It’s more fun via email (promise). This article first appeared in our Slatest evening newsletter, which seeks to surface the best pieces published across Slate’s digital and audio journalism. We publish it there to help you cut to the chase at the end of each day. To get it in your inbox, along with more of the best work we published that day, sign up below.

Sign up for the Slatest

The best of Slate, delivered late.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again, or manage all your newsletter subscriptions here . Email address: Send me updates about Slate special offers. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms.

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh just saved the Voting Rights Act! This is quite the plot twist. “For several years now, many progressive attorneys have assumed that the VRA is pretty much dead, and the only question was when SCOTUS would deliver the final blow,” Mark Joseph Stern writes.

The 5–4 decision is a huge victory for multiracial democracy that sends a scathing message to red state lawmakers. Stern explains why this is such a big deal, and what it means for voting rights going forward.

Plus: Dahlia Lithwick explains why Roberts reversed himself this time on voting rights—and why that still doesn’t make him a centrist.

And Richard H. Pildes breaks down why the court’s voting rights decision is even better than it looks.

To get regular updates on all the consequential opinions coming out at the end of the Supreme Court term, make sure to sign up for our pop-up Opinionpalooza newsletter!

Florida man

The Trump grand jury has suddenly pivoted to Florida. Why is that? Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann examine a little-noted pending Supreme Court case that could provide an explanation.

A critical time for Ukraine

Ukraine’s much-anticipated counteroffensive has begun. How can you tell if it’s succeeding? Fred Kaplan lays out some things to watch out for.

Physics? Nah.

Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement

Justice Samuel Alito’s wetlands-destroying opinion seems to shrug its shoulders at the relevant science. “The notion that a wetland can only be linked to streams or lakes by a continuous surface connection—presumably visible to the justices themselves—is fundamentally at odds with hydrology, the science of water,” Louis Derry writes. He lays into the “plainly physics-free” opinion supporting the court’s recent ruling in Sackett vs. EPA.

Plus: Progressive judges may have found a use for Clarence Thomas’ terrible guns ruling!

Freedom tantrum

No gas stove is safe from the Freedom Caucus’ quest to torment Kevin McCarthy! To register its displeasure over the debt ceiling deal, the caucus…joined Democrats in voting down a set of base-pleasing bills that would protect gas stoves. Huh? Jim Newell explains what’s going on here.

The CEO from nowhere

Chris Licht is out as CNN CEO. What went wrong? It’s not just that hefailed, Justin Peters explains—his idea of the news did.

Do the hair math

Advertisement Advertisement

There’s finally a name for what women have known about their hair for years. Heather Schwedel takes a closer look at the age-old art and science of hair math.

Yeehaw, ChatGPT

Like Philip K. Dick, we can all wonder if ChatGPT dreams of electric sheep. But more importantly: What does it know about cattle handling?

In asking the chatbot this question, Temple Grandin learned something about how we can shift our thinking to safeguard ourselves from the threat A.I. poses.

Today, Slate is… NEVER AGING BEYOND 36*

…much like an A.I.–generated avatar of a working actor. (Hey, we can dream! We love a good skincare routine.)

Thanks so much for reading! We’ll see you tomorrow.

Get this article to your inbox.

Sign up for the Slatest

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again, or manage all your newsletter subscriptions here . Email address: Send me updates about Slate special offers. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms.

Tweet Share Share Comment

最新评论