We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski . Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests....
What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the latest developments in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States , and then ponder the two student loan cases , Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown ....
We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States .
In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper .
After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case , revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern , and break down the latest case captioned " United States v. Texas ."...
We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen , which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hanse n, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge....
We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County , United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. , and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters ....
We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas . Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith , the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Ciminelli .
We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough.
We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song.
We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions -- Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz .
We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe ( starting at 25:41 ) and Donziger v. United States ( starting at 35:15 ) -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized....
We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions— Bittner v. United States , about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and Cruz v. Arizona , a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case)....
We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree.
We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas ( starting at 37:56 ) over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions.
We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak!
We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States ( starting at 38:10 ), an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting.
We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States .
In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases.
We check in on some Court-related news and developments and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. , a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting.
We provided an extended preview of the arguments in one of the October cases, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which takes us into a long discussion of the "dormant" Commerce Clause and extraterritorial regulation. But first we discuss some statements from Justice Alito and Ginni Thomas, the newest circuit justice assignment, and some updates from last episode.
We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University.
We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone.
We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine."
In our longest episode yet, we break down two massively consequential cases: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen .
We try to catch up after the Court's big opinion dump this week, and end up focusing on Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas , Denezpi v. United States , Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana , and the DIG in Arizona v. San Francisco . Come for the legal analysis, stay for the health insurance advice.
We're back to talk about Wednesday's decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero).
We're back to talk about the big news: the draft of Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, and the questions that surround it -- how and why this might have happened, what it means for the Court, and what the Court can do about it.
We try to clear our backlog after a break. We manage to make it through United States v. Tsarnaev, Ramirez v. Collier, and a few other odds and ends.
