Trump’s travel ban in court and the anguish of Rod Rosenstein on Amicus.

Travel Ban Opponents Ask a Federal Court to Consider Trump’s Real Motives

Travel Ban Opponents Ask a Federal Court to Consider Trump’s Real Motives

Law and the Supreme Court justices who interpret it.
May 13 2017 10:04 AM

Amicus: Animus Amicus

A group of law professors tells a federal court that religious bias lies at the heart of Trump’s travel ban.

1400x1400_podcast_amicus_slateplus

Listen to Episode 68 of Slate’s Amicus:

In the wake of the unceremonious termination of FBI Director James Comey this week, one previously unfamiliar name has dominated the news cycle: Rod J. Rosenstein. The former federal prosecutor became the U.S. deputy attorney general just over two weeks ago and since then has found himself at the center of a storm around President Trump’s most high-profile firing to date. Leon Neyfakh has been covering Rosenstein for the past few weeks and joins us to talk about whether anyone at the Department of Justice can remain neutral in these polarized times.

Advertisement

We also speak with University of Virginia School of Law professor Micah Schwartzman about this week’s oral arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s revised travel ban. Schwartzman is among a group of constitutional law scholars who filed an amicus brief arguing that the executive order violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Tony Field. Our intern is Camille Mott.

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate and hosts the podcast Amicus.