Soft Target
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!
Episodes
Divided Argument
An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.
Episodes
Expanded Universe
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.
Unpersuasive Scholar Trolling
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 .
Relentless Personal Attacks
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.
For Liberty and not for Fascism
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.
Horse Sausage
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.
Maoist Takeover
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.
I Say "Timbre"
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.
Settling of Scores
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."
Character Sketches
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 .
COBRA
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.
SMUGLER
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).
Marshal Law
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.
Hoosiers
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.
Shmoland
We try to catch up on what the Court did since we last recorded, but end only making it through the Court's opinions in United States v. Zubaydah and Wooden v. United States .
Knife in the Back
We catch up on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a new opinion by Justice Breyer, revisit a debate about who the greatest law professor on the Supreme Court is, and talk through each of our recent scholarly efforts. Tune in to hear Dan surprisingly attack Will's Fourth Amendment views from the right flank, learn an interesting tidbit about Justice Brandeis, and get some insight into the mysterious originalist gathering in San Diego.
Speakin' to the Youth
We're back after a long absence, but there's a good excuse. We catch up on the biggest developments from the last couple months, including the Breyer retirement, the Court's COVID decisions, the masking imbroglio, and the Alabama redistricting shadow-docket ruling. We also discuss Dan's childhood meeting with Justice Thomas, speculate about the median age of our listenership, and invent a new empirical metric for evaluating Supreme Court justices.
Completely Naïve Idiot
Will and Dan try to make sense of the Court’s decisions in the two cases addressing the possibility of preenforcement challenges to Texas’s novel abortion ban.
Out of Whack
We’ve been waiting for months to bring you this one: we can finally talk about the President’s Supreme Court Commission, which just finalized its report this week. We also briefly talk about the recent argument in Dobbs and try to predict what the Court might do.
First in Flight
Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action.
Fast and Loose
Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law.
Sovereign to Sovereign
The road show continues as Will and Dan record another live episode at the National Association of Attorneys General's State Solicitors General and Appellate Chiefs Conference in Chicago. They delve deeper into Texas's abortion law and the US's lawsuit seeking to stop it. Then, they have a broader discussion about the role and power of states in Supreme Court litigation.
Unspeakable Cruelty
Divided Argument is live from the University of Chicago Law School! In our first ever episode in front of a live studio audience, we catch up on recent Court-related developments, such as several Justices' recent public remarks pushing back on Court politicization and the Court's latest foray into whether capital prisoners can have spiritual advisors with them in the execution chamber.
The Lightning Docket
Will and Dan break down the Court's late-night refusal to block the implementation of Texas's controversial "fetal heartbeat" law, and what it might mean for the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence.
Out on a Limb
Dan and will try to catch up on the flurry of news from Thursday afternoon, including an update on the Acting Solicitor General and the Court’s surprising grant of injunctive relief against New York’s eviction procedures. Come for the breaking news, stay to find out how Dan procrastinate and to learn the relevance of Catskills humor to the shadow docket.
Beyond The Pale
As Will, Dan, and the Court all navigate their August vacations, we learn how a controversy over the qui tam statute indirectly saved Roe v. Wade. We then catch up on a few legal developments: The Biden Administration has renewed its eviction moratorium, confusing many legal observers in the process. The administration has also finally given us a nomination for Solicitor General. And a controversial cert. petition by the state of Oklahoma provokes an extended discussion of stare decisis and lawy...
Secondary Trolling
As October Term 2020 recedes in the rear-view mirror, Dan and Will take a moment to reflect. We ponder the current balance of power on the Court and how the pandemic era might change the institution. We also address some listener feedback on Transunion; Will defends himself against the charge that he worships the justices too much; and Dan takes issue with a bold claim that Will snuck in on a previous episode.
Inner Sanctum
Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term.
Crime of the Day
Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further!
Very Breyeresque
Dan and Will return after their vacations to catch up on what they've missed. After checking in briefly on Justice Breyer, they try to talk about two of the Court's biggest cases from the end of the Term. They only manage to get through one of them: Brnovich v. DNC.