Tiers of Scrutiny w/ Eva Eapen & Pari Sidana

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Louisiana v. Callais, a case that the Supreme Court heard arguments for in late March. After a federal court ordered Louisiana to fix a Voting Rights Act violation, the new map—drawn to empower Black voters—sparked backlash from non-Black plaintiffs claiming racial gerrymandering. When, if ever, is racial gerrymandering a legitimate remedy? What does this mean for the future of the VRA? We discuss these questions and more in this episode. As always, sources below. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/louisiana-v-callais/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-109https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/335630/20241219161939870_24-109%20Brief-updated.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/339741/20250121131829124_24-109%2024-110%20Brief%20for%20Appellees.pdf

In this episode, we dive into one of the most talked-about education and religious liberty cases of this term: Mahmoud v. Taylor. At the heart of the case? A Maryland school district's decision to include LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks in the elementary curriculum—and to eliminate the opt-out policy that once allowed parents to excuse their children from these lessons on religious grounds.We explore the constitutional questions raised by Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian families who say their religious rights were sidelined, and the school district's rationale that maintaining opt-outs was unworkable and potentially stigmatizing. What does the First Amendment really protect when it comes to public education, religious upbringing, and curriculum decisions? Tune in as we unpack the legal arguments, the court's reasoning, and what this case could mean for schools and families across the country.Here are our sources: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-297- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf: - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/351193/20250304160341072_Mahmoud%20Merits%20Opening%20Brief%20FINAL%20REVISED.pdf- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-297- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! This week, Pari and I discussed Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos--a case where the Mexican government takes American gun companies to court. Some relevant resources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1141https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/smith-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/332815/20241126130359423_23-1141%20ts.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/337036/20250110145559191_Mexico%20Response%20Brief%201-10-25%20Final.pdfhttps://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/smith-amp-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos-and-the-future-of-transnational-gun-trafficking-liability

Hi everyone! On today's ToS episode, Pari and I discuss Oklahoma State Charter School Board v. Drummond. This case raises various questions about the First Amendment's relationship to state-funded religious schools. Is it possible that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits states from excluding religious schools from charter-school programs? Alternatively, does the Establishment Clause require states to exclude these schools? We chat about these questions, as well as a few others here. As always, resources are listed below--thank you for tuning and we'll see you in two weeks!https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-394https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351350/20250305181244391_24-396%2024-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/334661/20241209162142824_Board%20BIO%20MAIN%20E%20FILE%20Dec%209%2024.pdf

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss US v. Skrmetti. Here are the resources we used: - https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2793977- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618-  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-477- https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/united-states-v-skrmetti/#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20v.,Clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment-  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0001.pdf- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/300984/20240220190248213_23-477%20United%20States%20v.%20Skrmetti%20-%20final.pdf- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/299674/20240202161645864_23-466%20-477%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Barnes v. Felix, a case concerning the “moment of threat doctrine”--a legal principle limiting review of police officers' use of force to only the “moment of threat” in which they perceived a threat. Opponents of the doctrine call for an evaluation of “totality of circumstances”--arguing that courts must review any and all actions leading up to the moment of threat. Barnes v. Felix is named for Ashtian Barnes, a Black man who was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop in 2016. Listed below are relevant resources: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/barnes-v-felix/https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/barnes-v-felix/https://www.forcescience.com/2024/10/officer-created-jeopardy-a-legal-theory-that-threatens-effective-policing-will-the-supreme-court-restore-limits/https://abc13.com/post/us-supreme-court-reviewing-2016-case-where-pct-5-deputy-constable-roberto-felix-fatally-shot-ashtian-barnes-during-traffic-stop/15409623/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/331758/20241113164932983_Barnes%20Merits%20Brief%2011-13-24%20Final.pdfhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/335125/20241213165012756_Felix%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf

In this episode, we dive into the legal battle between e-cigarette manufacturers and the FDA—a case that's making waves all the way to the Supreme Court. Back in 2009, Congress put vaping under FDA oversight, but fast forward to 2021, and manufacturers claim the agency pulled a last-minute rule change, shutting down their applications without warning. The FDA says it's just doing its job to protect public health—especially kids. So, did the agency play fair, or did it pull a “regulatory switcheroo,” as the Fifth Circuit called it? We break down the arguments, the legal implications, and what this case means for government transparency, corporate accountability, and the future of flavored vapes.Tune in as we unpack the puffs, politics, and procedures behind this high-stakes case!Here are our sources:https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1038https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-and-drug-administration-v-wages-and-white-lion-investments-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/12/justices-hear-fda-case-on-flavored-vapes/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/323413/20240826164114741_23-1038tsFDA.pdf https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-dohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/327672/20241007153644875_23-1038%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf

Happy Monday, folks! On today's episode, Pari and I discuss Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case in which SCOTUS must decide the correct scrutiny test to apply to age verification laws on porn sites. Other questions we touch on...Should governments be able to require that porn websites verify viewers' ages? Do such laws infringe on First Amendment protections and anonymity? This is a case that will have significant implications for free speech protections regarding sexual/obscene content. We recorded this episode before the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case, so we've linked the January 15th arguments for you below--alongside a host of resources if you're interested in learning more. See you in two weeks! Eva & Pari https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/ https://ballotpedia.org/Free_Speech_Coalition,_Inc._v._Paxton#:~:text=Ketanji%20Brown%20Jackson-,Free%20Speech%20Coalition%20v.,court's%20October%202024%2D2025%20term.&text=The%20issue%3A%20The%20case%20concerns%20people's%20access%20to%20protected%20speech https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/scotus-attorney-general-ken-paxton-defends-texas-law-requiring-age-verification-measures-pornography#:~:text=Attorney%20General%20Ken%20Paxton%20filed,children%20from%20obscene%20online%20material https://www.aclu.org/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/326045/20240916160337719_Petitioners%20Merits%20Br.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/311950/20240530120355427_23-1122%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/326689/20240923183221800_23-1122tsacUS_Free_Speech_Coal_Final.pdf

Hello listeners! In this episode, Pari and I discuss Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a SCOTUS case that concerns Hungarian Holocaust survivors suing the Republic of Hungary in pursuit of compensation for seized property. Pari was actually lucky enough to be present in the chamber during oral arguments for this case! Listen for her observations about the justices' stature, behaviors and body languages during arguments, and more. As always, we've linked some information for you below and we'll see you in two weeks!

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss the SCOTUS case about the Tik Tok ban. Here are the sources we used: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336151/20241227163400981_2024-12-27%20-%20TikTok%20v.%20Garland%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20President%20Donald%20J.%20Trump.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/335387/20241217150212414_24A587%20Amicus%20Brief%20PDFA.pdf) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336144/20241227161148472_24-656tsGovt_final.pdfhttps://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336136/20241227160309446_24-656%20ts.pdf https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-tiktok-ban-law/ https://www.wral.com/story/republican-nc-supreme-court-candidate-wants-gop-led-high-court-to-toss-ballots-after-elections-board-rejects-protest/21774323/

In today's episode, Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case is about Richard Glossip who has been sentenced to the death penalty despite the prosecution hiding information about a key witness' mental health and that same witness admitting that he lied on the stand. We dive into the ethical implications of what will happen if the Supreme Court decides to uphold Glossip's sentence. Here are the sources we used: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/opinion/courts-execution-mistakes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/308603/20240429163200162_22-7466%20ts.pdf - https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/ - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/270450/20230705170639604_GlossipRes%20MAIN%20%20E%20FILE%20Jul%205.pdf - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-7955

In this episode, we delve into the Supreme Court case that challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) 2022 revisions to the Gun Control Act of 1986. These revisions introduced new definitions of key terms like "firearm," "firearm frame," and "receiver" that could have far-reaching implications for gun regulations across the country. The case revolves around whether the ATF has overstepped its authority by redefining these terms and altering the legal landscape for gun owners, manufacturers, and regulators. Join us as we break down the legal arguments, the historical context of the Gun Control Act, and the potential consequences of this case for the future of firearms law. Here are the sources we used: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-852/315742/20240625172334020_23-852%20VanDerStok.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-852/302555/20240307152938802_23-852%20VanDerStok%20cert%20resp%20Final.pdf https://apnews.com/article/biden-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-gun-politics-5f0f26cdb5d3bcbc6f9c5daf471c118d https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-852 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-852

Hello everybody! We are on to business as usual, updating you on U.S. v. Rahimi. This is a case about the permissibility of 2nd amendment restrictions. If you need additional background, we recommend you go back and listen to the original U.S. v. Rahimi episode, as well as the NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen episode. Linked below are some resources on the Rahimi case for your viewing! Thanks for tuning in. As for the NC Supreme Court race, Justice Allison Riggs appears to have won by a slim 625 votes. There will likely be a recount. If you want to learn more about her, we recommend that you go back and listen to our interview with her, entitled "Campaigning with Conviction". https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-d63ee828e51911cc5e5a01780820f224

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss 3 key decisions that the Supreme Court made about the upcoming election. If you have not made a plan to vote yet visit iwillvote.com to get all the information you need to vote tomorrow. Here are all the resources we used in compiling this episode: - https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/g-s1-31054/supreme-court-pennsylvania - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/30/us/supreme-court-virginia-purge-voter-registration.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/30/virginia-voter-purge-justices/ - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions - https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4960129-election-lawsuits-supreme-court/

In today's episode Eva and I discuss Moody v. Net Choice. The case is about social media and whether or not states can impose regulations on whether social media platforms can engage in censorship. Here are the resources we used: - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555 ​​https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/court-sends-social-media-moderation-cases-back-to-lower-courts/ - https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/differences-between-facial-and-as-applied-challenges-to-the-constitutionality-of-a-statute

Hey y'all! On today's episode, Eva and I discuss Moyle v. United States. Here are the resources we used: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-726 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/united-states-v-idaho-consolidated-moyle-v-united-states

Hi everyone! On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, we discuss Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Here are the sources we used: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-807 - https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Id4cf195cf3ad11e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Clear-Error?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)#:~:text=When%20reviewing%20mixed%20questions%20of,Ass'n%20v. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/rucho-v-common-cause

On today's episode, Pari and I discuss the landmark case regarding presidents' immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. As always, thanks for tuning in! Additional resources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939

On today's episode, we discuss Murthy v. Missouri, a case regarding freedom of speech and government censorship on social media platforms. Here are the sources we used: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

On today's episode, we discuss the fall of a judicial doctrine known as "chevron deference." in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Here are all the sources we used: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_procedure_act https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-administrative-procedure-act https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/climate/supreme-court-climate-chevron.html https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-biden-presidents-00165234 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-fishermen-landmark-case-deciding-fate-administrative-state https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-1219

On today's episode, Pari and I update you on a case we've previously covered: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. The question at hand--whether or not cities can penalize unhoused people for sleeping in public areas? We briefly preview the case, discuss the Court's decision, and give you some of our thoughts. As always, resources linked below. Thank you tuning in! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/

On today's episode, we have an exciting interview with North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs. As she looks ahead to 2024 and beyond, we wanted to learn more about her background, convictions, and her vision for the future of our democracy. Listen to this episode to learn more about Justice Riggs, the NC Supreme Court, and the importance of voting in 2024. You can learn about Justice Riggs and her campaign here: https://www.riggsforourcourts.com/!

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! Listen here to learn about NRA v. Vullo, a case in which the NRA accuses New York's Department of Financial Services' Superintendent of suppressing their speech. Linked below are additional resources regarding this case. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2023/12/11/scotus-adds-two-additional-gun-rights-cases-to-docket/

Wondering about the nitty gritty of former President Donald Trump's conviction last week? We were too. Listen here for a discussion of Trump's actions, the charges, the trial, the verdict, and the response. Read more here: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted https://time.com/6985067/donald-trump-felon-travel-guns-voting/ https://www.vox.com/scotus/353561/supreme-court-donald-trump-nullfy-conviction https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

Hey y'all! We hope you enjoy today's episode. You can read more about the case here: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175: - https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-preview-city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-175_6kh7.pdf - https://www.culawreview.org/journal/evolving-standards-of-decency-on-the-abolition-of-capital-punishment#:~:text=As%20highlighted%20in%20Weems%20v,cruel%20and%20unusual%20standards%E2%80%9D%20clause.

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny Eva and I discuss Trump v. US, the SCOTUS case about former President Trump's immunity in the January 6th trial. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-takes-up-trump-immunity-appeal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/06/trump-immunity-supreme-court-argument-date/

Hey y'all! We hope you are doing well. On today's episode Eva and I discuss the Tik Tok Ban which was passed by the House of Representatives on March 13th. Here are the sources we used for the episode: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/technology/tiktok-ban-bill-senate.html https://time.com/6958140/tiktok-ban-jeff-jackson-vote-apology/ https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849 https://apnews.com/article/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-fd07f61e167bd9109a83cd7355b5f164 https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-national-tiktok-ban-and-the-first-amendment#:~:text=The%20judge%20was%20presented%20with,in%20the%20least%2Drestrictive%20manner.

On today's episode, Eva and I cover Texas v. United States (2024). This case regards SB4 (an immigration law) and Article 1, Section 10. Here are the sources which we used: - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/texas-immigration-law.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb - https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/#:~:text=Texas%20has%20argued%20the%20law,own%20%E2%80%9Cunless%20actually%20invaded.%E2%80%9D - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sb4-texas-immigration-law-blocked-again-after-supreme-court-allowed-state-to-arrest-migrants/ - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-allows-strict-texas-sb4-immigration-law/story?id=108248478

Tune in to hear us discuss the Supreme Court's per curial opinion in Trump v. Anderson. We also delve into Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as states' inability to remove federal office holders from elections. Read the Court's opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Hi everyone! On today's episode we discuss Net Choice v. Paxton, LLC. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555). Here are our sources for the episode: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/netchoice-l-l-c-v-paxton-5th-circuit-sets-up-supreme-court-battle-over-content-moderation-authority-of-social-media-giants https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/candeub2.pdf https://www.cato.org/blog/fifth-circuit-gets-right-editorial-freedom-very-wrong https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-rcfp-urge-supreme-court-to-block-two-state-laws-that-would-allow-the-government-to-regulate-editorial-discretion-on-social-media https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/netchoice

The episode title is a play on today's case: NRA v. Vullo. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842. Here are our sources for today's episode: - https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-decide-a-variety-of-gun-cases-this-term - https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2023/12/11/scotus-adds-two-additional-gun-rights-cases-to-docket/ - https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/national-rifle-association-v-vullo-gives-scotus-an-opportunity-to-resolve-a-key-first-amendment-circuit-split

Hi everyone! On today's episode, I am covering Moore v. United States. This case involves an investment into a foreign company and a taxation on that investment. Although the case itself may seem boring, the wider implications of a decision are fascinating. You can learn more here!

Hi everyone! On today's episode, Eva and I discuss Murthy v. Missouri. The case is about the First Amendment and when, if at all, the government can step in to restrict speech on social media. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411! As always, please let us know if you have any comments or questions.

On today's episode we discuss the new ethics code that Justices will be following. You can read the code here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! On today's episode, we discuss a 2nd Amendment case--United States v. Rahimi. Check out the links below for a little extra reading on the case. See you in two weeks :) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915 https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi

In this episode, hear us discuss McElrath v. Georgia, an upcoming SCOTUS case regarding an acquitted defendant who the state of Georgia wants to retry in criminal court. Sound like a Double Jeopardy issue to you? Us too. Tune in for more.

On today's episode we discuss Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP. The case regards gerrymandering in South Carolina. You can read more about it here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-807

In today's episode we discuss the intersection of the 1st amendment and social media!

Question at hand: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

In today's case we discuss the intersection between freedom of speech and internet stalking. You can read the court's full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf!

In this episode, we discuss the fall of affirmative action and our predictions of what will happen to college applications next. We simultaneously explored the role of Asian Americans and the model minority myth in both upholding and ending the practice. By no means do we have all the answers to the effect that the end of the policy will have on institutions and opportunities for underrepresented minorities and those in the majority. This episode is a contentious one but we didn't want to shy away from our thoughts and opinions so please be respectful when engaging in discourse. At the end of the day, people are sacred and ideas are not. Here are the references we used: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf https://www.bu.edu/ciss/2023/07/03/college-are-already-unequal-will-ending-affirmative-action-make-it-worse/ https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/07/03/affirmative-action-supreme-court-california# https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc http://care.gseis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/care-brief-raceblind.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00284.x http://www.jstor.org/stable/42956064 http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rqbv Fisher v. University of Texas. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 7, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-345 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/legacy-colleges-universities-black-brown/ https://www.law.com/almID/1202676210690/ https://calmatters.org/education/2018/07/californias-gone-without-higher-ed-affirmative-action-since-1996-blackenrollment-at-top-ucs-never-recovered/ https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1062947?show=full%20own%20original%20research. Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 7, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199 https://thespearheadmagazine.com/how-the-model-minority-myth-affects-us-all/ https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol11/iss2/7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-banned-what-happens/

Listen to us unpack the decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which SCOTUS came down in favor of Lori Smith, the Colorado wedding website designer who did not wish to ever design a website for a same-sex couple. Read here for more background information. See you in two weeks!

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! Listen here for a breakdown of Haaland v. Brackeen, a SCOTUS case regarding ICWA (The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978). If interested in more background information, check out the following links: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-376 https://www.aclu.org/cases/brackeen-v-haaland

This episode of tiers of scrutiny covers the court's recent decision in Allen v. Milligan which regards maps used in the 2022 midterm election in Alabama. You can read the opinion here. If you are interested in more legal analysis we suggest SCOTUS Blog.

In this episode we discuss Twitter v. Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez, two decisions released by the court on May 18th. We hope you enjoy!

A continued discussion of the ethics scandals surrounding the SCOTUS and what the impact is in the court of public opinion.

On April 21st, the Supreme Court released a block on a lower court ruling from April 7th to prohibit the use of Mifepristone (an abortion pill) which contradicted another ruling on the same day which expanded the use of Mifepristone. Tune in to hear our thoughts and opinions of the block along with updates on the NC Supreme Court cases we talked about 2 episodes ago: Harper v. Hall and Holmes v. Moore. The Republican majority court has reversed these decisions which will have a major impact on how we vote in the next election.

Greetings! Today's episode of Barely Legal focuses on recent news! ProPublica released a report revealing that Clarence Thomas failed to disclose multiple trips and a real estate deal made with GOP super donor and billionaire, Harlan Crow. What does this mean for the public's (already eroding) trust in the Supreme Court? As always, thank you for listening and we'll see you in two weeks.

In today's episode, we discuss the newly Republican majority NC Supreme Court rehearing two voting-related cases, Holmes v. Moore and Harper v. Hall. The former has to do with Voter ID requirements and the latter with allegedly racially discriminatory redistricting. As always, we encourage you to seek out information about your local legislators and justices, and to bear this information in mind when you cast your vote. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you in three weeks.

Welcome to today's episode of Barely Legal, where we discuss the five women suing the state of Texas for not providing them with abortions despite their fetuses being unviable and their lives being at risk. We also discuss the unintended consequences of abortion bans that have sprouted across the country since the release of the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the decision of abortion to the states. Attached is a link to an overview of the Dobbs case. Thank you for listening.

Today we talk about John Balentine and the role of our courts in determining who lives and who dies. Although this is not a Supreme Court case, there are still many implications from the decision. You can read more about it here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/supreme-court-declines-to-halt-execution-of-texas-man-who-said-juror-and-attorneys-were-racist/. We also talked about the Racial Justice Act and NC Supreme Court case State v. Robinson along with State v. Tucker .