Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick: Sneak Preview - The Supreme Court's Worst Move Since Trump Returned to Office

Release Date: June 24, 2025
Host: Dalia Lithwick
Co-Host: Mark Joseph Stern
Podcast: Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick by Slate Podcasts

Introduction to a Historic Supreme Court Decision

In the latest episode of Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick, host Dalia Lithwick and co-host Mark Joseph Stern delve into a monumental Supreme Court decision that has sent shockwaves through the legal landscape. Titled “The Supreme Court's Worst Move Since Trump Returned to Office,” the episode dissects the Court’s recent ruling in the case of DHS v. DVD.

Background of DHS v. DVD

[00:08] Dalia Lithwick:
"This term is like no other. And a shadow docket decision that came down on Monday without fanfare, without information about who even voted in the majority, and without any reasoning was a decision like no other."

The episode begins by setting the stage for the DHS v. DVD case, highlighting its unprecedented nature within the Supreme Court's shadow docket—a process typically reserved for expedited decisions without detailed explanations.

[01:50] Mark Joseph Stern:
"So the Trump administration was trying to deport migrants to so-called third countries, which are places where the migrant has never lived, often has never stepped foot in... violent countries where they are likely to face personal violence, torture and death, including South Sudan and Libya."

Mark explains that the Trump administration's strategy involved deporting migrants to dangerous third countries without notifying them or allowing objections, effectively bypassing due process protections.

District Court’s Response

[02:41] Mark Joseph Stern:
"Judge Murphy issued an injunction that required just some basic due process protections for these migrants who face deportation to third countries... It would simply ensure that migrants had due process rights to say it is illegal for you to send us to this country where we've never been and where we may well be tortured and killed."

District Judge Brian Murphy countered the administration's actions by mandating transparency and the opportunity for migrants to contest their deportation to potentially perilous locations.

Supreme Court's Per Curiam Decision

[03:24] Dalia Lithwick:
"Can you tell us what reasons the Supreme Court, in this per curiam opinion, gave for halting Judge Murphy's injunction...?"

The Supreme Court's response was swift and enigmatic. In a per curiam decision, they lifted Judge Murphy’s injunction without providing any rationale or revealing the majority's composition.

[03:46] Mark Joseph Stern:
"The Supreme Court gave no reasons whatsoever... we don't know exactly who joined the majority because this is a shadow docket decision."

This lack of transparency has left legal experts and the public speculating about the motivations and alignments of the justices involved.

Implications of the Decision

[05:26] Mark Joseph Stern:
"First, this order by the Supreme Court strips migrants of their due process rights almost entirely... Second, this decision effectively nullifies the Convention Against Torture... The Supreme Court has just ensured that the Trump administration can define those obligations freely, without consequence."

The decision fundamentally undermines established legal protections, including the Convention Against Torture, allowing the administration unprecedented leeway in deportations without accountability.

Broader Consequences and Court’s Role

[07:22] Dalia Lithwick:
"It's opinion season, and we have an entire apparatus of how we handle big merits decisions in June... But the real action happening this term... happens on the shadow docket where the court doesn't even bother to explain itself."

Dalia emphasizes the concerning trend of the Supreme Court making significant rulings via the shadow docket, bypassing the thorough deliberative process typically associated with major cases.

[08:47] Mark Joseph Stern:
"In the shadow docket cases, the court does not have to do real law and often doesn't... the conservative justices just seem to think that all these factors permanently flow to the president and in favor of the executive branch."

Mark critiques the Court's approach on the shadow docket, suggesting a systemic bias that favors executive over legislative or individual protections, further eroding checks and balances.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

The episode concludes with a sobering reflection on the Supreme Court's recent actions, underscoring the urgent need for transparency and accountability. Dalia and Mark highlight the potential long-term repercussions of the Court’s shadow docket decisions on the balance of power and civil liberties in the United States.

[10:15] Dalia Lithwick:
"Get to the place where the shadow docket is deciding questions that the Trump administration deems an emergency... We will be back with your regularly scheduled Amicus episode on Saturday morning. Until then, take good care."

Key Takeaways

• Shadow Docket Usage: The Supreme Court's increased reliance on the shadow docket allows for swift, yet opaque, decision-making processes.

• Erosion of Due Process: The DHS v. DVD ruling significantly diminishes migrants' legal protections against deportation to dangerous countries.

• Undermining International Obligations: By nullifying the Convention Against Torture, the ruling compromises international human rights commitments.

• Concerns Over Judicial Transparency: The lack of reasoning and undisclosed majority opinions on the shadow docket raises accountability issues within the judiciary.

This episode of Amicus serves as a critical examination of a pivotal Supreme Court decision, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of its legal ramifications and the broader implications for justice and the rule of law in America.