Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick – "This Will Be Trump’s Best Term at the Supreme Court Yet" (Oct. 4, 2025)

Podcast Overview

In this episode, host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by co-host Mark Joseph Stern and guest Ian Millhiser (senior correspondent at Vox) to preview the start of the Supreme Court’s October 2025 term. The central theme is the continued and intensifying conservative shift of the Court, the dominance of the shadow docket, and how these dynamics intertwine with the influence of Donald Trump and the broader erosion of liberal democracy. The trio critically examines key cases on the docket that could reshape American law—especially relating to voting rights, campaign finance, LGBTQ+ rights, presidential power, and the courts’ legitimacy.

Main Themes and Purpose

• Democratic Backsliding Via the Courts: The episode opens by acknowledging how the Supreme Court has set the stage for challenges to American democracy, making the system “a bed… on fire” (Lithwick, 02:37).
• Unending SCOTUS Activity: The guests highlight the blurring of lines between regular sessions and “shadow docket” decisions—where big changes occur outside of headline cases, eroding transparency and accountability.
• The Court’s "Trump Term": The Court’s current and likely future trajectory is toward substantial, uninterrupted victories for Trump and related right-wing causes.
• Loss of Institutional Legitimacy: Repeated reference is made to falling public trust as the justices act ever more as overt partisans.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Shadow Docket and Court Legitimacy

[03:19 – 10:09]

• Permanent Judicial Session: The Supreme Court now operates year-round, driven by a stream of shadow docket decisions.

  • “It feels like court is basically in permanent session. Am I right?” – Mark Joseph Stern [03:19]

• Opaque and Rushed Decisions: Justices deliver high-impact outcomes without full argument or reasoning, muddying legal standards and making precedents hard to interpret.

  • “They're producing bad law. They aren't explaining themselves. …They've got district judges complaining... And I don't understand why they have decided to torture themselves this way.” – Ian Millhiser [03:36]

• Decline in Public Trust: Polls show public confidence in the Court tanking, with the institution now widely seen as partisan. Yet, most people don’t grasp how the procedural changes directly affect their rights.

  • “It is very clear from the polls that there is a sense of alarm among the American people.” – Ian Millhiser [06:27]

• Judicial Incoherence: Lower courts, across political appointments, express bafflement at how to apply recent decisions, showing a breakdown in judicial “craftsmanship.”

  “One of the most interesting footnotes I have ever read is the footnote in Justice Jackson's dissent in the Rahimi case…[lower court] judges...saying, my God, I can't figure out how to do my job.” – Ian Millhiser [09:04]

2. Preview of Major Cases

A. Voting Rights – Louisiana v. Calais

[11:48 – 16:56]

• The Court is poised to strike down key tools of the Voting Rights Act, overturning recent precedent and paving the way for racial gerrymandering.
• “They have signaled, as loudly as they possibly could have signaled, that what they intend to do is strike down this part of the Voting Rights Act, strike down Jingles, and create a new situation where… one community… is… pushed out of political representation.” – Ian Millhiser [15:11]

B. Campaign Finance – NRSC v. FEC

[18:28 – 22:46]

• The challenge threatens to open the floodgates even further for big money in politics, eroding already minimal controls on donor-candidate coordination.
• Supreme Court has grown only more hostile to finance regulation since Citizens United, likely to strike down limits on party committee coordination.
  • “Citizens United actually said that people giving money to influence their members of Congress is an affirmative good. …[Now,] whether to tear down that ban on coordination and essentially allow very, very wealthy people to give…millions of dollars directly to candidates so long as they are laundered through these party committees.” – Ian Millhiser [19:12, 21:52]
• Inevitable outcome:
  • “There's really no question that the Supreme Court will strike down this ban on coordination, right Ian? I mean, it’s gonna happen.” – Mark Joseph Stern [22:12]

C. First Amendment & LGBTQ+ Rights – Chiles v. Salazar

[25:05 – 32:34]

• SCOTUS is set to overturn bans on conversion therapy for minors under the guise of free speech, threatening all similar laws in over half the states.
  • “Are you as worried about this case as I am, Ian?” – Mark Joseph Stern [25:19]
  • “If you don't have [regulation of professional-client speech], you can't have professional regulation… And I'm not optimistic that this court's gonna draw the line in a sensible place.” – Ian Millhiser [27:03]
• The precedent in NIFLA v. Becerra severely limits regulation of “professional speech,” but the “speech” protection has only benefitted conservative causes.
  • “I mean, they probably aren't going to say that lawyers could tell people to rob banks. What they're going to say is that if you are an anti-gay therapist or an anti-trans therapist, you get… the better First Amendment that no one else gets.” – Ian Millhiser [32:21]

D. Transgender Rights in Sports – West Virginia v. BPJ

[32:34 – 35:40]

• Court likely to allow state bans on trans girls in school sports. Existing legal precedent (Bostock) is unlikely to apply due to history of sex-segregated athletics.
  • “I would do anything I could to settle this case, make this case go away, because there's no way it is ending well.” – Ian Millhiser [33:15]

E. Unitary Executive Theory Cases – Trump v. Slaughter, Trump v. Cook

[35:40 – 38:14]

• The Supreme Court is set to greenlight more presidential firings, with one exception—the Federal Reserve—driven not by law but economic self-interest.
  • “Every time Trump wants to fire someone, the Supreme Court says, yeah, you can do that. The one exception has been Lisa Cook…They don’t want to live through eight years of stagflation.” – Ian Millhiser [36:10]

F. Presidential Power & Tariffs – Vos Selections v. Trump

[38:14 – 43:00]

• While legal arguments, right-wing legal elites, and the major questions doctrine favor striking down Trump’s tariffs, the Court’s pro-Trump bent means the outcome is far from assured.
  • “If they uphold these tariffs, it's just gonna be a clear sign that they're saying, okay, there's one set of rules when there's a Democrat in office, and then again, you get a different and better Constitution if you're a Republican president.” – Ian Millhiser [42:43]

3. SCOTUS Rhythms & Public Perception

[43:00 – 45:20]

• The Court controls its docket and timing, often using early summer “consensus” decisions to mask its ideological drift, with the most impactful right-wing rulings dropped at the term’s end.
  • “There is always some…credulous reporter who…writes a dumb take around June 10th…‘I guess this means they aren’t so right wing after all, huh?’ That person always looks like a fool come the end of June.” – Ian Millhiser [44:38]

4. “Appeasement Theory” and the Justices’ Motivations

[46:57 – 51:30]

• Dahlia Lithwick asks if the supposed “moderate” justices are playing a long game by handing Trump procedural wins now to retain credibility for some hypothetical future “save democracy” moment.
  • “Do they just not care about the carnage as long as they do it on a technical ground? Or…do they just not see it as carnage?” – Lithwick [51:05]
  • Ian suggests results matter more than motives: “If they are letting Trump win because they think they can appease him…or if they are doing it because they think that Stephen Miller is the most awesome person who has ever lived…We're still getting the exact same results.” [50:21]

5. Dissent, Judicial Rhetoric, and the Anti-Canon

[52:48 – 61:29]

• Lower courts and dissenting justices are increasingly explicit in criticizing the legitimacy and coherence of Trump-era SCOTUS decisions.
  • “I think that they should criticize the Supreme Court within the confines of…judicial norms. …30 or 40 years from now…much of what the Roberts court has done [should] be viewed as heresy. …Cases become anti canon. …We want them to be empowered…to say, ‘Not only are we overruling Trump v. United States, but…anything that …resembles it, anything that has the taint of Trump v. United States on it, is anathema.’” – Ian Millhiser [53:17, 56:11]
• Mark Joseph Stern argues the right has already shattered all decorum, so liberals should feel emboldened to dissent forcefully.
  • "Republican appointed judges have already shut, shattered all of the norms around this with outrageous, openly partisan rhetoric..." – Mark Joseph Stern [57:28]
• Ian, while supportive of criticism, notes that legal elites are “precious snowflakes” whose internalized norms mean influence may depend on measured rhetoric.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Lithwick: “And yes, to be clear, that bed is on fire.” [02:37]
• Millhiser: “Their polls are in the tank. They've got district judges complaining…And I don't understand why they have decided to torture themselves this way.” [03:36]
• Mark Joseph Stern: “At some point when the work product doesn't look like law and the process doesn't look like judging, I do think that many, if not most Americans will understand this is a court that's not acting like a court.” [07:34]
• Millhiser: “When they do explain themselves, it is incoherent gobbledygook.” [08:19]
• Millhiser on campaign finance: “If I have given [a candidate] hundreds of thousands of dollars laundered through a bunch of different committees, Bob's gonna be pretty grateful to me when he gets elected to Congress.” [21:25]
• Millhiser on strategy: “They're finding all these procedural ways to hand Trump victories, and maybe…that's because they don't want to damage the substantive law. …But who cares? The crisis is now.” [48:25, 50:25]
• On dissent: “We want them to be empowered…to say, ‘Not only are we overruling Trump v. United States States, but this decision was so wrong that anything that resembles it…is anathema.’” [56:08]

Important Segment Timestamps

• [03:19] – Permanent session, shadow docket, and pace of the Court
• [11:48] – Louisiana v. Calais (Voting Rights)
• [18:28] – NRSC v. FEC (Campaign finance)
• [25:05] – Chiles v. Salazar (Conversion therapy and professional speech)
• [32:34] – West Virginia v. BPJ (Transgender sports bans)
• [35:40] – Unit executive theory, Trump v. Slaughter, Trump v. Cook
• [38:14] – Tariffs, Vos Selections v. Trump, major questions doctrine
• [43:00] – Court’s cycle of decisions and public misunderstanding
• [46:57] – “Appeasement theory” of the justices and procedural rulings for Trump
• [52:48] – The role and impact of dissent, anti-canon in law
• [57:28] – Mark on conservative judiciary’s embrace of partisan rhetoric

Tone and Language

The conversation is sharp, candid, and steeped in legal realism—with moments of humor and exasperation (“I'm sighing too now”—[22:10]), resigned outrage (“We're getting the exact same results”—[50:37]), and urgent warning about the stakes. Millhiser’s blunt analysis, Lithwick’s wry framing, and Stern’s wonky optimism make the legal content transparent, engaging, and, above all, urgent.

Summary

This Amicus episode lays bare the Supreme Court’s increasingly radical, anti-democratic posture, especially as it concerns the legal infrastructure benefitting Donald Trump and the conservative movement. The hosts and guest detail an upcoming term full of cases that will re-entrench right-wing priorities—on voting rights, money in politics, LGBTQ+ treatment, unchecked presidential power, and more—executed via mechanisms (especially the shadow docket) designed to evade scrutiny and meaningful accountability. They stress the critical need for dissent, clear historical condemnation of these decisions, and public vigilance, even as the Court’s actions threaten long-standing democratic and professional norms.