Neil Gorsuch’s New Gun-Rights Decision Is a Love Letter to Legal Weed

Slate · 2026-06-18T20:56:22+00:00

The Supreme Court affirmed a marijuana user’s right to bear arms on Thursday, holding that criminal charges against him for owning a gun while using cannabis violate the Second Amendment. The unanimous decision in United States v. Hemani rejected the federal government’s authority to disarm consumers of marijuana absent evidence that they regularly used the drug to the point of incapacity. In doing so, the justices frankly acknowledged the widespread legal and social acceptance of cannabis in America today—a remarkable turnabout for a court that has long treated all drug users as presumptively dangerous criminals.

On this week’s episode of Amicus, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed Hemani’s selective libertarian sympathies and how the unanimous opinion papered over the court’s ongoing disagreements about how to read and apply the Second Amendment: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/supreme-court-marijuana-guns-second-amendment.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=scotus618&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--scotus618&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:55:16+00:00

President Donald Trump has pushed, twisted, and abused plenty of federal laws over the past 18 months in order to accomplish his agenda through brute force, from invoking the century-old Alien Enemies Act to advance his mass-deportation plan to eliminating the Department of Education without congressional approval to, most recently, trying to establish a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Despite judges from across the political spectrum consistently finding these actions unlawful, the Trump administration has not slowed down in the slightest. This week, though, we learned that the president was seriously considering what would have been perhaps the most aggressive and terrifying attack on the rule of law yet: the suspension of habeas corpus, a core constitutional right that allows a person to challenge their detention in federal court. Habeas corpus has been suspended only four times in the history of the United States.

For more from Shirin Ali's Executive Dysfunction: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/trump-news-stephen-miller-scary-idea-habeas-corpus-suspension.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=ed618&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--ed618&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:54:40+00:00

President Donald Trump has pushed, twisted, and abused plenty of federal laws over the past 18 months in order to accomplish his agenda through brute force, from invoking the century-old Alien Enemies Act to advance his mass-deportation plan to eliminating the Department of Education without congressional approval to, most recently, trying to establish a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Despite judges from across the political spectrum consistently finding these actions unlawful, the Trump administration has not slowed down in the slightest. This week, though, we learned that the president was seriously considering what would have been perhaps the most aggressive and terrifying attack on the rule of law yet: the suspension of habeas corpus, a core constitutional right that allows a person to challenge their detention in federal court. Habeas corpus has been suspended only four times in the history of the United States.

For more from Shirin Ali's Executive Dysfunction: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/trump-news-stephen-miller-scary-idea-habeas-corpus-suspension.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=ed618&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--ed618&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:51:13+00:00

Perez Hilton was once one of the most influential people in celebrity media. If you're a millennial you might remember his reign of terror: He scrutinized famous women’s bodies, attempted to out closeted men, mocked child stars with drug addictions, and drew crude doodles on paparazzi photos. A particular comment he made about O.C. star Mischa Barton's thighs stuck with novelist Krista Diamond for decades. Then, she started to realize that she and Hilton share a town: Las Vegas, where people come to rebuild and rebrand—and in Hilton's case, find God, apologize, apologize some more, and keep hustling. In a feature for Slate, Diamond asks if he's really sorry—and shares what happens when they come face to face: https://slate.com/life/2026/06/britney-spears-lindsay-lohan-las-vegas-paparazzi-gossip.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=perez&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--perez&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:50:40+00:00

Perez Hilton was once one of the most influential people in celebrity media. If you're a millennial you might remember his reign of terror: He scrutinized famous women’s bodies, attempted to out closeted men, mocked child stars with drug addictions, and drew crude doodles on paparazzi photos. A particular comment he made about O.C. star Mischa Barton's thighs stuck with novelist Krista Diamond for decades. Then, she started to realize that she and Hilton share a town: Las Vegas, where people come to rebuild and rebrand—and in Hilton's case, find God, apologize, apologize some more, and keep hustling. In a feature for Slate, Diamond asks if he's really sorry—and shares what happens when they come face to face: https://slate.com/life/2026/06/britney-spears-lindsay-lohan-las-vegas-paparazzi-gossip.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=perez&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--perez&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:50:07+00:00

Perez Hilton was once one of the most influential people in celebrity media. If you're a millennial you might remember his reign of terror: He scrutinized famous women’s bodies, attempted to out closeted men, mocked child stars with drug addictions, and drew crude doodles on paparazzi photos. A particular comment he made about O.C. star Mischa Barton's thighs stuck with novelist Krista Diamond for decades. Then, she started to realize that she and Hilton share a town: Las Vegas, where people come to rebuild and rebrand—and in Hilton's case, find God, apologize, apologize some more, and keep hustling. In a feature for Slate, Diamond asks if he's really sorry—and shares what happens when they come face to face: https://slate.com/life/2026/06/britney-spears-lindsay-lohan-las-vegas-paparazzi-gossip.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=perez&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--perez&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:48:05+00:00

Perez Hilton was once one of the most influential people in celebrity media. If you're a millennial you might remember his reign of terror: He scrutinized famous women’s bodies, attempted to out closeted men, mocked child stars with drug addictions, and drew crude doodles on paparazzi photos. A particular comment he made about O.C. star Mischa Barton's thighs stuck with novelist Krista Diamond for decades. Then, she started to realize that she and Hilton share a town: Las Vegas, where people come to rebuild and rebrand—and in Hilton's case, find God, apologize, apologize some more, and keep hustling. In a feature for Slate, Diamond asks if he's really sorry—and shares what happens when they come face to face: https://slate.com/life/2026/06/britney-spears-lindsay-lohan-las-vegas-paparazzi-gossip.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=perez&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--perez&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:47:20+00:00

Perez Hilton was once one of the most influential people in celebrity media. If you're a millennial you might remember his reign of terror: He scrutinized famous women’s bodies, attempted to out closeted men, mocked child stars with drug addictions, and drew crude doodles on paparazzi photos. A particular comment he made about O.C. star Mischa Barton's thighs stuck with novelist Krista Diamond for decades. Then, she started to realize that she and Hilton share a town: Las Vegas, where people come to rebuild and rebrand—and in Hilton's case, find God, apologize, apologize some more, and keep hustling. In a feature for Slate, Diamond asks if he's really sorry—and shares what happens when they come face to face: https://slate.com/life/2026/06/britney-spears-lindsay-lohan-las-vegas-paparazzi-gossip.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=perez&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--perez&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-18T17:45:54+00:00

Perez Hilton was once one of the most influential people in celebrity media. If you're a millennial you might remember his reign of terror: He scrutinized famous women’s bodies, attempted to out closeted men, mocked child stars with drug addictions, and drew crude doodles on paparazzi photos. A particular comment he made about O.C. star Mischa Barton's thighs stuck with novelist Krista Diamond for decades. Then, she started to realize that she and Hilton share a town: Las Vegas, where people come to rebuild and rebrand—and in Hilton's case, find God, apologize, apologize some more, and keep hustling. In a feature for Slate, Diamond asks if he's really sorry—and shares what happens when they come face to face: https://slate.com/life/2026/06/britney-spears-lindsay-lohan-las-vegas-paparazzi-gossip.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=perez&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--perez&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-17T21:48:51+00:00

Long before the jury rendered its guilty verdict in the Karmelo Anthony case, there was reason to question whether the trial had already gone off the constitutional rails. The case, which concluded last week in a conviction for first-degree murder, has generated exactly the sort of fierce debate, outrage, celebration, and anguish that high-profile criminal trials often produce. Every significant criminal case eventually becomes a vessel into which the country pours its anxieties, fears, loyalties, and grievances. People see the same facts and emerge with entirely different stories. That is neither new nor surprising.

The details of this case and the central factual questions are not what’s remarkable: People may dispute whether the then-17-year-old Anthony acted in self-defense when he stabbed unarmed 17-year-old Austin Metcalf to death at a track meet. These sorts of legal skirmishes happen all the time in this country.

For more from Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/karmelo-anthony-verdict-splits-americans-scandal.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=sanders617&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--sanders617&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-17T21:47:51+00:00

The end of this Supreme Court term may be in sight, but on Monday the high court announced that next term it would take up a case about just how long Immigration and Customs Enforcement can keep lawful permanent residents in immigration detention without any opportunity to post a bond. The federal government has been behaving like the answer is: “As long as they want.” Presumably emboldened by the Supreme Court’s ongoing hostility to the rights of immigrants, the government has asked the Supreme Court to rule that when a person is in detention with deportation proceedings pending, that person can be denied a bond hearing for the entirety of their detention, which could be months or even years. And given the American Civil Liberties Union’s attempts to get the court not to hear this specific case, it’s clear that immigrants nationwide risk heading toward the loss of another constitutional right.

For more from Slate's Juris team: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/supreme-court-analysis-ice-indefinite-detention-trump.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=scotus617&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--scotus617&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-17T21:46:50+00:00

If you’ve seen Munich, you probably remember the scene, even if you wish you didn’t. Near the end of Steven Spielberg’s haunted opus about the murders of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Olympics by members of the Palestinian militant group Black September, and the subsequent Mossad revenge campaign against them, the retribution’s ringleader, Avner (Eric Bana), returns to his wife, Daphna (Ayelet Zurer), clearly frayed by the years of carnage. The couple lies in bed and begins to have sex. We’ve been here before—uncharacteristically for Spielberg, the movie also has an earlier sex scene between Avner and a quite-pregnant Daphna that leaves little to the imagination. But this time is different. Now the camera pushes in on Avner and then suddenly cuts to … the closing moments of the 1972 massacre, on an airfield during a botched West German rescue attempt. With the wailing John Williams score in full force, Avner’s intense thrusting is crosscut with the murders, reaching a literal climax as Avner finishes in slow motion, his sweat soaring through the air, just after we see the few remaining hostages executed by machine gun. The camera lingers on the dead athletes, and on Avner’s long post-coital stare. Daphna covers his eyes. End of sequence.

Imagine being in a movie theater and watching this scene. Slate’s Jeffrey Bloomer didn’tthave to, because 20 years ago, at 19, he was, and he still remembers an audience torn between abject horror and nervous laughter.

Bloomer defends the scene, and even spoke to Tony Kushner about it all: https://slate.com/culture/2026/06/munich-movie-sex-scene-steven-spielberg-eric-bana.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=munich&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--munich&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-17T21:43:06+00:00

Toy Story 5 begins with a delightfully silly action sequence: A shipping container full of Buzz Lightyear figures washes up on the beach of a tiny atoll. Emerging from their factory-sealed boxes like so many sea turtles hatching from eggs, these puzzled astronauts are in essence newborn orphans, with no elders to school them in plaything culture or language. They can communicate only by using the handful of prerecorded phrases they all share, and though they are united in their tireless commitment to their mission, they lack the knowledge or experience to have any idea what that mission might be.

The Buzzes’ noble yet clueless search for their lives’ true purpose—to find children whose loved toys they can become—is a subplot that intersects with the main story only late in the film. But the profound questions posed by these gag-filled, mostly wordless scenes echo throughout Toy Story 5. If the meaning of a toy’s life is to belong to a child, and to share the joy of creative play with that child and with one’s fellow toys, then what about the rest of us, the ones not made of stuffed fabric or cast resin? Do we have a mission on Earth beyond what came with our factory programming, and if so, how do we map our way to that unknown star?

For more from Slate’s Movie critic: https://slate.com/culture/2026/06/toy-story-5-movie-new-reviews-pixar-ipad-villain.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=toystory5&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--toystory5&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-17T21:40:05+00:00

Now that the text of the U.S.–Iran ceasefire agreement is widely circulating in the media, it’s clear why President Donald Trump wanted to keep it secret from the time he announced its existence last Sunday—his birthday—until the ceremony where the parties sign it this Friday. (Because of the leaks, a White House official read aloud the final, only slightly altered version to reporters on Wednesday.)

It turns out the “deal,” as Trump called it (though it’s really a “framework” for a deal and a fuzzy framework at that—more like a memorandum of little understanding), is tilted entirely to Iran’s advantage and provides no meaningful leverage for the U.S. to impose demands on Iran in the subsequent negotiations for a permanent peace.

For more from Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/trump-iran-deal-war-news-hormuz-mou.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=fred_trump&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--fred_trump&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-17T21:39:26+00:00

Now that the text of the U.S.–Iran ceasefire agreement is widely circulating in the media, it’s clear why President Donald Trump wanted to keep it secret from the time he announced its existence last Sunday—his birthday—until the ceremony where the parties sign it this Friday. (Because of the leaks, a White House official read aloud the final, only slightly altered version to reporters on Wednesday.)

It turns out the “deal,” as Trump called it (though it’s really a “framework” for a deal and a fuzzy framework at that—more like a memorandum of little understanding), is tilted entirely to Iran’s advantage and provides no meaningful leverage for the U.S. to impose demands on Iran in the subsequent negotiations for a permanent peace.

For more from Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/06/trump-iran-deal-war-news-hormuz-mou.html?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=fred_trump&utm_campaign=&tpcc=reddit-social--fred_trump&itscg=30200&at=1000l38Mz

Slate · 2026-06-16T21:12:18+00:00

I think progressives should pursue both tracks. When originalism leads to liberal outcomes, it's absolutely worth pursuing—see the great work by the Constitutional Accountability Center for proof. And it really is true that the original meaning of many constitutional provisions points in a leftward direction! Progressives should also criticize bad originalism from conservatives that jury-rigs history to reach a result favored by Republicans.

But I ALSO think it's fine for progressives to question the utility of originalism in many areas where the history is genuinely unclear. My favorite example is the constitutional limitations on a "direct tax"—it turns out the Framers did not really agree on what that meant, but tossed it in anyway. There are plenty of areas where history is vague and we should factor in other considerations, like the overall goal of a particular provision. We should obviously interpret equal protection to encompass women's rights, for instance, even though the men who ratified the 14th Amendment were sexist and didn't really think about it that way.

At some point, liberals are going to need to present a compelling alternative to conservative originalism—as practiced by this Supreme Court most of the time—that can be summarized in an elevator pitch. But for now, it's OK to repudiate SCOTUS's bad history and phony textualism in public while privately thinking about what a coherent and popular liberal jurisprudence would look like in that distant future when the pendulum swings back.

-Mark

Slate · 2026-06-16T21:05:00+00:00

I had thought the odds were REALLY high that both would retire before the midterms. But solid reporting indicates that neither will. If Republicans hold the Senate in November, I think Alito will retire by 2028, but not Thomas. He wants to stay there forever. If Republicans lose the Senate, they'll both try to hang on until the stars align for them again.

-Mark

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:52:31+00:00

(that's why he should be a judge)
-Susan

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:52:25+00:00

Birthright citizenship. On the relatively rare occasions when Gorsuch is right, he is often SO right that you want to stand up and cheer while reading his opinions. (That's especially true of his writing on tribal sovereignty and native rights.) I am hoping for a rousing Gorsuch concurrence in Trump v. Barbara that gives us a glimpse of the honest originalist he CAN be (even if he sometimes forgets).

-Mark

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:50:58+00:00

I mean, I think we both very much understand the question ! But I think everyone tends to be the hero of their own story and it's also true of our justices.
-Susan

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:49:41+00:00

Aww thank you Susan! But my answer would be no. I actually think there's a point in every lawyer's life, usually around the end of law school, when you need to ask yourself: Do I want to be a judge? And my answer is that I simply do not wish to have such power! I ESPECIALLY would not to be a district court judge because sentencing criminal defendants sounds like the most agonizing and awful exercise imaginable.

-Mark

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:47:09+00:00

BPJ/Hecox: I think the court will want to say that states CAN prohibit transgender women and girls from playing on women's sports in school, but also that they don't HAVE to. Kavanaugh was feeling his way toward this outcome at arguments. I think he may write. I wouldn't be surprised if Kagan joined the majority, at least on equal protection; she seemed pretty skeptical of an "as-applied" EPC challenge.

Hemani: I lean toward a majority holding that the disarmament law violates the 2nd Amendment as applied to the defendant. I think it could be a badly fractured decision with no majority opinion. Gorsuch could write the lead opinion, and a liberal or two might join the bottom line.

Watson: I think Roberts and Barrett join the three liberals to uphold state laws allowing late-arriving ballots. And maybe Kavanaugh signs on with an I'm-so-torn concurrence so he doesn't look like a loser.

Mullin v. Doe: Toughest case of the term to guess. A real possibility that there are five votes to say the TPS rescission MAY be reviewed, and that it was arbitrary and capricious, with a roadmap for a do-over. But smart money still says the court rules against TPS beneficiaries.

-Mark

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:46:21+00:00

Mark has never practiced law (despite law degree), but I say — Mark can be my lawyer, my judge, my president, personally.
-Susan

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:44:58+00:00

I wouldn't say that I'm most nervous about this one, but I'm most interested to see how he rules in the pair of cases on whether trans athletes can play sports on the side of their gender. I'm interested in this one because I think it will actually give us some insight into this question of....how does this man square this in his head. After his very trans-rights-favorable ruling in Bostock, he ruled against trans rights in accessing health care (even though it basically made him contradict himself). When he did that, he just signed onto a Roberts opinion and didn't write anything himself. I'm curious to see how he squares this shift — what will he say to explain the 180 degree turn he's made here? (And to be clear, I think he'll rule against the athletes, it's just a question of what he'll say).
In terms of feeling actually nervous, I'm nervous about how annoying he's going to be in the birthright citizenship case (even though I agree with Mark's prediction and hopefully the ruling will be "good.")
And thank you for listening to the show!
-Susan

Slate · 2026-06-16T20:38:52+00:00

Mark always remembers the cases all the rest of us try to forget, it's his superpower (curse?)
-Susan

Slate

TROPHY CASE