Podcast appearances and mentions of anthony kreis

On this week's episode, we're continuing our series unpacking the litigation and criminal charges that have been levied at former president Donald Trump: The Trump Indictments. Earlier this month, Trump was indicted once again—this time, on 13 charges related to his role in interfering with the 2020 election results in Georgia. The case marks the former president's fourth indictment, and over 90 charges of criminal activity. He turned himself in to authorities in Fulton County, Georgia on Thursday, August 24. Prior to the release of the Georgia indictments, we spoke with professor Anthony Michael Kreis about why the case matters—and what it means for the rest of the cases currently being leveled against the former president. Joining us to discuss this important issue is a very special guest: Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis: Anthony Michael Kreis is a professor of law and political science with Georgia State University. His research examines the relationship between social change and the law, focusing on the relationship between American political history and the development of law over time. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at ontheissues@msmagazine.com. Support the show

Professor Anthony Kreis stops by Supreme Myths to talk about state laws prohibiting citizens from traveling to other states to exercise their rights, the relationship of social movements to judicial review, and how to improve the law review selection process.

Robert Schwartz, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and co-chair of the Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, discusses Scarlett Johansson's suit against Walt Disney, claiming it broke its promise to release her latest film “Black Widow” only in movie theaters when it made it available for streaming on the Disney+ video service. Anthony Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses the legal problems the new CDC eviction moratorium faces. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Robert Schwartz, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and co-chair of the Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, discusses Scarlett Johansson's suit against Walt Disney, claiming it broke its promise to release her latest film “Black Widow” only in movie theaters when it made it available for streaming on the Disney+ video service. Anthony Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, discusses the legal problems the new CDC eviction moratorium faces. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

We talk about the election recount, success of Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Runoffs, and an interview with Constitutional Law expert Anthony Kreis Law professor at Georgia State. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Trump is bringing legal challenges that seek to cast doubt on the results of the election. While this strategy is unlikely to prevail, it could undermine President-Elect Biden's push to unify the country. In Episode 20, we meet with Anthony Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University College of Law, to discuss Trump's legal actions, what role a conservative Supreme Court may play, and how Biden could overcome challenges to close gaps between both parties. Non-Compliant Host Jay Edelson, the Founder and CEO of a prominent plaintiff's firm, and Anthony will answer listener questions and also discuss the election results in Georgia and the upcoming Senate run-offs. Send your questions to podcast@edelson.com

This episode is a condensed version of a panel discussion our chapter hosted just days after the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The subject of the panel was “How the Constitution Must Change,” and our guests included GSU Professors of Constitutional Law Eric Segall, Neil Kinkopf, and Anthony Kreis (whose name I mispronounced more than once during the event). Joining them on the panel was University of Georgia Professor of Philosophy Richard Dien Winfield, a candidate in the jungle primary for Kelly Loeffler's seat in the U.S. Senate. For those not familiar with the American Constitution Society, we are a national network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges and policymakers who believe that the law should be a force to improve the lives of all people. ACS works for positive change by shaping debate on vitally important legal and constitutional issues through the development and promotion of high-impact ideas. If you support these efforts and are not a formal part of our network, I encourage you to become a national member of ACS today at http://acslaw.org/membership make sure to vote early before friday october 30th

In this episode, Carliss N. Chatman, Assistant Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, and Anthony Michael Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discuss Chatman's essay "If a Fetus Is a Person, It Should Get Child Support, Due Process, and Citizenship" and Kreis's response, "Under Ten Eyes," both of which are published in the Washington and Lee Law Review Online. Chatman's essay is based on her viral tweet and Washington Post op-ed, arguing that state laws intended to make fetuses persons for the purpose of abortion law, should also make fetuses persons in relation to other laws, and teasing out the consequences. Kreis's response reflects on how Chatman's essay draws into relief the entire constitutional debate over reproductive rights, in historical context. Chatman is on Twitter at @carlissc and Kreis is at @AnthonyMKreis.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

First appearing in a 1949 dissent authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” is being cited today by critics of perceived government overreach. Local, state, and federal authorities have directed citizens to self-isolate to prevent the spread of COVID-19, causing the biggest economic shutdown in modern history. Part of the effort to “flatten the curve”, these initially voluntary quarantines are quickly becoming legal mandates in certain states (and nations across the world). In California and New York, people violating stay-home orders for non-essential activities have been ticketed and cited with misdemeanors. Is there a point at which these restrictions on travel and assembly violate the rights inherent in America’s constitutional order? Many legal scholars agree the chief executive has quasi-wartime powers during national pandemics, but is there a limiting principle or expiration date? Join Professors Richard Epstein and Anthony Kreis as they discuss the viral menace and civil liberties in this podcast. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Prof. Anthony Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology

First appearing in a 1949 dissent authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” is being cited today by critics of perceived government overreach. Local, state, and federal authorities have directed citizens to self-isolate to prevent the spread of COVID-19, causing the biggest economic shutdown in modern history. Part of the effort to “flatten the curve”, these initially voluntary quarantines are quickly becoming legal mandates in certain states (and nations across the world). In California and New York, people violating stay-home orders for non-essential activities have been ticketed and cited with misdemeanors. Is there a point at which these restrictions on travel and assembly violate the rights inherent in America’s constitutional order? Many legal scholars agree the chief executive has quasi-wartime powers during national pandemics, but is there a limiting principle or expiration date? Join Professors Richard Epstein and Anthony Kreis as they discuss the viral menace and civil liberties in this podcast. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Prof. Anthony Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology

This week, REGULATED is examining the coronavirus crisis and the resulting mitigation efforts from a legal perspective. Across the country, governments have enacted a patchwork of stay-at-home orders and other regulations that affect commerce, organizations, and individuals. Let's discuss some of the legal and practical issues with Professor Anthony Kreis, a prolific writer, thought leader, and legal scholar.

This week, REGULATED is examining the coronavirus crisis and the resulting mitigation efforts from a legal perspective. Across the country, governments have enacted a patchwork of stay-at-home orders and other regulations that affect commerce, organizations, and individuals. Let’s discuss some of the legal and practical issues with Professor Anthony Kreis, a prolific writer, thought leader, and constitutional law scholar. Professor Kreis is a visiting assistant professor at the Chicago-Kent School of Law. Professor Kreis joined the Chicago-Kent faculty in 2016 from the University of Georgia, where he also completed a Ph.D. in political science and public administration. Professor Kreis earned his law degree from Washington and Lee University School of Law, where he was a classmate of at least one “high profile” podcast host. Follow him on twitter (@anthonyMkreis) for his timely takes on constitutional law, civil rights, and current events.Christian Bax used to regulate medical marijuana and Tony Glover used to regulate alcoholic beverages, casino gaming, and tobacco. With the REGULATED podcast, they tackle the most interesting regulatory, research, and investment developments in those industries and more. REGULATED is available through Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, and Stitcher.

In this episode, Anthony Michael Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Institute for Law and the Workplace, discusses his scholarship on sex-based quarantine rules and other structural barriers that limit women's employment opportunities. He argues that these "defensive glass ceilings" should be prohibited practices under existing employment anti-discrimination laws. Kreis describes how the #MeToo Movement has caused some men to continue or reinvigorate workplace sex-based inequities by, for example, following the Graham-Pence Rule and avoiding women in the workplace to hedge against allegations of wrongdoing or the appearance of impropriety. Kreis' article, Defensive Glass Ceilings, is forthcoming in the George Washington Law Review and is available on SSRN. Kreis is on Twitter at @AnthonyMKreis.This episode was hosted by Matthew A. Bruckner, Associate Professor of Law at Howard University School of Law. Bruckner is on Twitter at @Prof_Bruckner. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Anthony Michael Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law discusses his new article, "Anxious Masculinity: American Homophobia and the Third Sex." Kreis describes the "confusion" at the heart of the law of sexuality, and ties it to the history of the concept of gender. He describes the evolution of the policing of gender norms through American history, and the emergence of the concept of the "third sex" to describe LGBTQ identities. He explains how this concept shaped the modern law of sexuality, and how that law can and should be reformed to reflect its history. Kreis's scholarship is available on SSRN. He is on Twitter at @AnthonyMKreis. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University Law School, discusses how long the Federal government should be allowed to detain legally detain a U.S. citizen before letting them challenge their detention. Anthony Kreis, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses why the Supreme Court decided to turn down a case that would have decided whether a major federal job-bias law covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Politics, Policy, Power and Law."

William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University Law School, discusses how long the Federal government should be allowed to detain legally detain a U.S. citizen before letting them challenge their detention. Anthony Kreis, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses why the Supreme Court decided to turn down a case that would have decided whether a major federal job-bias law covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. They speak with Bloomberg's June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Politics, Policy, Power and Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Just Joe and Christian, coming to you after a terrible week. We talk guns, ex-Judge Posner's book and humility, the right rules for disabled stoplights, the closing of a coffeehouse, and airplane seat reclining behavior. This show’s links: Oral Argument 101: Tug of War (http://oralargument.org/101) Richard Posner, Reforming the Federal Judiciary (https://www.amazon.com/Reforming-Federal-Judiciary-Televising-Arguments/dp/1976014794) Steven Lubet, Richard Posner, Unedited (Part One) (http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2017/10/richard-posner-unedited.html) Zoran Tasic, Reforming Richard Posner (https://medium.com/@ztasic/reforming-richard-posner-a25ce8fddece) Oral Argument 32: Go Figure (http://oralargument.org/32) (on Judge Posner's gay marriage opinion in Baskin) and Oral Argument 131: Because of Sex (http://oralargument.org/131) (featuring discussion with Anthony Kreis about Judge Posner's Hively opinion) WINIR (http://winir.org) How do you pronounce Utrecht? (https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-pronounce-Utrecht) The Perfect Cappuccino (http://cappuccinomovie.com) Two Story's Last Day in Five Points (http://www.redandblack.com/multimedia/photos-two-story-s-last-day-in-five-points/collection_5a4052c2-a21f-11e7-bd12-5391199be363.html) (including a photo of Christian with the shop's last cap) Christian Turner, The Cost of Foregone Biergartens (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2013/3/8/the-cost-of-foregone-biergartens.html) Oral Argument 31: Knee Defender (http://oralargument.org/31) (and see episode 32, above, for more knee defender discussion) Christopher Buccafusco and Christopher Jon Sprigman, How to Resolve Fights over Reclining Airplane Seats: Use Behavioral Economics (http://evonomics.com/resolve-fights-reclining-airplane-seats-use-behavioral-economics/)

More than the usual nonsense and sniffles as we try to empty the mailbag. Note: Because of a massive gap between time available and time required to edit out the gak, this episode contains many more than the average number of sniffles and echoes. We tried to fire the editor responsible but learned he was one of us, unpaid, and would either be able to release this episode as is or not at all. Religion and American policy (6:19), a chrono-completist suggests a show topic (10:51), on sex discrimination (14:08), incentives for creation (22:16), boilerplate and terms of service (27:04), antitrust and big data (28:50), boilerplate and the FyreFestival (36:59), boilerplate and arbitration and class actions and airline passengers (38:43), ye ole 1x vs. 2x debate and binge-watching/listening (45:35), Asher Steinberg on the major question exception to Chevron (51:21), self-promotion (52:30), “research” not equal to “to search again”(54:03), Grimmelman’s Property Course and IP and the bar exam (57:14), ethicists and the morality of expedited review (1:03:34), return to the place of the constitutional law course (1:06:22), the limited role of books on the web (1:11:47), cosplay (1:13:40), Joel’s article (1:14:22), the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court and its appointments compared to other countries and more on the Crossover episode (1:15:01), argument in the monkey selfie case (1:23:15), Wonder Woman and Star Trek vs. Star Wars (1:25:06). This show’s links: Oral Argument 101: Tug of War (https://oralargument.org/101) (on gun violence) Oral Argument 131: Because of Sex (https://oralargument.org/131) (guest Anthony Kreis on sex discrimination) Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe (https://oralargument.org/28) (on Joe’s favorite case(s)) Oral Argument 132: The Soul of Music (https://oralargument.org/132) (guest Joe Fishman on copyright in music) Nicholas Georgakopoulos, The Logic of Securities Law (https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Securities-Law-Nicholas-Georgakopoulos/dp/1107158508/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491051115&sr=1-1&keywords=georgakopoulos%2C+logic+of+securities+law) Oral Argument 133: Too Many Darn Radio Buttons (https://oralargument.org/133) (guest Jim Gibson on boilerplate in contracts) HBO, Silicon Valley: Terms of Service (http://www.hbo.com/silicon-valley/episodes/4/30-terms-of-service/index.html); see also Nick Statt, HBO’s Silicon Valley Wades into a Heated Debate about Privacy Policies (https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/1/15504692/hbo-silicon-valley-season-4-episode-2-terms-of-service-recap) From The Economist, no byline: The World’s Most Valuable Resource Is No Longer Oil, but Data (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21721656-data-economy-demands-new-approach-antitrust-rules-worlds-most-valuable-resource) Oral Argument 139: It’s All the Stacey Show (https://oralargument.org/139) (guest Stacey Dogan on competition law and IP) About the Fyre Festival (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyre_Festival) Jens David Ohlin, United Airlines’ Own Contract Denied It Any Right to Remove Passenger (http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html) Asher Steinberg, Another Addition to the Chevron Anticanon: Judge Kavanaugh on the “Major Rules” Doctrine (http://narrowestgrounds.blogspot.com/2017/05/another-addition-to-chevron-anticanon.html) Oral Argument 135: Alexandria (https://oralargument.org/135) (guest James Grimmelman on the Google Books settlement and other things) Crabbe's English Synonymes [sic], Centennial Edition (1917), at p. 228 (https://books.google.com/books?id=4UBAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA228&dq=%22the+particle+re%22+intensive+french&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwickeCZ5O_TAhXi6YMKHUG1BPAQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20particle%20re%22%20intensive%20french&f=false) (“re” as intensive) Oral Argument 61: Minimum Competence (https://oralargument.org/61) (guest Derek Muller on the bar exam) Oral Argument 96: Students as Means (https://oralargument.org/96) George Bodarky, How New York’s Roosevelt Island Sucks Away Summer Trash Stink (http://www.npr.org/2017/07/26/539304811/how-new-york-s-roosevelt-island-sucks-away-summer-trash-stink) Joel Townsend, Adequacy of Risk Assessment in the Exercise of the Character Cancellation Power under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2017/06/11/public-law-review-update-vol-28-pt-2/) (abstract public, paper behind a paywall) Oral Argument 134: Crossover (https://oralargument.org/134) (with the hosts of First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm)) The oral argument in Naruto v. Slater (https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000011851) (the monkey selfie case at 1:46:00 in the video) Oral Argument 141: The Picard Meltdown Principle (https://oralargument.org/141) (guest Leah Litman) Oral Argument 142: Normativity (https://oralargument.org/142) (guest Jeffrey Kaplan)

Anthony Kreis, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and Michael Selmi, a professor at George Washington University Law School, discuss an announcement from the White House, which opposed an effort by civil rights groups to ban workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians nationwide, putting him at odds with some of the country’s most valuable companies. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Anthony Kreis, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and Michael Selmi, a professor at George Washington University Law School, discuss an announcement from the White House, which opposed an effort by civil rights groups to ban workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians nationwide, putting him at odds with some of the country's most valuable companies. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Michael Selmi, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and Anthony Kreis, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discuss why dozens of major U.S. companies are encouraging a federal court to declare employment discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Michael Selmi, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and Anthony Kreis, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discuss why dozens of major U.S. companies are encouraging a federal court to declare employment discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. They speak with June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Friend of the show and treasured guest Anthony Kreis returns to talk about important recent developments in legal protection of gay rights. We discuss the recent spate of appellate decisions finding discrimination against gay employees violates the Civil Rights Act, including a remarkable concurrence by Judge Posner. The interesting issue, though, is why. This show’s links: Anthony Kreis’s faculty profile (https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/faculty/full-time-faculty/anthony-michael-kreis), his writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2277553), and his twitter feed (https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis) Oral Argument 36: Firehose of Equality (http://oralargument.org/36) (Anthony’s last, historic guest appearance on the show) Anthony Kreis, Against Gay Potemkin Villages: Title VII and Sexual Orientation Discrimination (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2944046) Seventh Circuit, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3783878574608367042) (includes the concurrence of Judge Posner that occupies much of our discussion) Second Circuit, Anonymous v. Omnicom Group (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1449039503425455437) Eleventh Circuit, Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6662354858682210483) William Eskridge and John Ferejohn, [Super-Statutes][eskridge] [eskridge]: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=dlj Special Guest: Anthony Kreis.

We open the burgeoning mailbag. And oh what a bounty! Side A: 1. Georgia’s assertion of copyright over its annotated statutes. 2. Law school application, rankings, and preparation. 3. The utility for law of having a Ph.D. 4. Substantive due process and Lochner. 5. Would law school be better without the study of the Supreme Court or constitutional law? Side B: 6. Voting rights and proportional representation. 7. Whether we’ve had a fair discussion of the death penalty. 8. What makes legal writing good or bad? 9. Other podcasts. 10. Race and the law. 11. The utilitarian case for manual override of driverless cars. 12. Facebook’s ability to create “bad” desires and preferences. Drugs and entertainment. 13. The rogue Kentucky clerk and the difference between civil disobedience and sabotage or revolution. This show’s links: Oral Argument on Twitter and on Facebook About Carl Malamud Georgia Accuses Public Records Activist of Information “Terrorism” Episode 68: Listen to My Full Point and Episode 12: Heart of Darkness Episode 62: Viewer Mail Episode 30: A Filled Milk Caste Episode 66: You’re Never Going to Get It All Done (guest Kareem Creighton) and Kareem Creighton’s tweet to us about this question Chris Elmendorf, Making Sense of Section 2: Of Biased Votes, Unconstitutional Elections, and Common Law Statutes Episode 56: Cracking and Packing (guest Lori Ringhand) Episode 67: Monstrous Acts (guest Josh Lee) Callins v. Collins (Scalia’s concurrence citing the brutality of a murder in a case in which the defendant was later proved innocent) Danielle Allen, Our Declaration; Robert Cover, Violence and the Word ; Jedediah Purdy, After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene Undisclosed: The State v. Adnan Syed, a podcast recommended to us Episode 69: Contaminated Evidence (guest Brandon Garrett); see also Episode 45: Sacrifice, Episode 64: Protect and Serve (guest Seth Stoughton) The Our National Conversation about Conversations about Race podcast Episode 70: No Drones in the Park (guest Frank Pasquale) Episode 72: The Guinea Pig Problem (guest Michelle Meyer) A youtube of David Foster Wallace talking about drugs and entertainment in Infinite Jest (2m23s) Anthony Kreis’s tweet about civil disobedience

Last year’s cert denials in various same-sex marriage cases led to renewed discussion concerning the counterintuitive (to Christian, at least) notion but conventional wisdom that state courts are not bound to follow lower federal courts’ interpretations of federal law. While we discussed and debated this last fall, Amanda Frost was putting the finishing touches on an article reviewing, challenging, and otherwise completely examining this curious doctrine. Was Michael Dorf’s Hammer Blow, as we named the episode with him, the final blow or might some of Christian’s naive doubts be rehabilitated by Prof. Frost’s exhaustive analysis? Yep, that kind of cliffhanger is how we roll around here. Also, North Dakota and the permissibility of “funny business” in our email address. This show’s links: Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing A helpful list of North Dakota landmarks 2 Hidden Ways to Get More from Your Gmail Address The Georgia Law Summer Program in China, where you can be misinformed by Christian in person and in China Amanda Frost, Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law? Our trilogy of prior episodes on this issue: with Anthony Kreis, with Michael Dorf, and with Steve Vladeck The series of blog posts coinciding with those episodes: from Michael Dorf here and here, Steve Vladeck, and Christian Turner Michael Dorf, Even More Thoughts on State Court (Non)Obligation to Follow Federal Appeals Court Precedents (Wherein I Respond to Professor Frost) Amanda Frost, The “Inferior” Federal Courts Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Administrative Order Eric Eckholm, Supreme Court Undercuts Alabama Chief Justice’s Argument to Delay Same-Sex Marriages Lockhart v. Fretwell, in which Justice Thomas concurred and briefly argued that the “Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation” Cooper v. Aaron Martin v. Hunter’ Lessee Amanda Frost, Overvaluing Uniformity Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins; see also our episode all about Erie About the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine James Pfander, One Supreme Court: Supremacy, Inferiority, and the Judicial Power of the United States (see also this very brief book review) Dice v. Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad Co. Bush v. Gore (Rehnquist’s concurring opinion arguing that state courts may not interfere, even through state constitutional judgments, with certain legislatively enacted election laws that interact in advantageous ways with federal law) About Chevron deference Abbe Gluck, The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation United States Telecom Association v. FCC Peter Strauss, One Hundred Fifty Cases Per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme Court's Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action Special Guest: Amanda Frost.

The Serial podcast, about the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee and subsequent conviction of Adnan Syed, has become the most popular podcast ever. In our first anniversary show — which, sure, we could have broken into two parts but consider this super-sized show our gift to you for the holidays — we talk with listeners and past guests about their own reactions to the show and to the case. We discuss reasonable doubt, race, procedure, evidence, voyeurism, what we think, what others think, and the inherent (but vastly improvable) tragedy of criminal justice. Guests: Hunt Wofford, Nathan, Anthony Kreis, Jasmine Guillory, Mehrsa Baradaran, and Dahlia Lithwick. (Several of our guests responded to a call to listeners that we posted on our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Follow us to be in on such things in the future.) This show’s links: Serial, the most popular podcast ever Willa Paskin, Totally Obsessed Christian Turner, Bet Your Life Before You Impose Death About Hunt Wofford Mythbusters Links to some Serial parodies Murder on a Sunday Morning About procedural justice About Anthony Kreis and his last appearance on our show Debra Cassens Weiss, Posner Questions Basis for ‘Archaic’ Hearsay Rule The Scottish “not proven” verdict About Mehrsa Baradaran and her first and second appearances on our show Susan Simpson, Serial: Why the Nisha Call Shows that Hae Was Murdered at 3:32 p.m. About Dahlia Lithwick and her appearance on the show Dahlia’s new podcast, Amicus, and her video interviews on SCOTUSblog Dahlia Lithwick, A Horrifying Miscarriage of Justice in North Carolina Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Callins v. Collins (criticizing Justice Blackmun for not using the McCollum case, with its brutal facts, for dissenting from the imposition of the death penalty) Justice Blackmun’s subsequent dissent in McCollum v. North Carolina, addressing Scalia’s concurrence Brandon Garrett’s page, featuring his recent books Special Guests: Anthony Kreis, Dahlia Lithwick, and Mehrsa Baradaran.

This is the week the circuits split. We discuss Judge Sutton’s opinion for a panel of the Sixth Circuit upholding bans on gay marriage in several states. Although Joe and Christian mainly agree about this case, Joe finds plenty of other things Christian says and does to be irritating, especially during our first eighteen minutes when we discuss feedback. This show’s links: Michael Dorf, Why Danforth v. Minnesota Does Not Undermine My View About State Court Decisions to Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent Our episode with Peabody award winner, Tom Goldstein About typefaces (and the difference between typefaces and fonts) About King v. Burwell, the case the Supreme Court has taken up challenging subsidies on federally run exchanges; see also Christian’s take and Abbe Gluck’s The Unrecorded Podcast Michelle Meyer, Will the Real Evidence-Based Ebola Policy Please Stand Up? Seven Takeaways from Maine DHHS v. Hickox (which Christian wrongly attributed to Hank Greely, who has also written on Ebola, but is in fact from fantastic friend of the show Michelle Meyer - sorry Michelle), further to our last episode on the domestic side of the Ebola DeBoer v. Hodges, the Sixth Circuit decision by Judge Sutton upholding various state marriage bans Oral Argument 36: Firehose of Inequality (guest Anthony Kreis) Baskin v. Bogan, Judge Posner’s decision striking down state marriage bans and Christian’s post about the Seventh Circuit’s oral arguments in that case About Baker v. Nelson Hicks v. Miranda Loving v. Virginia Plessy v. Ferguson Romer v. Evans Balkinization Symposium on Unconstitutional Animus (We’d apologize for the error of attributing this to SCOTUSblog, but we don’t have time to apologize for all of our errors.) William Eskridge, Jr. A History fo Same Sex Marriage

What do the federal appeals courts’ striking down of same-sex marriage bans actually mean for marriage equality in the states? Are the state courts bound to follow these decisions while the Supreme Court pursues other interests? Well, Christian got this completely wrong last week, and luckily Michael Dorf is on the line to set us straight. Knowledge bombs galore are dropped. This show’s links: Michael Dorf’s profile, his writing, and his world-famous blog Dorf on Law Amicus, the new Slate podcast by Dahlia Lithwick Oral Argument 36: Firehose of Equality, the last episode in which Anthony Kreis was terrific and Christian made an error that led to this show Michael Dorf, No Massive Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage from South Carolina Michael Dorf, The Relative Importance of Inter-Circuit Conflict and State-Circuit Conflict as Cert Criteria About claim preclusion and nonmutual issue preclusion; United States v. Mendoza (holding that issue preclusion does not apply against the federal government) Colin Wrabley, Applying Federal Courts of Appeals’ Precedent The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution Lochart v. Fretwell, in which Justice Thomas concurred and briefly argued that the “Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation” Martin v. Hunter’ Lessee About the grimly named Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which everyone calls “the AEDPA,” and pronounces ED-puh The federal habeas statute, reflecting in subsection (d) the deference required by the AEDPA to state court judgments on issues of federal law in habeas, which federal law must be “clearly established . . . by the Supreme Court” to be a constraint in habeas on states at all Teague v. Lane About the removal jurisdiction of federal courts, the ability of a defendant to move a state court action to a federal court under certain circumstances Guido Calabresi, Federal and State Courts: Restoring a Workable Balance Henry Friendly, In Praise of Erie — And of the New Federal Common Law (unfortunately only available for a fee on Hein Online) State v. Dukes (an intermediate South Carolina appellate ruling citing State v. Ford Motor Co. for the proposition that South Carolina courts are bound by the constitutional rulings of the Fourth Circuit) Kevin Walsh, Re: SSM Cert Denials (suggesting South Carolina should review and change its apparent approach to Fourth Circuit precedent) Michael Dorf, Should Anti-SSM Appeals Court Judges Rule For Same-Sex Marriage Based On The Cert Denials? Michael Dorf, Prediction and the Rule of Law (an article analyzing the general point applied in the above-linked blog post) Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe, which is all about and contains links for the famous Erie case Michael Dorf, How the Supreme Court’s Inaction on Same-Sex Marriage Echoes Its Conduct in the Civil Rights Era United States v. Windsor Michael Dorf, Cert Denied Is Justice Delayed: SCOTUS Kremlinology in the SSM Cases Stuart v. Laird and some background Special Guest: Michael Dorf.

The Supreme Court this week handed down a series of landmark non-decisions. We talk with PhD candidate and commentator Anthony Kreis about the confusing, hopeful, exciting, promising, uncertain, and evolving state of marriage equality. In the wake of a (so far) uniform wave of appellate court decisions striking down gay-marriage bans, the Supreme Court steps in and … lets them stand without taking them up for decision. Why? And what is the state of law? What is likely to happen, and what are local officials to do? (And if you’re in a position to hire a Visiting Assistant Professor or Fellow, you’d be crazy not to try to hire Anthony.) This show’s links: About Anthony Kreis, his CV, and his twitter feed Anthony Kreis, Marriage Equality in State and Nation Amy Howe, Today’s Orders: Same-Sex Marriage Petitions Denied (summarizing the cert denials and containing links to the SCOTUSblog pages for the decisions striking down marriage bans in the Seventh (Posner’s “Go figure” decision), Tenth (also here), and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals) Latta v. Otter, the Ninth Circuit case handed down on Tuesday of this week and striking down marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho Loving v. Virginia and amazing audio of the oral argument McLaughlin v. Florida Last term’s gay marriage decisions: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry Description of and links to audio of oral arguments in the several Sixth Circuit cases challenging marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling (see especially beginning at p.303 about whether Roe is to blame for the ensuing political conflict over abortion and what that might say about how courts should approach gay marriage) A recent Pew survey on, among other things, whether homosexuality is sinful Heather Hollingsworth, Koster Won’t Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, reporting that the Missouri AG won’t appeal a state trial court ruling requiring recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states Geoff Pender, State’s Gay Marriage Ban’s Days Appear Numbered (about Mississippi) Some background on homosexuality and Catholicism Margaret Fosmoe, Notre Dame, Saint Mary’s Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses Doug Richards, Handel: Gay Parents “Not in the Best Interest of the Child” (interview transcript showing the rhetoric around the 2010 Georgia gubernatorial primary, including this gem: “Why is marriage between one man and one woman? (Laughs). Are you serious?”) James Oleske, Jr., The Evolution of Accommodation: Comparing the Unequal Treatment of Religious Objections to Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West, Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around: The Supreme Court Is Harming people with Its Inscrutable Gay Marriage Actions. South Carolina v. Condon, order of the South Carolina Supreme Court barring probate judges from issuing marriage license, notwithstanding the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bostic, until the federal district court in South Carolina takes action (in response to AG Alan Wilson’s petition) Saikrishna Pakrash, The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws Kansas Supreme Court’s temporary injunction blocking issuance of same-sex marriage licenses Lyle Denniston, Gay Marriage and Baker v. Nelson Catherine Thompson, GOP Nominee for Wisconsin AG Says He Would Defend Interracial Marriage Ban Center for Reproductive Rights, What if Roe Fell? (see especially pages 8-9 on the repeal implications of a federal finding of unconstitutionality) Christian Turner, Roles Special Guest: Anthony Kreis.