Did you know choosing the train over your car can cut your carbon footprint by up to two thirds?

So, one family outing at a time, one little adventurer at a time, one trip to the museum, one dinner in the city, one nap on the way home at a time.

One train journey at a time can help create a greener future.

So when will you take your next trip? Find out more at nationalrail.co.uk slash greener.

Hey what next listener? It's Mary. And I am dropping a very special episode down this feed on a Saturday because this week was full of news.

And I wanted you to make sure you heard about what happened from us. Right before Donald Trump was indicted again on Thursday, something else went down.

The Supreme Court voted to preserve elements of the Voting Rights Act that many people, including guests on this show, had assumed they would be tanking.

This is huge and surprising. And all I wanted to do was hear from Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph's turn about it.

Thankfully, they recorded their own show about the ins and outs of this case. And that's what I've got for you today.

So without further ado, here is their emergency episode of Amicus in case you are not listening to that show already, you really should be.

And as for that Trump news, we will be digging into all that next week.

Hi and welcome to Amicus. This is Slates podcast about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court. And I'm Dahlia Lithwick.

I cover those things for Slate. And I'm about to be joined by senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, my writer, die person through all things opinion, Paloza.

We're going to bring you this emergency edition of Amicus in the wake of a big and unbelievably surprising decision that came down from the court Thursday morning to not further eviscerate what's left of the Voting Rights Act.

These extra episodes would usually be reserved for Slate Plus subscribers only, but we've lifted the paywall for a limited time to make sure absolutely everybody has a chance to keep up with this really monumentally important term and the barrage of decisions coming down in the coming weeks from the high court.

But we do rely on your support to do all this. So please consider becoming a subscriber to Slate Plus to support our mission of creating a new kind of Supreme Court coverage by going to Slate.com slash Amicus Plus and Plus members.

We love you. Your next exclusive segment dropped Saturday with Mark Stern and I answering some of your really smart listener questions.

Just one other note like everyone else on the Eastern seaboard I am having smoke issues. I'm wicked asma suffer. So don't be alarmed by the way my voice sounds in the upcoming few minutes along with Mark Joseph Stern, my nebulizer is my ride or die best friend.

So the word I want to use to describe Thursday morning's voting rights decision is just jaw dropping in what was surely one of the most important cases of this whole term.

Alan V. Milligan this was a challenge to a 2020 redistricting effort by the state of Alabama. They sought to draw maps that would have created just one congressional district in which black voters made up a majority despite the fact that black voters represent about 27% of the voting population in that state.

Alabama legislators fought to hold on to that map despite a challenge that was brought by multiple voting rights and racial justice coalitions arguing that the maps violate section two of the Voting Rights Act that was once the crown jewel of voting rights legislation but it's been hollowed out into a fragile shell of its former self by a series of decisions from the John Roberts court.

That's what makes it all the more striking that the majority opinion upholding this three judge panels decision in January of 2022 to strike down the new Alabama map finding that it illegally diluted the votes of black alabamians.

...