Did Congress Really Mean to Protect the Environment? SCOTUS is Skeptical.

We're sorry, but something went wrong while fetching your podcast feeds. Please contact us at plus@slate.com for help. Episode Notes You’ve seen the headlines about the lists, the claims, the THREE times this same executive order about voting by mail has gone to the Supreme Court. But is Trump’s interference with mail-in voting settled—at least with respect to the midterms? Our go-to election law expert, Richard Hasen of UCLA School of Law, joins Dahlia to unpack what just happened and how this postal chaos alters voters’ sense of election security. We’re calling this discussion “information” and not “catastrophizing.” Hasen has this advice for listeners: get out there and vote in-person. Next, Sam Sankar of the environmental-law organization Earthjustice explains why SCOTUS’ longstanding skepticism towards the environment does not make him as pessimistic as one might expect. He also takes us behind the scenes in two environmental cases that will kick off the Supreme Court term in a few weeks, including an appeal over whether the Air Force may continue to blow stuff up over an historic beach in Guam. 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.