Amicus Podcast Episode Summary: Unanimous Opinions Out Front, Desperate Dealmaking Out Back

Podcast Information:

• Title: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
• Host: Slate Podcasts
• Episode: Sneak Preview: Unanimous Opinions Out Front, Desperate Dealmaking Out Back
• Release Date: June 5, 2025

Introduction to the Episode

In this special "opinionpalooza" episode of Amicus, host Dahlia Lithwick delves into the Supreme Court's recent flurry of decisions released on a Thursday morning. The Court issued six rulings, nearly all of which were unanimous or close to it, addressing a range of contentious issues such as reverse discrimination, religious liberty, and gun rights. Despite the high-stakes nature of these topics, the opinions were characterized by their narrow focus and minimalist approach. Joining Dahlia is legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern to unpack these decisions and explore the Court's collaborative dynamics.

Ames v. Ohio Youth Department: Reverse Discrimination and Workplace Claims

Transcript Reference: [00:10] – [06:15]

The episode begins with a discussion on Ames v. Ohio Youth Department, a case centered on allegations of reverse discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, the case involves a majority group member claiming wrongful termination based on sexual orientation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Unanimous Opinion

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a unanimous opinion, rejecting the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' stance that members of majority groups (e.g., white, heterosexual individuals) must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to prove discrimination. She asserted:

"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 in order to come into court and bring a claim of unlawful workplace discrimination."
[01:08]

Mark Joseph Stern commends the decision, highlighting its alignment with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, sex, and other protected classes without granting groups special protections. He emphasizes that this ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court's stance in Bostock v. Clayton County, which extended protections to sexual orientation, thereby strengthening existing legal safeguards against workplace discrimination.

"Justice Jackson, in writing this opinion, secured a pretty important victory, which was to reaffirm the supreme court's decision from five years ago in Bostock vs Clayton county..."
[02:30]

Dahlia's Perspective

Dahlia expresses cautious optimism but remains skeptical about the broader implications, particularly in light of upcoming high-profile cases like Skremetti, which deals with gender-affirming care. She remarks:

"It just feels like in the grand scheme of things, one queries whether this is a huge, glumping win."
[04:00]

Mark adds that while the decision lowers the legal burden for plaintiffs, it doesn't guarantee victory in every case, reminding listeners that the specifics of each case still play a crucial role in the outcomes.

Catholic Charities Case: Religious Liberty and Tax Exemptions

Transcript Reference: [06:15] – [11:15]

The conversation transitions to the Catholic Charities case, focusing on the intersection of religious freedom and state tax exemptions. This case challenges Wisconsin's denial of tax-exempt status to Catholic Charities on the grounds that their services are not exclusively religious or proselytizing.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Unanimous Opinion

Justice Sotomayor authored a unanimous opinion overturning the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision. She argued that Wisconsin's requirement for tax exemptions unfairly discriminates against religious organizations that provide inclusive, non-proselytizing services. Sotomayor stated:

"We cannot permit this discrimination... It would violate the establishment clause for a state to essentially favor certain faiths or denominations over others based on how they practice."
[06:35]

Mark Joseph Stern lauds the decision as a reinforcement of the Establishment Clause, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a clear separation between church and state. He notes that Justice Sotomayor's reasoning supports longstanding precedents that prohibit state favoritism towards specific religious practices.

"Justice Sotomayor says that under both the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the establishment clause of the First Amendment, this would violate the establishment clause..."
[10:01]

Dahlia's Concerns

Dahlia expresses reservations about the broader trend of religious groups leveraging government programs to gain advantages, suggesting that such outcomes may have unintended negative consequences. She comments:

"I find myself wondering, you know, how is this good when the Court's liberal wing joins on these cases and get some good dicta in there?"
[09:08]

Mark concurs but remains hopeful that Sotomayor’s opinion provides a necessary check against erosion of the Establishment Clause, even as future cases may continue to challenge its boundaries.

Conclusion and Implications

The episode concludes with Dahlia and Mark reflecting on the Supreme Court's recent unanimous decisions, acknowledging both the immediate legal impacts and the longer-term implications for constitutional principles. They emphasize the importance of these rulings in shaping the legal landscape, particularly concerning workplace discrimination and religious freedom.

Dahlia encourages listeners to subscribe to Slate Plus for deeper analyses and to stay informed about upcoming judicial developments. She reassures the audience that while the Court is navigating complex and often divisive issues, the unanimous nature of these opinions signifies moments of consensus and clarity in the judiciary.

Notable Quotes:

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:
  "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."
  [01:08]

• Mark Joseph Stern on Bostock v. Clayton County:
  "It is not an outlier. And she cites it for the principle that whether you are gay or straight, you are still protected from workplace discrimination because of your orientation."
  [02:30]

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Establishment Clause:
  "We cannot permit this discrimination... It would violate the establishment clause for a state to essentially favor certain faiths or denominations over others based on how they practice."
  [06:35]

• Dahlia Lithwick on Court Trends:
  "I just find myself wondering, you know, how is this good when the Court's liberal wing joins on these cases and get some good dicta in there?"
  [09:08]

This episode of Amicus provides a comprehensive analysis of recent Supreme Court decisions, highlighting the justices' unanimous efforts to navigate complex legal issues with precision and restraint. Through informed discussion, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern offer listeners valuable insights into the evolving interpretations of law, justice, and the fundamental principles that govern the American legal system.