
Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Most discussed topics
Brands & references
Total monthly reach
Estimated from 4 chart positions in 4 markets.
By chart position
- 🇰🇪KE · News#793K to 10K
- 🇵🇭PH · News#843K to 10K
- 🇮🇸IS · News#953K to 10K
- 🇫🇮FI · News#191500 to 3K
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
2.9K to 9.9K🎙 Daily cadence·458 episodes·Last published yesterday - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
9.5K to 33K🇰🇪30%🇵🇭30%🇮🇸30%+1 more - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
3.8K to 13K
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
From 18 epsHosts
Recent guests
Recent episodes
Guns, Weed, and the Forgotten Framers
Jun 20, 2026
Unknown duration
A Huge Shift is Underway at SCOTUS
Jun 13, 2026
Unknown duration
Concrete Plans to Restore Law, after Trump
Jun 6, 2026
1h 03m 35s
Preview: A Shattering Blow to Fair Elections
Jun 3, 2026
13m 06s
The Myth of John Roberts vs. Donald Trump
May 30, 2026
1h 04m 21s
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Topics | Guests | Brands | Places | Keywords | Sponsor | Length | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/20/26 | ![]() Guns, Weed, and the Forgotten Framers | The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling this week in United States v. Hemani, holding that a marijuana user cannot be stripped of his Second Amendment right to own a firearm simply because he sometimes uses cannabis. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, leaning heavily on the founders' own well-documented love of alcohol to argue that responsible substance use has never historically disqualified Americans from bearing arms. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the ruling, note what it does not settle about the still-murky Bruen test, and reflect on how dramatically the justices’ posture toward marijuana has shifted since the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case they decided less than two decades ago.Then, Dahlia sits down with David Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, Forgotten Framers: Black Conventions and the Second Founding. Between 1864 and 1869, Black Americans gathered in more than fifty conventions in packed churches and meeting halls across the country to demand equal citizenship, voting rights, bodily autonomy, protection from racial violence, and access to education. These conventions molded the Reconstruction amendments in ways that originalist jurisprudence ignores.Gans explains how the Roberts court's colorblind reading of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments distorts this history by ignoring the explicitly race-conscious vision the conventions—and the amendments themselves—championed. He also explains how the Guarantee Clause, long a "sleeping giant," could still offer a constitutional path to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering after Calais and Milligan. Gans wrote about this facet of the history recently in Slate.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
| 6/13/26 | ![]() A Huge Shift is Underway at SCOTUS | The Second Reconstruction is being dismantled piece by piece, and this past month has seen that project attain terminal velocity. On this week’s Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Stanford law professor and leading civil rights lawyer and scholar Pamela S Karlan, about a series of quick-fire moves from the high court and the Trump administration that, taken together, reveal a rapid disassembly of a series of hard-won civil rights laws in place for the past 50 years, known as the Second Reconstruction. From SCOTUS decisions in Callais and Milligan, to a new memo from the Justice Department revisiting equal employment protections, the United States’ framework for multiracial democracy and minority participation in civic life is being swept away. This is about more than redistricting, primaries and polls, midterms and horse races. It’s a wholesale reshaping of what––and who––America is for. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
| 6/6/26 | ![]() Concrete Plans to Restore Law, after Trump✨ | voting rightsgerrymandering+4 | Evan MilliganAndrew Weissmann | Supreme CourtDOJ+3 | Alabama | Supreme Courtvoting maps+7 | — | 1h 03m 35s | |
| 6/3/26 | ![]() Preview: A Shattering Blow to Fair Elections✨ | voting rightsracial gerrymandering+4 | Mark Joseph Stern | Supreme CourtSlate Plus+2 | Alabama | voting rightsSupreme Court+5 | — | 13m 06s | |
| 5/30/26 | ![]() The Myth of John Roberts vs. Donald Trump✨ | Supreme Court decisionslegal analysis+4 | Mark Joseph Stern | SlateSupreme Court+2 | — | Supreme Courtgerrymandering+6 | — | 1h 04m 21s | |
| 5/23/26 | ![]() Trump’s Slush Fund Is Even Worse Than You Thought✨ | Trump settlement fundlegal corruption+4 | J.P. CooneyAndrea Bernstein | IRSThe Law According to Trump+1 | Mar-a-Lago | Trumpsettlement fund+7 | — | 1h 11m 56s | |
| 5/16/26 | ![]() Return of the Abortion Pill Wars✨ | reproductive rightsabortion+5 | Madiba DennieIlyse Hogue | Balls and StrikesNARAL+2 | — | abortion pilltelehealth+5 | — | 1h 07m 06s | |
| 5/9/26 | ![]() The “Civility” Problem for Judges✨ | judicial threatsjudicial independence+3 | Robert S. LasnikJeremy Fogel | Berkeley Judicial InstituteDepartment of Justice | Western District of WashingtonNorthern District of California | judgesthreats+3 | — | 1h 02m 01s | |
| 5/2/26 | ![]() Racism’s Over and Seashells Can Be Deadly✨ | American democracylegal challenges+3 | Barbara McQuadeMadiba Dennie | Southern Poverty Law CenterSupreme Court+1 | — | James ComeyTrump+4 | — | 1h 03m 15s | |
| 4/29/26 | ![]() Preview: The Worst Voting Rights Decision Since Jim Crow✨ | voting rightsSupreme Court+5 | Janai Nelson | Legal Defense FundSlate Podcasts | America | voting rightsSupreme Court+6 | — | 8m 22s | |
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 4/25/26 | ![]() MAGA Media Law 101✨ | First Amendmentdefamation suits+4 | Margaret Sullivan | The AtlanticNew York Times+2 | — | MAGAmedia+6 | — | 1h 03m 43s | |
| 4/18/26 | ![]() Trump Thwarted, Orban Toppled: The New Roadmap for Democrats✨ | democracyTrumpism+4 | Norm Eisen | democracydefendersfund.org | HungaryUnited States+1 | democracyTrumpism+5 | — | 54m 21s | |
| 4/11/26 | ![]() Time to Impeach Trump Again?✨ | impeachment25th Amendment+4 | Rep. Jamie RaskinProfessor Michael Gerhardt | Slate PodcastsApple Podcasts+2 | — | impeachment25th Amendment+5 | — | 1h 06m 12s | |
| 4/4/26 | ![]() Was it Worth it, Pam?✨ | Trump administrationDepartment of Justice+4 | Mark Joseph Stern | Department of JusticeSlate Plus | — | Pam BondiDonald Trump+5 | — | 53m 03s | |
| 4/1/26 | ![]() Preview: A Blowout for Birthright Citizenship at SCOTUS✨ | birthright citizenshipSupreme Court+4 | Mark Joseph SternEvan Bernick | Slate PlusSupreme Court+6 | — | birthright citizenshipSupreme Court+5 | — | 5m 04s | |
| 3/28/26 | ![]() Trump Has a Plan for the Midterms, SCOTUS May Help✨ | democracyTrump+4 | Ian Bassin | Protect DemocracySCOTUS+2 | — | democracyTrump+8 | — | 53m 31s | |
| 3/21/26 | ![]() The Roberts Court’s Internal Reckoning✨ | Supreme Courtlegal analysis+4 | Mark Joseph Stern | Constitutional Accountability CenterSlate | One, First Street | Supreme Courtshadow docket+5 | — | 53m 37s | |
| 3/14/26 | ![]() Immigration Myths and Birthright Citizenship✨ | birthright citizenshipSupreme Court+4 | Anna O. Law | Slate PodcastsMigration and the Origins of American Citizenship+1 | — | birthright citizenshipSupreme Court+5 | — | 51m 06s | |
| 3/7/26 | ![]() Church and State are Being Reunited, Thanks to SCOTUS✨ | Christian nationalismSupreme Court+5 | Rachel Laser | Americans United for Separation of Church and StateAmicus | America | Christian nationalismSupreme Court+5 | — | 49m 36s | |
| 3/2/26 | ![]() Preview: This War is Obscenely Illegal✨ | TrumpIran+5 | Mark Joseph SternEugene Fidell | Yale Law SchoolSlate Plus+1 | IranAmerican | TrumpIran+5 | — | 7m 46s | |
| 2/28/26 | ![]() Yes, Supreme Court Decisions Really Matter | “Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration’s general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump’s chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ’s fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate’s jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There’s always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
| 2/21/26 | ![]() Trump’s Tariffs Overturned | The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump’s economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.” Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump’s America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump’s first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
| 2/14/26 | ![]() The Concentration Camp Next Door | The machinery to enable Stephen Miller’s darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration’s expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
| 2/7/26 | ![]() Trump Has a New “Big Lie” for the Midterms | According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick’s guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance law. He is Chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket. In the past few weeks, Donald Trump’s election denialism has kicked into high gear, just as his poll numbers hit new lows. Elias tells us the FBI/DNI raid to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Steve Bannon’s new threats to surround polling places with ICE officers in November, show an administration that is prototyping new mechanisms for election subversion and voter suppression. But the public has power in this scenario, especially if they start paying attention to elections and voting rights now, rather than the day before November 3rd, 2026.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
| 1/31/26 | ![]() Legal Blinkers, Moral Hazards | Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government agents detaining and disappearing people. On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is in conversation with Joseph Margulies, Professor of Practice of Government at Cornell University. Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 “War on Terror”, an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review: The Moral Stupefaction of America. Margulies explains how, when we allow obscure legal language to overshadow moral imperatives, we can end up in very dark places. The line from waterboarding at black sites to executing American citizens in the streets is a straight one. And there will be a lawyer willing to write a memo for all of it. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. | — | ||||||
Showing 25 of 469
Sponsor Intelligence
Sign in to see which brands sponsor this podcast, their ad offers, and promo codes.
Similar Audience Demographics
Podcasts that attract a similar listener profile
Chart Positions
4 placements across 4 markets.
Chart Positions
4 placements across 4 markets.






