On Feb. 22, 2022 the Court heard arguments in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo vs. Texas, a case which concerned sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities. Joining to discuss this case is Anthony J. Ferate, of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP.
On January 18, 2022 the Court heard oral argument in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, a case which concerned the flag-flying at Boston city hall. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Scott Gaylord of Elon University School of Law.
On November 2nd, 2021 the Court heard argument in Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson, a case which concerned whether the First Amendment restricts the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech. Joining today to discuss oral argument is Jordan Pratt, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute.
On January 11th, 2022 the Court heard arguments in two immigration cases, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland, Attny Gen. V. Gonzalez. Joining today to discuss these arguments in two parts is Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School. This episode will begin with coverage of the question and background, and proceed in the second part to focused analysis of oral argument.
On Jan. 18, 2022 the Court heard argument in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Professor Suzanna Sherry, the Herman O. Loewenstein Chair in Law Emerita at Vanderbilt Law School.
On January 19th, the Court heard arguments in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate. At issue were: (1) Whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit of 52 U.S.C. 30116(j); and (2) whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Bradley Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.
The Supreme Court recently issued its decisions in two federal vaccine mandate cases, Biden v Missouri and National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Several states and interest groups sought emergency relief on regulations issued by OSHA as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The OSHA rule mandated large employers to require vaccination or regular testing of their employees. CMS required vaccination of s...
On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims against licensing officials. A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring: Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law Scho...
On November 8th, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, a case which concerned whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence. Joining today to discuss this case in great detail is Dr. Riddhi Sohan...
On December 8th, the Court heard arguments in Carson v. Makin, a case which concerned whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student aid program from choosing their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or sectarian, instruction. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Professor Nicole Garnett, The John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. ...
On November 9th, the Court heard argument in Ramirez v. Collier, a case which concerned Texas’ decision to allow Ramirez’s pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbid the pastor from laying his hands on his parishioner. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel of the Catholic University of America. Mrs. Lichter has served on the Domestic Policy Counsel, in the Office of Legal Policy, and as in-house counsel for the Archdiocese of Washi...
On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed. Featuring: - Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation ...
On November 3rd, the Court heard argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, a case which concerned whether New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violates the Second Amendment. Examining oral argument today, we have Professor Adam Winkler, the Connell Professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, and Professor Robert Leider of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School.
On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private part...
On November 8th, the Court heard argument in Unicolors, Inc. V. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Zvi Rosen of Southern Illinois University School of Law.
On November 30, the Court heard argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a case which asked: "Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council permits the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data; and (2) whether petitioners’ suit challenging HHS’s adjustments is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1395l(t)(1...
On October 6th, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. Zubaydah, a case which concerned "whether the 9th circuit erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C 1782(a) against former CIA contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities." Joining today to discuss this case in two parts is Kate Comer...
On October 12, 2021 the Court heard oral argument in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a case which concerned whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law. Joining today to discuss this argument and its implications is Elbert Lin, Partner and co-chair of the Issue and Appeals practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth.
We begin this October term with Wooden v. United States, argued October 4, 2021, a case which concerned the Armed Career Criminal Act. Nine justices convened, in person, to examine the issue of whether offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree, but sequentially in time, were “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement. With me today to discuss this case is Jennifer Barrow, Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law Sc...
We conclude the October sitting with United States v. Tsarnaev, argued on October 13th, 2021, a case which concerned procedural elements of Dzhokar Tsarnaev's capital sentences pertaining to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Joining today is Richard Broughton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Detroit Mercy.
On June 25th, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, a case which concerned whether Alaska native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act “Indian Tribes” for purposes of the CARES Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court, which held that ANCs are “Indian tribe[s]” under ISDA and thus eligible for funding under Title V of the CARES Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch a...
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., a case which concerned whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 decision, holding that “while public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome the student’s interest in free expression...
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case which concerned whether a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court, holding that California’s access regulation constitutes a per se physical taking. Joining me today to...
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Collins v. Yellen, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Jason Levine, Partner at Alston & Bird, and Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Lange v. California, a case which concerned whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement apply when police are pursuing a suspect whom they believe committed a misdemeanor. In a unanimous decision, the Court held for Lange that "pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home." Justice Elena Kagan authored the majorit...
On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, a case which concerned whether the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation for college athletes violated federal antitrust law. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch affirmed the ruling of the lower court, holding that the NCAA’s rules restricting certain education-related benefits for student-athletes violate federal antitrust laws under a “rule of reason” analysis. Joining me today to discuss t...
On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority to appoint Administrative Patent Judges. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office, thereby vacating the lower court's judgement and remanding fo...
On June 17th, 2021 the Supreme Court decided California v. Texas, a case which concerned whether Texas (along with over a dozen States and two individuals) had standing to challenge the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, Justice Breyer noted that “plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing ...
On June 17th, 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. The issue before the court was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court, which held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract wi...
On June 17, 2021 the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in Nestle USA, Inc. V. Doe et al and the consolidated case of Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I. In this case, the Court considered the question of whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute can overcome the exterritoriality bar where the claim based is on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurre...
