A Heritage Foundation podcast with Elizabeth Slattery & friends breaking down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and more.
The SCOTUS 101 podcast is a brilliant and informative show that delves into the inner workings of the Supreme Court and provides insights into the cases before the High Court. Hosted by GC and Zack, these knowledgeable lawyers bring their expertise to each episode, offering objective reviews of cases and engaging interviews with legal professionals. Their humility and fun approach make it an enjoyable listening experience.
One of the best aspects of this podcast is the in-depth analysis of Supreme Court cases. GC and Zack know their stuff, providing listeners with thorough explanations of the legal issues at hand. They break down complex concepts in a way that is easy to understand, making it accessible for both legal scholars and those with a general interest in the judicial system. Additionally, the fascinating interviews add another layer of depth to the show, allowing listeners to gain insights from prominent figures in the legal field.
However, one potential downside of this podcast is its conservative bias. As it is produced by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, some episodes may lean towards a right-wing perspective. This could be off-putting for listeners who are seeking a more balanced viewpoint or who hold differing political beliefs.
In conclusion, The SCOTUS 101 podcast is a must-listen for anyone interested in keeping up with what's happening at the Supreme Court and gaining a deeper understanding of our judicial system. While it may have a conservative slant due to its affiliation with the Heritage Foundation, it still provides valuable insights and analysis that can benefit all listeners. With its engaging format and knowledgeable hosts, this podcast deserves applause for its informative content.
Special guest May Mailman, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Policy Analyst, talks about the formulation of policy at the White House and the lawfare against the president being waged by outlaw judges.A film review is provided of a movie about a similar confrontation, the classic 1952 western, “High Noon.”
Guest Sarah Parshall Perry discusses a lawsuit just filed in Colorado against the state's new draconian censorship and government propaganda law. A classic movie review is provided of the film version of George Orwell's book on government censorship and thought control, “1984.”
Professor John Eastman discusses the oral arguments made on May 15 in the birthright citizenship cases before the Supreme Court and the problem of nationwide injunctions.A classic film review relevant to arrogant judges is provided of the 1940 movie, “The Westerner.”
Special Guest Lora Ries, one of the country's leading experts on illegal immigration and DHS operations, discusses the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, the rules governing deportation, and the work being done by the Trump administration to stop illegal immigration. There is a classic film review of two movies relevant to illegal aliens: “Illegal Entry” and “Panic in the Streets.
Attorney Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund, who represents parents in their lawsuit against the Montgomery County, Maryland School Board for indoctrinating their kindergartners and elementary school kids with unacceptable sexual propaganda, talks about what happened when he argued the case before the Supreme Court.
This week's special guest is former Speaker of the House, historian, and author Newt Gingrich. We discuss his recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on “Judicial Overreach” as well as his historical perspective on the battles we are seeing in the nation's courts. With a classic movie review of “Seven Days in May,” the 1964 Frankenheimer film about a secret plan to take over the government and depose the president during the Cold War.
Hans von Spakovsky talks with lawyer and Navy veteran Cully Stimson about the “abominable” decision of a federal judge barring the Defense Department from revising its military standards on gender dysphoria.He also provides a classic movie review of “Judgment at Nuremberg,” the 1961 movie about the military and the courts and the prosecution after the end of WWII of Nazi leaders for crimes against humanity.Cully's Daily Signal article: https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/03/25/judge-reyes-abominable-transgender-opinion/
Case in Point Host Sarah Parshall Perry talks with fellow Senior Legal Fellow Hans Von Spakovsky about deportation orders under the Alien Enemies Act, oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, and some wild judicial decisions that strain a plain reading of the law. Plus, some big changes ahead for Case in Point. All that and more on this week's episode!
On this week's episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry is joined by Nate Kellum of First Liberty Institute to discuss their Supreme Court petition for review in Olivier v. City of Brandon.Can a claimant get relief from the future enforcement of an ordinance, if already charged with violating that same ordinance? Sarah and Nate talk religious freedom, free speech, and civil procedure.Plus, the Supreme Court Justices have been busy, so Sarah covers legal news, oral arguments, and more on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry is joined by Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, and Director of their Center for Parental Rights. They talk religious freedom, free speech, state v. federal claims, and whether objecting teachers who won't toe the line on gender identity are protected by law. Plus, the Supreme Court Justices have been busy, so Sarah covers legal news, oral arguments, and more on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry talks SCOTUS updates, cert petitions, and the push for the national popular vote interstate compact with Michael Maibach, Distinguished Fellow on American Federalism at the Save Our States. What is the national popular vote compact? Is it - as some have said - a threat to democracy? And how close is it to ratification? All that and more on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this week's edition of Case in Point, we address one of President Trump's most controversial executive orders, titled "Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship" with Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Amy Swearer. The Order moves to end birthright citizenship practice -- something which guarantees that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents' status. The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat. But is he? What is the history of the language of the "citizenship clause" in the 14th Amendment? And what does it reveal? What happens next in the litigation? All that and more on this week's edition of "Case in Point" https://static.heritage.org/legal-and-judicial/birthright-citizenship/Law%20Review%20Final%20Print.pdf
On this week's episode of Case in Point, we preview two big cases set to be argued within the week. Two very different online platforms have brought First Amendment free speech challenges against the government for laws regulating their operation. The implications for both could shake the foundation of some of the country's biggest platforms. In his year end report on federal courts, Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand as to how he'll rule in one of the cases....or did he? Then we discuss the need for the Supreme Court to revisit its rulings on obscenity and speech with Giancarlo Canaparo. Porn makes an appearance at the high court in a few days - is the government's interest simply in protecting kids from harmful material, or are there other considerations in play? That and more on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, Sarah Parshall Perry talks with Ian Prior, Senior advisor to America First Legal about the power of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), AFL's investigations using the FOIA tool to unearth government corruption, and what it's like to fight for the safety, privacy, and free speech rights of school children at the grassroots level. That, and a rundown of three new, high profile cert. grants from the Supreme Court on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, we cover the first (already?!) Supreme Court opinion of the October, 2024 term, and talk with Keisha Russell of First Liberty, the nation's largest public interest law firm dedicated exclusively to the defense of religious freedom in the courts. Keisha discusses First Liberty's defense of a historic church, and a religious charitable organization, plus gives us a preview of her upcoming book, "Uncommon Courage." What can Americans do in a culture increasingly hostile to religious expression? That and more on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this special episode of Case in Point, Sarah Parshall Perry is joined by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the named respondent in the biggest case of the Supreme Court's term: United States v. Skrmetti. The Attorney General talks about the law at the heart of the case, SB 1, talks about the dangers of "gender affirming" care for minors, gives us his impressions from oral arguments, and discusses what's next for his very busy office.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, Sarah is joined by Andy Bath, Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the Thomas More Legal Society. What do free speech rights have to do with pro-life advocacy? What is the F.A.C.E. Act, and how has it been employed by the Biden-Harris Administration? Will the Supreme Court take up abortion again this term? They'll answer these questions and more on Case in Point.
Lame ducks - and presidents: what will they do next? Description: On this week's episode, we sit down with judicial expert and Senate veteran Tom Jipping to talk post-election plans for a Congress and President in their waning days of service. What will congressional Democrats attempt to pass? What does the Constitution permit? And what about those last-minute judicial nominations from President Biden? Can new judges be appointed before President-elect Trump takes the oath of office at the end of January? We've got those answers and more on Case in Point!
This week on Case in Point, and only hours after one of the most significant Republican sweeps in a generation, we sit down with Hans Von Spakovsky, Senior Manager of Heritage's Election Law Reform Initiative. Hans offers his thoughts on the landmark 2024 election, the likelihood of future litigation on political races, the Supreme Court's election-related emergency docket orders, and why election integrity should matter to every American.
On this episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry sits down with Will Trachman, General Counsel at Mountain States Legal Foundation, to reminisce about their time working in a presidential administration. Will also talks about their case pending at the Supreme Court that concerns what citizen petitions are required to include before an issue is included on the ballot during an election. Plus, we talk dumb judicial opinions, DEI dismantling, and whether American public education is salveagable.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry is joined by Caroline Moore, Vice President of Parents Defending Education (PDE). They discuss PDE's "indoctrination map," an epidemic of school gender secrecy policies, the power of an active parent, and more.
On today's episode of Case in Point, we'll talk high-profile cases pending on requests for review at the Supreme Court. And we'll catch up with Kim Hermann, Executive Director for Southeastern Legal Foundation who's fighting in the trenches for sex-based protections for women and girls in education—from sports, to spaces, to scholarships and more. Title IX, school gender secrecy policies, preferred pronouns and more on Case in Point.
On the FIRST official episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry tees up some big cases at the Supreme Court--controversial enough that they're sure to grab headlines. AND we air former SCOTUS 101 host Zack Smith's recent Supreme Court Preview event at the Heritage Foundation with some legal heavyweights.
On this episode of SCOTUS 101, Zack Smith and Giancarlo Canaparo welcome fellow Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Sarah Parshall Perry who introduces a brand-new legal podcast platform, Case In Point. The lawyers catch each other up on some goings-on in their careers, have a good laugh about the suitability (or lack thereof) of some hosts' faces for video podcasts, and Zack and Giancarlo hand the reins to Sarah for an introduction of Case in Point, where she identifies some of the most controversial cases headed to court this year: Gender “affirming” medicine, women's sports, porn (yes, porn), and more. Bon Voyage, SCOTUS 101, Bienvenue, Case in Point!
The term is over, and what an ending it was! Presidents are entitled to broad immunity for official acts, Chevron deference is no more, the Seventh Amendment applies against the administrative state, nobody gets to sue over social media censorship, and the 8th Amendment does not prohibit anti-camping laws. These are the holdings of just a few of the blockbuster cases released in the last few days of this term. After your hosts discuss those cases, GianCarlo gets one last chance to stump Zack in trivia, and then they follow the Court into the summer recess. Over the summer, your hosts arrange interviews with judges, lawyers, and experts, so please let them know if there are any people you'd like them to interview or legal issues you'd like them to cover in depth next term. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It's almost the end of the term and the Court is now giving us some of the term's biggest cases. Bump stocks, abortion drugs, and taxes on unrealized gains are the just a few of the hot cases this week. After your hosts explore those cases, Zack interviews Judge Kathryn Mizelle of the Middle District of Florida about her meteoric rise to the bench and her many clerkships. Tune in next week for what is likely to be the final week of the term!Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The end of the terms is a month away, and the opinions are coming fast. This week, your hosts discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case, a racial redistricting case, and the National Rifle Association's free-speech victory. After that, Zack interviews John Eastman about the lawfare used against him and other lawyers who have represented former President Donald Trump. Last up, inspired by the New York Times' latest conniption fit over flags, GianCarlo quizzes Zack about flags at the Court. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It's the end of oral arguments, and this week the Court heard two big ones. Your hosts discuss Grants Pass, where the Court will decide whether it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to enforce anti-camping laws, and they discuss the Trump immunity case, which has big implications not only for the presidential election but for the office of the presidency forever. After that, Zack interviews legendary legal philosopher Hadley Arkes about his latest book, Mere Natural Law, and then Zack shows off his criminal-law expertise in 8th Amendment trivia.Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week the Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging a January 6th prosecution, had a spirited debate about nationwide injunctions, and issued major opinions on property rights and employment discrimination. Your hosts discuss all those developments, and then GianCarlo interviews Professor Andre Archie about his fascinating new book The Virtue of Color-Blindness, which defends color-blindness with the ideas of the great Greek philosophers. Lastly, Zack quizzes GianCarlo about veterans litigating in the Court.You can find GianCarlo's review of Archie's book here, and you can find his analysis of the Muldrow decision here.Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week the Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's expansion of access to the abortion drug mifepristone. GianCarlo discusses that case, oral arguments, and the mess of standing doctrine. After that, Zack interviews Professor John Yoo who gives his expert take on the Trump immunity case and makes his case that originalism is moral. Last up, trivia about the judiciary's own administrative state.You can find Zack's articles about the Judicial Conference here and here. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This term is shaping up to be a big one for free speech cases. The Court heard arguments in three such cases this week and handed down decisions in other cases involving public officials blocking people on social media, the FBI's No-Fly-List, and the meaning of the word "and." Your hosts discuss those cases, and then GianCarlo interviews Robert McNamara of the Institute for Justice about his career defending property rights. Last up, trivia is Justices in Uniform, part 2.Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This was a big week for former president Trump who prevailed in Trump v. Anderson against an attempt to remove him from the ballot in Colorado. Your hosts dive deep into that decision unpacking the majority opinion, the debate among the concurring justices, and the case's short- and long-term implications. After that, GianCarlo interviews Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, who recounts his fascinating life and career, beginning with his immigration to the United States from Korea. Lastly, GianCarlo quizzes Zack with trivia about Justices who have served in the armed forces.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week brings the Court another Trump-related lawsuit and a bevy of high-profile oral arguments. Among those, the NetChoice cases, which will decide to what extent states can stop social media companies from censoring users because of their political views. Your hosts discuss those cases and a handful of others that challenge the powers of administrative agencies. GianCarlo then interviews John Vecchione, a grizzled veteran of the war against the administrative state, who has brought several high-profile cases to the Supreme Court. Last up, Zack quizzes GianCarlo with trivia about technology at SCOTUS.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with the Judge Paul Kelly, Jr.. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with the Judge John Nalbandian. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week brings us the biggest oral argument of the term: Trump v. Anderson, which will decide whether states can disqualify President Trump from the ballot. Your hosts recap the complicated legal issues and explore oral arguments. Zack and GianCarlo also discuss the two opinions released this week, which involve whistleblower protections and suing the government for false credit reporting. Zack interviews legendary class action lawyer Ted Frank who talks about his career and his now-famous debunking of part of Justice Jackson's opinion in the affirmative action cases. Lastly, Zack takes the trivia hot-seat to answer questions about Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with the Judge Allison Jones Rushing. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week your hosts discuss newly granted cases including one challenging a decision by the Ninth Circuit holding that camping regulations are "cruel and unusual punishment" when applied against the homeless. They also discuss the oral arguments in the Relentless and Loper Bright cases, which challenge Chevron Deference. After that, Zack interviews Judge John W. Holcomb. And finally, GianCarlo quizzes Zack with some challenging property-rights trivia.Here is Jack's article about the oral arguments in Relentless and Loper Bright.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Welcome back to SCOTUS 101 after the Court's winter break. The Court has granted several new cases, including Donald Trump's appeal from a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying him from the presidential election under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. After your hosts discuss the new cases and this week's oral arguments, GianCarlo interviews Professor Josh Blackman about the complicated issues surrounding Section 3. Last up, Zack grills GianCarlo with some very clever trivia about other times presidents have appeared before the Court.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week your hosts remember Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who passed away last week. Your hosts also discuss the first opinion of this term and the oral arguments from this week and last, which included challenges to administrative tribunals and to taxes on unrealized gains. GianCarlo then interviews Eleventh Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher. And finally, GianCarlo quizzes Zack with trivia about Justice O'Connor's life and career.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
With GC out, Jack Fitzhenry once again joins Zack to dive into what's happening at SCOTUS. They discuss the new cases the Court has agreed to hear, the Rahimi oral argument, and NCAA/sports-related SCOTUS trivia.Zack then interviews Yonatan Green about the proposed reforms to Israel's judicial system and how those differ from the so-called reforms being proposed here in the United States.You can read what Zack has written on the issue here: https://lawliberty.org/the-challenges-of-judicial-restraint/ And you can read Yonatan's paper here: https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-peculiar-case-of-the-israeli-legal-system Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
GianCarlo is back, the Court is hearing arguments again, and free speech is on the docket. Your hosts discuss a newly granted case that will decide whether the Biden Administration's coordination with social media companies to censor what it labeled misinformation violates the First Amendment. They then unpack the oral arguments in two more free speech cases and a case that challenges civil asset forfeiture procedures. In lieu of an interview, your hosts replay the annual Joseph Story lecture, which Judge James Ho delivered last week. And finally, with an assist from artificial intelligence, GianCarlo tests how well Zack can identify Justices' writing styles. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
With GC on vacation, Jack Fitzhenry joins Zack to dive into what's happening at SCOTUS. They discuss the new cases the Court has agreed to hear, the oral arguments involving the CFPB's funding, whether an ADA tester's lawsuit is moot, and whether South Carolina legislators committed an unconstitutional gerrymander when drawing its latest Congressional map.Zack then interviews Judge Miller Baker of the Court of International trade about his career and what's happening in the legal profession today.Finally, Zack sees how well Jack can answer trivia about Jack's alma mater (University of Michigan) and SCOTUS.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Another term is here! Check out what to expect when Zack hosts veteran Supreme Court advocates Paul Clement and Lisa Blatt to discuss several of the biggest cases the Court will hear this term.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The end of the term has arrived, and all the biggest cases came with it. Your hosts explain the Harvard and UNC cases, the challenge to Biden's student loan bailout, 303 Creative, Groff v. Dejoy, and all the rest. There is no interview this week because of all the opinions, but no episode would be complete without trivia: it's surprising facts from the term's biggest opinions.Here is a link to GianCarlo's article. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It's the second-to-last week of the term, and the Court handed down its big immigration case, United States v. Texas, another case involving Indian tribes, and cases involving murder-for-hire, a fantastical Russian financial fraud, and a scam to trick people into immigrating illegally. Your hosts discuss those cases, and then GianCarlo interviews Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar about his new book The People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him. Judge Thapar has some homework for listeners, so pay attention! Last up, Zack quizzes GianCarlo with trivia about unusual confirmations.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week the Court handed down five opinions, two of which involved questions related to Indian Tribes, including one of the term's major cases, Haaland v. Brackeen. The decisions are heavy on textual analysis, showing that Justice Kagan was right when she said "we're all textualists now." Your hosts discuss the opinions, and then Zack tests GianCarlo's knowledge of some lesser-known facts about the Supreme Court's history.Further reading and listening:Professor Natelson on the Indian Child Welfare Act.Zack on Lac du Flambeau.Cully Stimson and Paul Larkin on Smith.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Zack is out this week, so Cully Stimson is filling in. Cully and GianCarlo discuss the four opinions of the week, which include the Jack Daniels parody case and the race-based challenge to Alabama's congressional district maps. GianCarlo then interviews William Trachman, general counsel of Mountain States Legal Foundation, and the two talk about his career focusing on his work on civil rights and public schools. Last up, Cully takes Zack's place in the trivia hot-seat to answer questions about the Court's frequent citations to Alice's adventures in Wonderland. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Four weeks to go in the term, and the Court handed down three opinions, which involved Medicare fraud, securities fraud, and labor union shenanigans. After your hosts discuss those opinions, Zack interviews veteran journalist James Rosen about his latest book Scalia: Rise to Greatness. James shares some of his best memories of the late Justice and shows what a debt he owed to his extraordinary wife, Maureen Scalia. After that, GianCarlo quizzes Zack with trivia about journalists at the Court.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Court handed down big decisions this week, all unanimous, including Sackett v. EPA and Tyler v. Hennepin County. After your hosts discuss those cases, GianCarlo interviews lawyer and novelist Chad Boudreaux. The two talk about his fascinating career and his latest legal thriller novel, Scavenger Hunt, which draws on Chad's unique knowledge of the inner workings of the Department of Justice. Last up, Zack quizzes GianCarlo with trivia about famous end-of-term opinions. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
