The hosts discuss Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams,where the Supreme Court unanimously narrowed the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thanks to Erin Hawley (@geekygimp) for her help prepping this episode. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. To get premium Patreon-only episodes, access to exclusive events, and membership in the 5-4 Slack, sign up for our Patreon at www.patreon.com/fivefourpod . ...
Mar 16, 2021•40 min
The hosts are joined by Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec), founder and executive director of Civil Rights Corps, and the author of Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System . They discuss San Antonio ISD v Rodriguez, an equal protection case from 1973, which is widely cited by conservatives as holding that the equal protection clause does not protect impoverished people. The hosts beg to differ. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_...
Mar 09, 2021•52 min
Here's a taste of what Patreon supporters get! In this episode, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) discuss former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. To get the full episode, sign up for our Patreon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Mar 02, 2021•4 min
The hosts are joined by Josie Duffy Rice of The Appeal to discuss another death penalty case — McCleskey v. Kemp. In this 1987 decision, the Supreme Court held that statistical evidence of systemic racial disparities is not enough to prove discrimination. Instead, defendants have to show that individual prosecutors, judges or juries pursued them with racist intent. As a result, states were basically let off the hook for perpetuating systemic racism in death penalty cases. Follow Peter (@The_Law_...
Feb 23, 2021•49 min
The hosts discuss Atkins v. Virginia, a case in which the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on people with intellectual disabilities. But the Court also created a loophole by allowing states to decide the standard for who qualifies as intellectually disabled. As a result of the Court’s lack of clarity, some states have continued to execute people with intellectual disabilities to this day. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Feb 16, 2021•58 min
The hosts discuss a case in which the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that allowed women to sue abusers in federal court for damages. In the process, the Court constrained the ability of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not only weakening an important civil rights law, but also making it more difficult for Congress to pass progressive legislation going forward. Follow eter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra)...
Feb 09, 2021•50 min
Your hosts discuss Navarette v. California, which held that an unverified anonymous tip about reckless driving could be sufficient grounds for the police to pull over a car. The case exemplifies how deferential the Supreme Court is to police power, and has resulted in an increased reliance on anonymous tips by the cops, and a corresponding erosion of citizens’ privacy rights. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast....
Feb 02, 2021•50 min
In 2002, a student held up a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at an Olympic torch relay, in full view of his classmates and teachers. When he was suspended, he claimed his banner was protected free speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In this episode, your hosts discuss the contours of student free speech, the Court’s puritanical moralizing on marijuana, and the importance of absurdist speech in creating real change. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more i...
Jan 26, 2021•40 min
In the second part of a two-episode series on abortion rights, the hosts discuss Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case in which the Supreme Court made it easier for states to restrict abortion access so long as abortion regulations don’t create an “undue burden.” The vague standard set lawmakers on a new path of attacking abortion access and fueled anti-abortion groups’ efforts to spread stigma and misinformation, setting up Roe v. Wade for a death by a thousand cuts. Hosted on Acast. See aca...
Jan 19, 2021•1 hr
The hosts take on one of the Supreme Court’s most famous decisions, Roe v. Wade. In this first episode of a two-part series, they look at the legal and factual origins of Roe v. Wade. They also discuss how Roe was weaponized by the conservative legal movement to rally against an interpretation of the Constitution that allows for flexibility in favor of a far more rigid approach. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Jan 12, 2021•54 min
Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael join the hosts of the podcast Know Your Enemy for a conversation about the conservative legal movement. They discuss the origins of conservative doctrines like originalism and textualism, and the rise of the Federalist Society from a small group of conservative students and academics to an organization whose members constitute the majority of the Supreme Court. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Hosted on Aca...
Dec 29, 2020•1 hr 25 min
The hosts take on a 1993 death penalty case that has been called one of the worst decisions in capital punishment jurisprudence. Herrera v. Collins asks whether someone on death row can have new evidence of their innocence reviewed in federal habeas corpus proceedings, often the last resort for someone who has exhausted their appeals. In a 6-to-3 vote, the Court rejected the claim, barely shying away from holding that the Constitution does not protect against an innocent person being executed. H...
Dec 15, 2020•49 min
The hosts discuss Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a recent case about COVID-19-related restrictions on religious gatherings. In it, the Supreme Court struck down hard capacity caps on religious gatherings in high-risk areas. The case has already spawned more challenges to pandemic-related restrictions on religious gatherings and likely foreshadows the expansion of legal exemptions for religious groups. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra)...
Dec 08, 2020•43 min
The hosts discuss Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a 2008 case in which the Court created a new pleading standard for legal complaints that made it much harder for plaintiffs to bring their cases. Here, a Pakistani immigrant who claimed he was detained and tortured in the wake of 9/11 had his case dismissed because, according to the Court, his allegations that Bush administration officials were responsible for his treatment were not “plausible.” Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhianno...
Dec 01, 2020•56 min
The hosts return to examining cases with a little-known campaign finance decision from 2011: Arizona Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett. They discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling, which declared unconstitutional a matching funds program for political candidates who opt out of private fundraising, effectively killing public campaign financing. The hosts also talk about the Trump campaign’s ongoing efforts -- in the courts and otherwise -- to contest the results of the 2020 election, and how likely...
Nov 17, 2020•47 min
The hosts look back at the week-long presidential election, which Joe Biden won. They discuss the challenges mounted by the Trump campaign in various states and explain why none of them is likely to change the outcome of the election. They also reflect on some state-level initiatives and put forth their strategy for how President Biden should deal with a split Senate, especially on matters pertaining to the Supreme Court. Follow Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @...
Nov 10, 2020•52 min
The hosts reflect on a string of cases pertaining to the coming election, discuss the legacy of Bush v. Gore, and the significance of Justice Kavanaugh recently citing Justice Rehnquist’s infamous concurrence in the case. They then replay their original analysis of the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. Please support our sponsors: HelixSleep.com/FiveFour Hosted on Acast. See...
Nov 03, 2020•1 hr
The hosts discuss options for reforming the court — from court packing, to term limits for judges, to stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to new laws. They also speak to Congressman Ro Khanna about court reform, and about the bill he has introduced to limit Supreme Court Justices' tenure. But they remain clear on their preferred option: packing the court to include more liberal justices. Follow Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltr...
Oct 27, 2020•1 hr 12 min
The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they found all partisan gerrymandering to be outside the purview of the Court going forward. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiann...
Oct 20, 2020•1 hr
The hosts discuss the past, present, and future of the Electoral College, and all the ways it could be used to stage a procedural coup in the upcoming election. They also talk about how the Electoral College could be restructured to give greater representation to states with large populations, like California. But if it were up to them, they’d get rid of this undemocratic institution all together, and switch to a system in which the president is chosen by popular vote. Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy...
Oct 13, 2020•48 min
The hosts discuss the recent news that Donald Trump has contracted COVID-19 and what implications it might have for the upcoming election and the Supreme Court. Then they answer listener questions, covering everything from court reform to how to decide if you should go to law school. Follow Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) on Twitter. Please support our sponsors: BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Oct 06, 2020•1 hr 1 min
The hosts talk about Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. They discuss the nominee's judicial record, her faith, and what it means to be nominated by President Trump at this time. Follow Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Sep 29, 2020•49 min
On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Specifically, the hosts talk about the consequences of RBG's decision not to step down from the Court during Barack Obama's presidency, what that decision tells us about her, and what lies ahead. Follow Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Sep 21, 2020•46 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about police use of chokeholds. In 1983, the Supreme Court held in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons that a man who had been injured by a brutal police chokehold did not have standing to sue for an injunction—in other words, he could not ask the Court to order the police to stop using chokeholds. The Court’s decision allowed the practice to continue, and chokeholds have been a focus of police reform efforts and protests since the...
Sep 15, 2020•41 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are discussing the right to vote. As the 2020 presidential election draws near, the Trump campaign has already started suing states over the use of mail-in ballots. The hosts talk through the basics of election law history and explain how individual citizens' right to vote is only sort of provided for in the Constitution. Follow Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) on Twitter. Please support o...
Sep 08, 2020•50 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter ( @The_Law_Boy) and Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ) are joined by their friend Adam to discuss the 1972 case that exempted professional baseball from antitrust law. Please support our sponsors: Helix Raycon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Sep 01, 2020•45 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) talk about the 2019 case that denied immigrants who have committed certain crimes the right to a bond hearing, and illustrated the futility of objectively interpreting the law. Please support our sponsors: magicspoon.com/FIVEFOUR HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR jordanharbinger.com/subscribe Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Aug 25, 2020•49 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) talk about the 2000 case that allowed Boy Scouts to discriminate against gay scout leaders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Aug 18, 2020•40 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and special guest Leon Neyfakh ( @Leoncrawl ) discuss the 1974 case that effectively ended school desegregation efforts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Aug 11, 2020•51 min
On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter ( @The_Law_Boy ), Rhiannon ( @AywaRhiannon ), and Michael ( @_FleerUltra ) look back at the most recent Supreme Court term. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information....
Aug 04, 2020•54 min
