Hi and welcome to Amicus, a new legal podcast from Slate. I am Dahlia Lithwick, Slate's extremely weary Supreme Court correspondent. And on this, our second episode of Amicus, we're going to talk about the court's extracurricular activity this week, including a big, big decision to allow an

injunction in Texas that will continue keeping open clinics that were facing closure across the

state. And we'll parse what on first glance might seem to be contradictory actions around voter

ID laws across the country. And finally, we'll be joined by Supreme Court correspondent Joan Biscupic to discuss her brand

new biography of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

And I'm delighted to say that joining me for this episode of Amicus is Walter Dellinger,

who was Acting Solicitor General in the Clinton administration, is a partner in the appellate

practice at O. Melvaney and Myers, and who has become my own long-term

partner in crime at Slate for the end of every Supreme Court term. Walter has argued a

bajillion cases in front of the Supreme Court. He knows it as well as anyone, and I'm delighted to

have you here. Thank you, Walter, for joining us on amicus. And thank you, Adalia, though you are really an amica, I think.

I'm not an amicus. It's the feminine form. But go ahead.

Really? We're going to start with Latin. Okay. Walter, the first question I have for you is,

this past two weeks at the court is best characterized by the court secretly, silently,

unsigned, incomprehensibly emergency action that nobody understands. So there are cases being

argued, I suppose, but what really seems to be happening is that core questions about voting laws, same-sex marriage, and now

abortion regulations are being decided in secret with unexplained stays and unsigned orders. So what is

going on, Walter? What is the court doing up there? And why are we all being sort of swayed by

these voices in our heads at the Supreme Court

that are not actually briefing, arguing, or deciding any cases?

Well, I think it's actually not as confusing as it seems in the sense that a court always has to decide in the couple of years it takes a lawsuit to get resolved.

What happens during the pendency of the lawsuit, particularly what happens when a trial court judge at the lower court rules in favor of challengers and joins the enforcement of a state law?

...