Podcast Summary: “Sneak Preview: Unanimous Opinions Out Front, Desperate Dealmaking Out Back”

Podcast: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Slate Podcasts
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern
Date: June 5, 2025

Episode Overview

In this Opinion Palooza special episode, Dahlia Lithwick and legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern break down a busy Supreme Court Thursday, where six late-spring opinions were handed down. Despite dealing with hot-button topics—such as reverse discrimination, religious liberty, and guns—the Court offered unusually narrow, unanimous, or near-unanimous opinions. Dahlia and Mark analyze the cases, the significance of consensus, and the subtle moves by the liberal justices to shore up progressive precedent amidst a conservative-leaning Court.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Ames v. Ohio Youth Department – Reverse Discrimination & Burden of Proof

• Case Summary:
  Concerns the standard for “reverse discrimination” claims by majority-group individuals alleging workplace discrimination (e.g., a straight woman claiming anti-straight discrimination).

• Supreme Court’s Ruling:
  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that majority-group plaintiffs do not face a heightened pleading requirement to bring discrimination suits under Title VII. The decision overturns the Sixth Circuit’s increased standard for majority-group litigants.

• Significant Analysis:

  • Mark Joseph Stern:

    • [01:30] “Justice Jackson said, nope, that is not the rule that appears nowhere in the text of Title 7. … No matter who you are, whether you’re white or Black, man or woman, straight or gay, you do not have a special heightened burden … to bring a claim of unlawful workplace discrimination.”
    • [02:41] “Title VII protects individuals. It doesn’t protect groups. … For the 6th Circuit to require a special burden of proof for people who happen to be part of a majority group … it just violates the text of Title VII.”

  • Stern also notes the importance of reaffirming Bostock v. Clayton County — the 2020 decision protecting LGBTQ+ workers:

    • [03:50] “Justice Jackson cites it [Bostock] twice ... as if to remind the lower courts … this decision is on the books. It is correct. It is not an outlier.”

  • Dahlia Lithwick’s Skepticism:

    • [04:27] “The notion that Justice Jackson saying, like, don't let Bostock drift away while we're all sort of shivering under the shadow of Skremetti … just feels a little too hopium for me. But I hope I'm wrong.”

  • Nuance in Application:

    • [05:24] Stern reminds listeners that this is a technical adjustment: lowering the burden does not mean the plaintiff wins:
      “She may well still lose, and a jury could find … there was no cabal of gays. She was just not super good at her job. … Don't let that ickiness of these facts get in the way of a fair assessment of the law.”

2. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin – Tax Exemptions & Religious Neutrality

• Case Summary:
  Explores whether Catholic Charities should qualify for a state tax exemption when its charitable works are open to all, not just co-religionists.

• Supreme Court’s Ruling:
  Justice Sotomayor penned a unanimous opinion holding that Wisconsin cannot deny a tax break simply because Catholic Charities’ services aren’t restricted to Catholics or don’t include direct proselytization.

• Significant Analysis:

  • Mark Joseph Stern:

    • [06:35] Summarizes the Court’s logic:
      “What [Wisconsin’s] approach does is essentially discriminate against religions that provide charities that aren’t infused with … religious faith and doctrine and proselytization … and favors religions that do.”

    • [07:45] Highlights the broader constitutional reasoning:
      “She [Sotomayor] holds that under both the free exercise clause … and the establishment clause … it would violate the establishment clause for a state to essentially favor certain faiths … because of how they happen to practice and exercise their faith.”

  • Dahlia Lithwick’s Concern:

    • [09:08] “It does feel like, in the larger sense, it's a continuation of a pretty dangerous trend. … Again, I find myself wondering … how is this good when the Court's liberal wing joins … and gets some good dicta in there? But the trend line is pretty clear.”

  • Stern sees a silver lining:

    • [10:01] “The way that Justice Sotomayor wrote this opinion really does breathe life into that floppy fish of the Establishment Clause. … She gets the whole Court to sign on to that.”

• Memorable Quotes:

  • [08:15] Stern: “We shouldn’t have states picking winners and losers of certain programs and exemptions because of how they happen to practice and exercise their faith.”

  • [10:53] Stern: “… at least the Court acknowledged that this key provision of the Constitution still exists and hasn’t been written out by judicial fiat.”

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• Dahlia Lithwick:

  • [00:10] “On Thursday morning, the high court did a whole bunch of very late spring docket cleaning, churning out six decisions … opinions were … kind of humble and minimalist.”

• Mark Joseph Stern:

  • [01:30] (on Ames v. Ohio Youth Department)
    “Justice Jackson said, nope, that is not the rule … No matter who you are … you do not have a special heightened burden … to bring a claim of unlawful workplace discrimination.”
  • [03:50] (on Bostock precedent)
    “Justice Jackson cites it twice … as if to remind the lower courts in the country, yes, this decision is on the books.”
  • [08:15] (on religious charities)
    “We shouldn't have states picking winners and losers of certain programs … because of how they happen to practice and exercise their faith.”
  • [10:53] (on Establishment Clause)
    “At least the Court acknowledged that this key provision of the Constitution still exists and hasn't been written out by judicial fiat.”

Structure of the Episode with Timestamps

• [00:10] – Intro and Context
  • Dahlia frames the day’s Supreme Court opinions: “Opinion Palooza” with a rare streak of unanimity on hot-button issues.
• [01:06] – Ames v. Ohio Youth Department Dissection
  • Dahlia and Mark dissect the impact and narrowness of Justice Jackson’s opinion.
• [06:15] – Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin
  • Analysis of another unanimous opinion, this time on religious charities and tax exemptions.
• [09:08] – Broader Trends and Cautions
  • Dahlia expresses concern about the direction of religious liberty cases delivering wins to those seeking exemptions from government programs.
• [10:01] – Breathing Life Into the Establishment Clause
  • Mark notes the rare affirmation of the Establishment Clause by the full Court.
• [11:15] – Closing Exchanges
  • Signature Amicus wit as Dahlia and Mark joke about optimism and “Lucy and the football,” referencing perennial progressive hopefulness.

Tone and Style

• The conversation maintains Amicus’s characteristically sharp, analytical, and slightly wry tone. Dahlia’s skepticism and Mark’s cautious optimism (“I’m huffing hopium”) set up a lively back-and-forth, grounded in progressive, legally literate analysis but keenly aware of the broader trends on the Supreme Court.

Summary: Key Takeaways

• Even in a highly polarized era, the Supreme Court can form unanimous decisions—though often via narrow, technical rulings leaving big questions unresolved.
• Ames v. Ohio Youth Department levels the playing field in discrimination law but doesn’t ensure victory for any particular plaintiff.
• Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin affirms religious neutrality and separation of church and state, with the Court’s rare and explicit support for the Establishment Clause.
• The liberal justices seem to be strategically using even these minimalist opinions to reinforce precedents like Bostock and separation of church and state, though skeptics question whether this will hold against broader conservative legal trends.

For listeners: This episode is rich in analysis and accessible for non-lawyers and legal buffs alike, shining a light on the nuanced, sometimes contradictory signals coming out of the Supreme Court’s Opinion Palooza week.