “Access Hollywood Foreign Policy”) to apprehend Nicolas Maduro and his wife, without congressional consent or respect for international law (23:26).
• The episode draws parallels to earlier unauthorized interventions (e.g., Panama, 1989).

International Law Analysis (26:16–29:24)

• Under Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, the use or threat of force is broadly prohibited, except for explicit, narrow exceptions (e.g., UN Security Council approval, self-defense).
• The U.S. ambassador to the UN didn’t even attempt a legal defense, instead framing it merely as a law enforcement action.

Finucan:

“It was a flagrant violation of international law. Specifically, Article 2. 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits both the use of force and the threat of the use of force.” (26:40)

Domestic Law and the Constitution (29:24–36:51)

• The Office of Legal Counsel’s William Barr (Panama, 1989) had argued that the President could override Article 2.4. Finucan dismantles this, noting the president has a constitutional duty (Take Care Clause) to abide by treaties.
• The Constitution vests war powers in Congress. Trump, like past presidents, ignores this, but “originalists” embrace a living constitutional approach here.

Finucan:

“The framers...made it hard to go to war. They required the collective decision making and deliberation of the people's elected representatives. They were not going to leave one of the most consequential decisions...to the whims of one man." (33:44)

The War Powers Resolution and Congressional Response (37:03–46:32)

• The War Powers Resolution was enacted to constrain the unilateral use of force but Congress’ will remains weak.
• The Senate passes a new war powers resolution (44:02)—a rare bipartisan signal of disapproval.
• Trump proposes ballooning the military budget for further interventions (45:22), testing Congress’ leverage over fund appropriations.

8. "If You’re Famous, They Let You Do It" Foreign Policy (46:32–54:08)

• The administration's approach to Venezuela is brazenly transactional—taking oil as war booty, justifying interventions through spurious or self-serving rationales.
• Finucan details reports that U.S. will siphon Venezuelan oil revenues into offshore accounts, an action that is “illegal both as a matter of international law and...U.S. Law.” (47:27)

9. Machismo, Tribalism, and the Collapse of Law (49:44–59:09)

• Right-wing commentators mock or dismiss international law as “fake and gay” (Matt Walsh). Finucan notes that “this is not strength. This is childishness...This is not a law imposed upon the United States by someone else. This is the United States's own creation.” (52:19)
• The administration weaponizes gender, sexuality, and cultural signifiers to vilify victims (e.g., focusing on Renee Goode’s pronouns and family in far-right media), broadening the list of those labeled as “domestic terrorists” and therefore as fair targets for violence.

10. Weaponization of Law and the Limits of Legal Redress (55:45–59:58)

• Finucan and Stern warn that law is now a tool of executive retribution, used against enemies and ignored for friends.
• The burden falls on Congress and the people to resist:
  Finucan:

“The law is not constraining on this administration, at least in their view, but it is a tool to be weaponized against perceived opponents...The American public doesn’t have to accept that...If you think that we should live in a society ruled by law...you should let your elected representatives know.” (59:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Trump’s View of Power:
  “Donald Trump told the New York Times this week that the sole limit on the scope of his own executive authority was his conscience.” (00:57)
• Legal Realism:
  “There will always be a limit to the legal argument...And we have to push back on a deeper, broader level and say in this country, no one...can ever claim that they have some kind of freestanding authority to murder because they happen to be elected by the American people.” – Stern (12:13)
• On International Law:
  “This is not a law imposed upon the United States by someone else. This is the United States’s own creation. We agreed to these rules for very good reason.” – Finucan (52:19)
• Societal Complacency:
  “What makes me despair is that of course...everything you just said is correct, but it’s a lesson that we have to keep learning over and over again somehow, right?” – Stern (20:16)
• On the Weaponization of Law:
  “For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law...” – Finucan (59:09)

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:16–03:47: Introduction; events in Minnesota and Venezuela; set-up of the show’s legal questions
• 05:05–07:14: State prosecutor’s options; the limits of federal immunity
• 12:13–18:00: Legal logic versus extralegal authoritarianism; the Supreme Court’s role
• 18:00–23:26: Societal lessons, category errors, "First They Came" poem, and tribal politics
• 23:26–46:32: Interview with Brian Finucan on Venezuela, international/domestic law, and congressional powers
• 46:32–54:08: The Trump “take the oil” plan and the "Access Hollywood Foreign Policy"
• 49:44–53:09: Masculinity, performativity, and the right-wing’s disdain for international law
• 54:39–59:58: Parallels between foreign killings and domestic law enforcement violence; weaponization of legal definitions

Tone and Style

The hosts speak with urgency, despair, and grim humor, maintaining clarity while conveying the weight of each event. Mark Joseph Stern frequently adds emotional resonance, challenging listeners to push past legal technicalities toward larger truths about power and citizenship.

Summary

This episode of Amicus dissects the unprecedented expansion of executive power and the corresponding collapse of accountability—legally, politically, and morally—in the Trump administration’s latest violent domestic and international actions. The murder of Renee Nicole Good, the invasion of Venezuela, and the weaponization of "terrorism" labels illustrate how the presidency and its agents are, under current doctrine and practice, operating above the law—rendering redress nearly impossible except through public outcry and Congressional action. The discussions with legal experts stress how treaties, the Constitution, and international norms are brushed aside in favor of performative strength and tribal identity politics. The chilling core message: no one is safe when law is whatever the president says it is, and all the more reason for citizens and Congress to assert their constitutional roles before the rule of law vanishes entirely.