Podcast appearances and mentions of Elena Kagan

The Supreme Court has been busy releasing opinions. Last week, it ruled against a ten billion dollar lawsuit from Mexico against American gun manufacturers. The Mexican government had alleged that US gun companies were fueling cartel violence south of the border. But in a unanimous opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the lawsuit didn't reach the burden required by a 2005 law. The court declined to take up two other gun cases: one challenging Maryland's ban on semi-automatic weapons and the other challenging Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. To talk more about the Supreme Court's decisions (and lack of decisions) and what this means for gun policy, we spoke to Stephen Gutowski. He runs The Reload, a news outlet dedicated to firearms and the gun debate.And in headlines: The US and China (kinda) reach a trade agreement, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard warns of a nuclear holocaust, and the White House Rose Garden gets a makeover.Show Notes:Check out The Reload – https://thereload.com/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can U.S. gun manufacturers be held liable for violence in Mexico under theories of proximate causation and aiding and abetting, based on their domestic production and sale of firearms that are later trafficked to Mexican cartels?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of American gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government. Mexico had accused the companies of facilitating illegal firearms trafficking that contributed to cartel violence within the country.The Court's opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) provides broad immunity to gun manufacturers against lawsuits arising from the criminal misuse of their products. While PLCAA includes an exception for cases where a manufacturer knowingly violates federal or state laws related to firearm sales or marketing, the Court found that Mexico's allegations did not meet this threshold. Specifically, Mexico failed to demonstrate that the manufacturers knowingly aided or abetted illegal trafficking beyond lawful commerce practices.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Perhaps nobody was more surprised than the US gun industry when the Supreme Court yesterday issued a UNANIMOUS decision in their favor, and against the efforts of the failed narco-nationstate Mexico to sue the gun industry into oblivion.That means even our two dumbest justices--Sonya "the DEI wise latina" Sotomayor and Kentaji "I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is" Jackson felt compeled to side with the gun makers.Perhaps as surprising, it was Justice Kagan--not Justice Thomas!--who authored the unanimous decision in favor of Smith & Wesson and other prominent gun manufacturers.Join me as I break down this enormous gun industry win into plain English!Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

It's not uncommon, to put the matter lightly, to find Jewish Americans well represented in the legal field. But the conventional storybook narrative of how Jews rise to occupy positions of promise and prestige in the law tends to emphasize the gradual softening or quieting of religious observance in favor of a broader, more secular American identity.   I remember back in 2010 when Elena Kagan had been nominated by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court. In response to a question from Senator Lindsay Graham about a domestic terrorist event that took place on December 25, 2009, Elena Kagan—then dean of Harvard Law and since 2010 a Supreme Court justice—explained that, on that day, “like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.” It was funny and charming and played perfectly to the room and the cameras looking on. But Elena Kagan's remark also illustrates, to me at least, precisely the sort of culturally Jewish secular sensibility that you wouldn't be surprised to find in elite positions like the ones she's held. There are, of course, religiously observant Jewish lawyers, some of them extremely accomplished and some of them having contributed greatly to the American constitutional order.    Matthew Solomson is not only a lawyer but a federal judge who represents a different model and different sense of identity, one in which deep Orthodox commitment and distinguished public service not only coexist but reinforce one another. Judge Solomson was elevated to the federal bench in 2020, and last month the president designated him as the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.   Rather than abandoning his Jewish observance and religious devotion in the name of secular citizenship, Judge Solomson is staking out a different path, and his example suggests that America is strengthened when its citizens bring their deepest commitments—including religious commitments—to bear on public service. In conversation with Jonathan Silver, he addresses the questions his career raises about the very nature of American democracy, the meaning of Jewish life in America, and the possibilities for religious citizens to serve the United States in an increasingly secular age.

A case with a thin record is raising plenty of questions at the Supreme Court. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involves parents who want to opt their children out of public school curriculum they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. But, what's the difference between expected exposure and unconstitutional coercion? Does age matter? What happens when opt-out options become too burdensome and overwhelming to accommodate? Amanda and Holly examine the issues in this case as well as the challenges for the school district and for the parents. They also share what the oral arguments revealed about the justices' interest in the books and discussions outside of the courtroom.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 01:50): Remembering Justice David Souter Amanda and Holly released a live mini-episode on Tuesday, May 27, to review the Supreme Court decision in the religious charter school case, the voucher proposal in the budget reconciliation bill, and a court decision halting the dismantling of the Department of Education. Hear the episode at this link or in your podcast feed, or watch it on YouTube. Amanda and Holly mention the other two church-state cases this term addressed in previous episodes: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin in Ep. 12: Back to SCOTUS: Regular business in disturbing times Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al. v. Drummond in Ep. 14: The blockbuster SCOTUS case over religious charter schools BJC Executive Director Emeritus J. Brent Walker wrote a reflection piece on Justice David Souter when the justice retired in 2009: Walker reflects on Souter's Supreme Court tenure Amy Howe wrote a piece on Justice Souter for SCOTUSblog: David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85   Segment 2 (starting at 06:58): The facts (that we know) in the case and what's at stake BJC has a post on our website describing Mahmoud v. Taylor: In oral argument, U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the limits of public school parents' opt-out rights The U.S. Supreme Court has a transcript of oral arguments and the audio recording of oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor available on its website.   Segment 3 (starting 25:54): The two big substantive points from the oral argument We played two clips from the oral argument in this segment: Justice Elena Kagan and Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the group of parents (the petitioners)  Justice Samuel Alito and Eric Baxter Amanda and Holly talked about the Texas Bible curriculum in episode 2 of this season: Oklahoma and Texas try to force Bible teaching in public schools Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

This past week, the Supreme Court issued stays of injunctions which lower courts had issued, those injunctions blocking the firings of officials on statutorily independent agencies.  In doing so, the Court may have pointed to an imminent overruling of Humphrey's Executor, possibly removing existing limitations on the unitary executive theory.  At the same time, the Court moved to protect the Federal Reserve, or at least markets' perception of the independence of that crucial Board.  Several justices reacted strongly, led by Justice Kagan, who found fault not only in the ruling regarding the injunction, but in the behavior of the President in bringing this case on in the first place.  We take a deeper look at these controversies.  Meanwhile, the Court deadlocked in a religious freedom case, and surprisingly, we see a connection between these two events.  And some other tidbits, as well.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

From the administrative state to voting rights, they're just sort of winging it trying to reverse engineer results. ----- As Supreme Court season hits fever pitch, we're joined by Professor Leah Litman, author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, to discuss the nightmare we're facing. Elena Kagan took the opportunity to humiliate her colleagues last week calling out an arbitrary carve out created to protect their investments. Kagan's frustration seems to be growing down the stretch, having just eviscerated the government in the birthright citizenship case. Meanwhile, Kristi Noem failed introductory constitutional law in front of the Senate, flailing as she tried to define habeas corpus.

Alright, here we are—almost the end of May, and the legal rollercoaster around Donald Trump is still bucking and racing. Just a few days ago, on May 22, the Supreme Court made a dramatic move. In Trump v. Wilcox, the justices granted an emergency stay, allowing Trump—for now—to remove heads of federal agencies at will, no cause needed[3][1]. That decision threw the administration's power plays into high relief, especially for anyone watching how Trump handles bureaucratic pushback. Justice Kagan issued a note on the case, underscoring the split among the justices about the scope of presidential authority.But while that was unfolding in Washington, the broader litigation landscape around Trump was already buzzing. Over the past several days, courts across the country have been juggling cases that put Trump and his policies—current and past—under scrutiny. Take, for instance, the coalition of states like California and New York, which just sued the Trump administration over frozen transportation funds[2]. That case, filed on May 13, is only one thread in a tapestry of lawsuits tracking everything from environmental regulations to immigration policies.Meanwhile, in Florida, the saga of the classified documents case continues to twist. Last year, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed part of the indictment, but the government appealed, putting Jack Smith's special counsel appointment back in the spotlight[4]. The Eleventh Circuit is now set to hear arguments, and the legal teams are deep in briefs. That's just one of many appeals—Trump's legal calendar is crammed. Mark Meadows, his former Chief of Staff, is still seeking a Supreme Court review after failing to move his Georgia case to federal court[4]. Down in New York, Trump is appealing Justice Arthur Engoron's civil fraud judgments, while his allies fight to disqualify Fulton County DA Fani Willis.Not to be overshadowed, the refugees and advocates in Pacito v. Trump are still pushing for the government to implement a court-ordered framework for resuming refugee admissions—something the Trump administration had suspended. On May 5, the district court doubled down, ordering prompt compliance with its preliminary injunction[5]. That clock is ticking, too.So, as of this very moment, May 28, 2025, Donald Trump is everywhere in the legal system—from the Supreme Court's emergency docket to district courts and circuit appeals. Each case, each ruling, each appeal is another snapshot of a former president still shaping the law and being shaped by it, as courts across the country wrestle with questions about power, policy, and the rule of law. It's fast-moving, high-stakes, and far from over.

From the administrative state to voting rights, they're just sort of winging it trying to reverse engineer results. ----- As Supreme Court season hits fever pitch, we're joined by Professor Leah Litman, author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, to discuss the nightmare we're facing. Elena Kagan took the opportunity to humiliate her colleagues last week calling out an arbitrary carve out created to protect their investments. Kagan's frustration seems to be growing down the stretch, having just eviscerated the government in the birthright citizenship case. Meanwhile, Kristi Noem failed introductory constitutional law in front of the Senate, flailing as she tried to define habeas corpus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Good morning, I'm reporting live on the recent legal developments involving former President Donald Trump. The past few days have seen significant movement in several high-profile cases.Just three days ago, on May 22, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Trump v. Wilcox, with Justice Kagan delivering the opinion. This case represents one of many ongoing legal battles the Trump administration is currently facing.That same day, two transgender service members filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging President Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military. This case, identified as 1:25-cv-01918, adds to the growing list of litigation against the administration.Last week, on May 16, the Supreme Court delivered a per curiam opinion in the case between AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case back for further consideration. At issue was President Trump's March 14 Proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act, with the Court enjoining the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under this act pending further court orders.The Supreme Court also recently ruled on Trump's authority to remove agency heads without cause. This decision, while temporary, represents a significant expansion of presidential power over the federal bureaucracy.These recent court battles come after a long string of legal challenges that began years ago. Trump has faced numerous criminal and civil cases, including the classified documents case in Florida where Judge Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in July 2024, challenging Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment.The New York civil fraud case also saw defendants, including Trump, filing appeals against Justice Engoron's earlier decisions. In Georgia, Trump's former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows petitioned the Supreme Court following the 11th Circuit's decision regarding his attempt to move his state criminal case to federal court.The Manhattan District Attorney's case against Trump has also seen continued legal maneuvering, with Trump attempting to remove the case to federal court in August 2024, though his filing was initially rejected as deficient.As Trump continues his presidency in 2025, these legal challenges represent a consistent theme of his time in office - a presidency defined not just by policy decisions but by unprecedented legal battles that continue to test the boundaries of executive power and the American judicial system.The coming days and weeks will likely bring further developments in these cases as the courts continue to grapple with complex constitutional questions surrounding presidential authority and accountability.

Preview Colleague Professor Epstein comments on Justice Elena Kagan's complaint that a faith-based charter school might advance a curriculum out of step with public school curriculums. More later. 1870 NEW ORLEANS

Good morning, folks. The legal world surrounding Donald Trump continues to evolve rapidly, with several significant developments in just the past week. Today, May 23rd, 2025, we've seen some major court decisions that will shape the political landscape in the months ahead.Just this morning, a federal judge in Florida—one who was actually nominated by Trump himself—indicated that the president does have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. However, interestingly, the judge decided to punt the actual lawsuit to another court rather than making a final ruling on the case.Last week, on May 16th, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in a case between the AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated a judgment from the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case, while also issuing an injunction preventing the government from removing certain detainees under the AEA pending further court orders. This stems from Trump's presidential proclamation issued on March 14th this year.Then just yesterday, May 22nd, another Supreme Court case emerged involving President Trump against Gwynne A. Wilcox and others, with Justice Kagan issuing an opinion on an application for stay.These recent cases add to an already complex legal calendar for the former and now current president. Earlier legal battles from 2024 continue to reverberate through the system. Trump's classified documents case in Florida saw Judge Cannon grant his motion to dismiss a superseding indictment last July, with the government quickly appealing to the 11th Circuit.The New York civil fraud case appeals are moving forward as well, with defendants appealing both Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and his February 2024 final decision. The consolidation of these appeals means they'll proceed with a single record and set of briefs.There's also ongoing litigation regarding Trump's attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. His second notice of removal was initially rejected as deficient, and after Judge Hellerstein denied his request for leave, Trump appealed to the Second Circuit.The legal challenges facing the Trump administration extend beyond the president himself, with cases like Washington v. Department of Transportation regarding a federal funding freeze still pending in Maryland District Court as of earlier this month.As these cases continue to unfold, they'll undoubtedly shape both policy and politics during this tumultuous presidential term. The courts remain a crucial battleground for defining the limits of executive power in the Trump administration.

Our show opens with a huge TDS inspired mistake by former FBI Director James Comey. The idea that he has no idea what he was conveying by putting out an image of 86 47 on his social media is ludicrous. Beyond the stupidity of it, this action is actually against the law. Speaking of breaking the law, word on the street is Rep. McIver (D-NJ) is going to be formally charged today for her actions at the ICE detention facility. This is the only way to rein in the out of control Leftists and bureaucrats that have taken hold inside the beltway of Washington, D.C. The SCOTUS is hearing arguments as to whether or not inferior district court judges can issue national injunctions? First we get a brainless Ketanji Jackson Brown. Unfortunately, her fellow liberal justice, Elena Kagan spoke against such a notion in 2022. Then Justice Clarence Thomas brought some much needed sanity to the discussion. Sebastian Gorka wrecked a journalist with Politico over their love of MS-13 gang members. Then former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan gets put on the spot over the ongoing revelations that everyone knew Joe Biden was cognitively impaired. We learn that the Qatar jet discussion began under Biden, but the press doesn't seem interested in bringing us that bit of information. And, while most are doing nothing in Congress, Rep, Tim Burchett (R-TN) is introducing several single-subject bills to start to codify the Trump agenda. I wish I could believe it would be going anywhere. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

Trump is continuing to press his losing hand with the United States Supreme Court, and has filed his 12th phony “emergency” application to convince the Supreme Court that it when it called all Venezuelans “scum” and “dirtbags” it was only kidding before deciding to end their protective status and deport them. Michael Popok explains why filing this particular emergency application that Justice Kagan considers first may backfire for the Trump Administration and its Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem. Get 35% OFF on all orders above $139 @MixTiles with code: LEGALAF at https://mixtiles.com/LEGALAF #mixtilespod Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Segment 1: VA Secretary Reverses Anti-Chaplain Policy Dr. Chaps reports on a major win for religious liberty in the military: the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has changed a controversial policy that had punished chaplains for preaching biblical truth. Now, chaplains can once again share their faith freely during services without fear of discipline. Segment 2: British Prime Minister Acknowledges Biological Reality In a rare moment of clarity, the British Prime Minister declares that men are not women under British law. Dr. Chaps examines the political and cultural implications of this statement, as well as the backlash from activists who want to blur gender distinctions. Segment 3: Justice Kagan Signals Support for Parental Opt-Out Rights Even liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is now indicating that parents should have the right to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ curriculum that contradicts their religious beliefs. Dr. Chaps covers what this could mean for future religious freedom cases at the highest court. Get free alerts at http://PrayInJesusName.org © 2025, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD. Airs on NRB TV, Direct TV Ch.378, Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, GoogleTV, Smart TV, iTunes and www.PrayInJesusName.org

The Christian Outlook – April 26, 2025

Supreme Court justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared ready to side with a religious group seeking an unemployment tax exemption, in the first of three church-state disputes on tap in coming weeks. "I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions," Justice Elena Kagan said. "And we certainly don't do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach." Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus., and take a look of some of the court's recent opinions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

For Part 3b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We continue with with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We into the first few pages of Roman numeral I, to the top of page 9 of the Slip Opinion 603 U.S. _____ (2024) (Kagan's dissent), which we will continue to cover next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

For Part 3 of this deep dive we begin the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984). We begin with the Democrat's dissent written by Justice Kagan defending Chevron. We get up to Roman numeral I, which we will cover next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform?The case was decided on March 4, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.First, while rejecting San Francisco's broader argument that all limitations must be “effluent limitations,” the Court focused on §1311(b)(1)(C)'s authorization of “any more stringent limitation” necessary to meet water quality standards. The terms “limitation,” “implement,” and “meet” in this provision require the EPA to specify concrete actions permittees must follow, not merely mandate end results without guidance. A proper “limitation” is a “restriction imposed from without,” not a directive that forces permittees to determine compliance measures themselves.Second, Congress deliberately abandoned the pre-1972 backward-looking approach that had directly penalized polluters for water quality violations. The CWA's “permit shield” provision, which protects compliant permittees from penalties, would be undermined if end-result requirements could expose permittees to massive penalties despite following all specified steps. Additionally, the EPA's interpretation offered no solution for fairly allocating responsibility among multiple dischargers affecting the same body of water. Determining necessary compliance steps is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has provided the agency with sufficient tools to make these determinations without resorting to end-result requirements.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does an award of the “defendant's profits” under the Lanham Act allow a court to require the defendant to disgorge profits earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates?The case was decided on February 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act limits recovery of profits in trademark infringement cases to those earned by the named defendant, not its separately incorporated affiliates. Justice Elena Kagan authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.The text of the Lanham Act authorizes recovery of the “defendant's profits,” which refers only to profits of parties named in the lawsuit. This interpretation aligns with fundamental corporate law principles that treat separately incorporated organizations as distinct legal entities with separate rights and obligations, even when they share common ownership. While exceptions exist through corporate veil-piercing doctrines, Dewberry Engineers never pursued this legal pathway. Courts may not, as the lower courts here did, disregard corporate separateness and treat a party and its non-party affiliates as “a single corporate entity” when calculating the profit award.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In the unanimous decision of Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the False Claims Act (FCA) to reimbursement requests made under the E-Rate program, a federal initiative subsidizing internet and telecommunications services for schools and libraries. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that such reimbursement requests qualify as "claims" under the FCA because the government provides a portion of the funds disbursed by the program.

Today, we cover a South Asian Students Association collaboration event at Coffee Club, Elena Kagan's speech at Alumni Day, and a tribute to Maggie, a retiring service dog. ***https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/02/princeton-news-alumni-day-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-woodrow-wilson-award-david-card-james-madison-medal

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a plaintiff whose state-court lawsuit has been removed by the defendants to federal court seek to have the case sent back to state court by amending the complaint to omit all references to federal law? The case was decided on January 15, 2025. The Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded to state court. Justice Elena Kagan authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Federal jurisdiction is based on the operative complaint, which means that when a plaintiff amends their complaint, courts look to that amended version to determine jurisdiction. Federal courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they are part of the same case as federal claims. However, this supplemental jurisdiction flows from the existence of federal jurisdiction; when federal claims are eliminated, there is no longer any basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. This principle applies equally to cases that were originally filed in federal court and those that were removed from state court, as the supplemental jurisdiction statute (28 U-S-C § 1367) makes no distinction between the two situations. When Wullschleger amended her complaint to remove all federal claims after removal, the federal court lost its basis for federal question jurisdiction. Without any federal claims remaining, the court also lost supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Therefore, the entire case had to be remanded to state court. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do Florida S.B. 7072's content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment, and do the law's individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. Under precedents like Miami Herald v Tornillo, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Public Utilities Commission, Turner Broadcasting v FCC, and Hurley v Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, when a private entity engages in expressive activity, including curating others' speech, government interference with that activity implicates the First Amendment. Specifically, the First Amendment protects entities engaged in expressive activities, including compiling and curating others' speech, from being forced to accommodate messages they prefer to exclude. This protection applies even when the compiler includes most items and excludes only a few. The government cannot justify interfering with a private speaker's editorial choices merely by claiming an interest in improving or balancing the marketplace of ideas. These principles likely apply to the content moderation practices of social media platforms like Facebook's News Feed, indicating that state laws regulating these practices may face significant First Amendment hurdles. However, this analysis may not apply to all of the laws' applications, so it is important for courts to conduct a thorough examination of the laws' full scope and their constitutional and unconstitutional applications in a proper facial challenge analysis. Texas's regulation of social media platforms' content moderation policies aims to alter the speech displayed on these platforms, reflecting the state's disapproval of the platforms' current content selection and moderation practices. However, under the First Amendment, Texas cannot impose its preferences on how private entities curate and present speech, as this would amount to government control over the expression of ideas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion in full and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in part and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act “first accrue” under 28 U-S-C § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule, or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an Administrative Procedures Act claim does not accrue for purposes of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The text of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) states that a civil action against the United States must be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." The Court interpreted this language according to its traditional meaning in the context of statutes of limitations, concluding that a right of action "accrues" when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action"—that is, when the plaintiff has the right to file suit and obtain relief. For an Administrative Procedures Act claim, this requires both final agency action (as specified in 5 U-S-C § 704) and an injury to the plaintiff (as required by 5 U-S-C § 702). The Court rejected arguments that APA claims should be treated differently from other civil actions against the government, emphasizing that § 2401(a) uses standard accrual language that had a well-settled meaning when it was enacted in 1948. The Court also distinguished § 2401(a) from other statutes that explicitly start the clock at the time of final agency action, noting that Congress chose different language for §2401(a). By interpreting "accrues" consistently with its traditional meaning, the Court concluded that an APA claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has both experienced an injury and the agency action causing that injury has become final. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe.

In this case, the court considered these issues: 1. Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to promulgate a rule that would require industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs? 2. Should the Court overrule Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council or at least clarify whether statutory silence on controversial powers creates an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Chevron U-S-A Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is overruled. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court (which also decided the consolidated case, Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 requires courts to "decide all relevant questions of law" when reviewing agency actions. This means courts should use their own judgment to interpret laws, not defer to agencies' interpretations. The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U-S-A v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., contradicts this principle. Chevron required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes if those interpretations were reasonable. Chevron was based on a flawed assumption that Congress intends to delegate interpretive authority to agencies whenever a law is ambiguous. This assumption doesn't reflect reality and goes against the traditional role of courts. Chevron has been difficult to apply consistently and has led to confusion in lower courts. It has also been gradually limited by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Thus, Chevron should be overruled because it contradicts the APA, is based on faulty reasoning, has proven unworkable in practice, and hasn't created the kind of settled expectations that would justify keeping it in place. However, this decision does not necessarily overturn the specific outcomes of past cases that used Chevron. Those outcomes would need to be challenged separately. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to No. 22-1219. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of No. 22-451. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Experienced analysts like former Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund legal director David Brown (interviewed by David Hunt) are praising progressive U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan for their questioning of Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice about his state's ban on pediatric gender-affirming healthcare, but the trans man of the hour is the American Civil Liberties Union's Chase Strangio, who became the first transgender attorney to argue a case before the nation's top court. And in NewsWrap: the United Kingdom's temporary ban on puberty blockers for transgender young people will remain in force “indefinitely,” U.K. military veterans who were booted from the armed forces for being queer are now eligible for compensation, the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to a Wisconsin school district's pro-trans policies, Montana's Supreme Court backs a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of a state ban on pediatric gender-affirming healthcare, the opening of Warsaw's QueerMuzeum far exceeded organizers' expectations, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Michael LeBeau and Ava Davis (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the December 16, 2024 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/ NOTE TO RADIO STATIONS: The weekly program uploaded to SoundCloud will soon include a pitch for This Way Out/Overnight Productions (Inc.). Stations can download a pitch-free version from radio4all.net or Pacifica's AudioPort.Org. For more information, contact Brian@ThisWayOut.org.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 18 U-S-C § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that to prove a violation of 18 U-S-C §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Court focused on interpreting the scope of 18 U-S-C §1512(c)(2), particularly how it relates to §1512(c)(1). Applying the canons of statutory interpretation, particularly noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, the “otherwise” clause in (c)(2) should be read as limited by the specific conduct described in (c)(1). If (c)(2) were as broad as the government claimed, it would render (c)(1) and many other specific obstruction statutes superfluous, which goes against principles of statutory interpretation. Next, as to the historical context of the statute, it was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to address specific issues like document shredding in the Enron scandal. An overly broad interpretation of (c)(2) would criminalize a wide range of prosaic conduct and give prosecutors too much discretion. Moreover, the Court traditionally avoids broad interpretations of obstruction statutes that would create “coverall” provisions. Finally, the Court concluded that (c)(2) should be interpreted more narrowly, in light of (c)(1), to primarily cover acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence for use in an official proceeding, rather than all forms of obstruction. This interpretation better respects Congress's role in defining crimes and setting penalties and avoids potential constitutional issues arising from an overly broad criminal statute. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Bankruptcy Code authorize a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants' consent? The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. Applying the ejusdem generis canon of statutory interpretation to Section 1123(b)(6), which is a catchall provision allowing "any other appropriate provision" in a bankruptcy plan, the Court reasoned that this provision should be read in light of the specific provisions that precede it, all of which concern the debtor's rights and responsibilities. Therefore, Section 1123(b)(6) cannot be fairly read to grant the radically different power to discharge debts of non-debtors without affected claimants' consent. The broader context of the Bankruptcy Code further supports this conclusion. Discharges are generally reserved for debtors who place their assets in the bankruptcy estate, and even then, certain types of claims (like fraud or willful injury) cannot be discharged. The Sacklers, as non-debtors, seek greater protection than the Code typically allows for actual debtors, without meeting the Code's usual requirements. Congress has only explicitly authorized third-party releases in asbestos-related bankruptcies, suggesting that such releases are not generally permissible in other contexts. Therefore, Section 1123(b)(6) does not authorize the nonconsensual release of claims against the Sacklers, who are non-debtors in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempt an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in that state?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024.  The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted and vacated its earlier stay of the district court's preliminary injunction against Idaho's abortion law. Justice Elena Kagan authored a concurring opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Kagan opined that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortions in certain health emergencies that Idaho's law prohibits, creating a clear conflict where federal law preempts state law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. She explained why she believes the Court should dismiss the case and vacate the stay, arguing that the dispute has narrowed significantly since the Court initially granted certiorari, making it inappropriate for immediate Supreme Court resolution. Justice Jackson concurred in part with the Court's decision to vacate the stay and lift the injunction, agreeing with Justice Kagan's analysis that EMTALA preempts Idaho's law. However, she dissented from the Court's decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, arguing that the conflict between state and federal law remains significant and that the Court should have resolved the preemption issue now rather than delaying a decision. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Alito argued that the Court should have decided the statutory interpretation question and rejected the government's novel interpretation of EMTALA rather than dismissing the case and allowing the injunction against Idaho's law to take effect. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: should the Court stay the EPA's federal emissions reduction rule, the Good Neighbor Plan, and are the emissions controls imposed by the rule reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the EPA's enforcement of the Federal Implementation Plan against the applicant States is stayed pending disposition of the applicants' petition for review in the D-C Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. There is a four-factor test for deciding whether to grant a stay: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The Court focused primarily on the first factor—likelihood of success on the merits—and concluded that the applicants (states and industry groups challenging the EPA's rule) were likely to succeed in arguing that the EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) was “arbitrary” or “capricious” under the Clean Air Act.  The EPA failed to adequately explain why its emissions reduction requirements would remain appropriate if fewer states were covered by the plan than originally intended. Commenters had raised concerns during the rulemaking process about what would happen if some states dropped out of the plan, but the EPA did not sufficiently address these concerns. While the EPA did add a “severability” provision saying the rule would continue to apply even if some states dropped out, this did not actually address the underlying issue of whether the emissions requirements would still be justified with fewer states. Because the EPA likely “ignored an important aspect of the problem” by not explaining why its emissions reduction requirements would remain appropriate with fewer covered states, the applicants were likely to succeed in having the rule "reversed" as arbitrary and capricious, justifying the stay pending further review. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, arguing that the applicants are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the EPA's rule. Justice Barrett rejected the Court's theory about EPA's failure to explain as underdeveloped, plagued by significant procedural obstacles, and contradicted by evidence in the record. Justice Barrett argued that the EPA's methodology for calculating emissions limits appears to be independent of the number of states covered, and that the Clean Air Act's stringent harmless-error rule would likely prevent the applicants from prevailing even if there were a procedural error. She also criticized the majority for granting emergency relief based on a theory that was not fully briefed or argued. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: does 18 U-S-C § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalize gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions?    The case was decided on June 26, 2024. The Supreme Court held that Federal law, 18 U-S-C §666, proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Court identified six main reasons that 18 U-S-C §666(a)(1)(B) is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute:    a) Text: The language of §666 closely resembles the federal bribery statute (§201(b)) rather than the federal gratuities statute (§201(c)).    b) Statutory history: Congress amended §666 in 1986 to model it after the bribery statute, not the gratuities statute.    c) Statutory structure: Unlike other laws, §666 does not separate bribery and gratuities into distinct provisions.    d) Statutory punishments: The penalties in §666 align with those for bribery, not gratuities, and would create inexplicable sentencing disparities if applied to gratuities.    e) Federalism: Interpreting §666 as a gratuities statute would significantly infringe on states' rights to regulate their officials' conduct.    f) Fair notice: The government's interpretation would create ambiguity and potentially criminalize innocuous behavior without clear guidelines for state and local officials. The Court rejected the government's argument that the inclusion of the term "rewarded" in §666 indicates it covers gratuities. Rather, the word "rewarded" serves to close potential loopholes in bribery cases. Because §666 prohibits bribes but not gratuities, state and local governments may choose whether and how to regulate gratuities for their officials within constitutional bounds. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Court's opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Ends Bus SegregationOn November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court took a pivotal stand against racial segregation by refusing to hear the appeal in Browder v. Gayle, a landmark case challenging bus segregation laws in Alabama. This action upheld a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which had declared state and local bus segregation laws unconstitutional. This legal victory effectively ended the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a 381-day protest sparked by Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama.The boycott, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association under the leadership of a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had drawn national attention and served as a major catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. By ruling against bus segregation, the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing component of Jim Crow laws in the South, emphasizing that enforced racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision marked a significant legal and moral victory, highlighting the role of the federal judiciary in upholding civil rights in the face of local and state resistance.The end of bus segregation had immediate impacts, enabling Black citizens to ride buses alongside white passengers without enforced separation. More broadly, it emboldened the Civil Rights Movement, inspiring additional challenges to racial discrimination and unequal treatment across the United States.Donald Trump's push for a loyal attorney general highlights his intention to reshape the Justice Department to align closely with his agenda, a move seen as a bid to consolidate power and settle scores. Trump's past frustration with Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, who he viewed as disloyal for permitting investigations against him, underscores his desire for an attorney general who will prioritize his directives, even if it undermines traditional Justice Department norms. Trump's team, led by conservative lawyer Mark Paoletta, is signaling that department employees must either support Trump's agenda or risk losing their positions, signaling a deep commitment to loyalty over impartiality.Trump has promised to prioritize mass deportations, pardon January 6 rioters, and aggressively pursue individuals and officials he believes have wronged him, including political figures like Joe Biden, prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, and past critics like Liz Cheney. Legal experts warn that this approach could undermine prosecutorial independence, a principle established after the Watergate scandal. Trump's transition team suggests a shift in priorities for the Justice Department, where cases involving immigration and religious freedom would take precedence over issues like police accountability and diversity programs.With the Supreme Court's recent ruling granting broad presidential immunity for official acts, Trump's power to leverage the Justice Department is greatly expanded. Critics, including attorney Bradley Moss, believe Trump is prepared to exploit these legal boundaries to fulfill his promises of “retribution.” The list of potential attorney general candidates includes loyalists like Andrew Bailey, Mike Lee, and Matthew Whitaker, hinting at Trump's intent to install officials willing to carry out his vision without hesitation.Trump seeks loyal attorney general | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments from Nvidia, which seeks to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors about the extent of its revenue dependence on cryptocurrency-related sales. The case, led by Swedish investment firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, claims Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang made false statements in 2017-2018 that downplayed how much of the company's revenue growth stemmed from volatile crypto markets. When cryptocurrency profitability declined in 2018, Nvidia's revenue fell short of projections, leading to a stock price drop that hurt investors.The lawsuit initially dismissed by a federal judge was later revived by the 9th Circuit Court, which found the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Nvidia's leadership knowingly or recklessly made misleading statements. Nvidia contends the plaintiffs have not met the high bar required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which aims to limit frivolous securities lawsuits by requiring clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation.The Biden administration has sided with shareholders in this case, while Nvidia argues the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. This case, along with a similar one involving Meta, could shape the legal threshold for private securities fraud cases, potentially making it harder for investors to sue companies for alleged misleading statements. Rulings on both cases are expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court to hear Nvidia bid to avoid securities fraud suit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is debating how broadly to interpret what constitutes a "crime of violence" in a case involving mobster Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder-for-hire. The legal question revolves around whether a crime can qualify as violent under federal law even when no physical force is directly used. Delligatti's case challenges a firearms statute that imposes a minimum five-year sentence for crimes involving “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”The justices grappled with “absurd” hypotheticals to explore if a crime can be violent in nature without actual force, as the statute requires. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted a hypothetical involving a lifeguard refusing to save someone, pointing out that under the court's “categorical approach,” even passive omissions could be considered violent. Justice Elena Kagan noted the oddity of this approach since failing to act doesn't fit typical violent behavior but could theoretically fulfill the statute's requirement, even for murder.Delligatti's defense argues that attempted murder isn't always inherently violent, as some cases might involve indirect actions or omissions. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the court could separate violent acts from omissions to avoid “absurdity.” Yet, the debate underscores the challenge: whether the law's strict categorization aligns with common-sense definitions of violent crimes, especially in cases involving complex, indirect criminal conduct like murder-for-hire.Mafia Case Tests Supreme Court on Crime of Violence Limits (1)Wealth managers are increasingly turning to strategies like the “tax-aware long-short” to help high-net-worth clients avoid taxes. This tax-loss harvesting approach involves holding one stock expected to appreciate long-term and another stock likely to decline in value short-term. When the anticipated loss occurs, the losing asset is sold to offset gains from the appreciating one, reducing taxable income and the overall tax bill. At the macro level, this strategy effectively shifts the tax burden from wealthy investors to average taxpayers and ultimately reduces public funds for essential services.The preferential treatment of long-term capital gains—taxed at up to 20%, compared to a 37% maximum for ordinary income—already favors investment income over wages. While this policy was intended to promote investment, its default high cost to public funds and the extensive tax planning that can be used to exploit it reveal systemic failures in the tax code. When tax professionals and investors go to such lengths to sidestep taxes, this reflects inefficiencies and inequities in tax policy.Addressing this issue requires substantial policy reforms. One solution would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, removing the impetus to shift income into capital gains and thus increasing tax equity between ordinary income and investment income. While this might simplify the tax code and raise substantial revenue, it could discourage investment and lead to market volatility as investors bear more risk without tax-offset options.Another option is to tax unrealized gains, similar to property taxes which tax value without the need for realization, where gains are taxed at regular intervals even if the asset isn't sold. Under this approach, unrealized capital losses could offset unrealized gains during these set intervals, reducing opportunities for manipulative tax timing. This method would diminish the appeal of strategies like the long-short by minimizing the benefits of timing short-term losses against long-term gains. In sum, the effect of timing-based tax loss planning strategies would largely be blunted. On the polar opposite policy spectrum, lowering capital gains rates would reduce the financial incentive to hire advisors for complex tax avoidance strategies. Lowering rates might make it more cost effective for investors to pay taxes directly rather than invest in costly avoidance techniques.Ultimately, tax reform should prioritize policies that effectively generate revenue while minimizing the need for complex, resource-intensive planning.We Need a Better Way to Reduce Tax Avoidance and Enhance Equity This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permit the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?     The case was decided on June 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when an expert conveys an absent lab analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and thus implicate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Confrontation Clause applies to “testimonial hearsay,” that is, out-of-court statements introduced for their truth. The key question is whether the non-testifying analyst's lab statements were introduced for their truth or for another purpose. The Court rejected Arizona's argument that the statements were only used to show the basis of the non-testifying expert opinion, not for their truth.  Evidentiary rules do not control whether a statement is admitted for its truth; this is a constitutional question. When an expert conveys out-of-court statements to support their opinion, and those statements only support the opinion if true, then the statements have been offered for their truth. The jury cannot evaluate the expert's credibility without assessing the truth of the underlying statements. In this case, the expert's testimony relied entirely on accepting the non-testifying analyst's statements as true. His opinions were predicated on the truth of what the analyst reported about her lab work. Allowing this practice would undermine previous decisions in Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming and allow easy evasion of the Confrontation Clause. Therefore, the non-testifying analyst's statements were introduced for their truth, violating Smith's confrontation rights if the statements were testimonial. The Court remanded for determination of whether the statements were testimonial by looking at each statement's “primary purpose.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch did not join the Court's analysis of when a statement is “testimonial,” and each wrote separately to explain how they differed. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined, arguing that the majority unnecessarily complicated the matter and should have found that the testimony sought to prove the truth of the statements and was, therefore, inadmissible hearsay subject to the Confrontation Clause. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 18 U-S-C § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violate the Second Amendment?    The case was decided on June 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental but not unlimited. When examining a challenged regulation, the Court considers whether it is consistent with historical principles, not necessarily identical to historical laws. The key factors are why and how the regulation burdens the right. Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition. Historically, two legal regimes addressed firearms violence: surety laws and “going armed” laws. Surety laws allowed magistrates to require bonds from individuals suspected of future misbehavior, including firearm misuse. “Going armed” laws prohibited carrying weapons in a way that terrified the public. Both regimes targeted individuals who posed threats to others' safety. Section 922(g)(8) is relevantly similar to these historical laws. It applies to individuals found by a court to threaten others' physical safety, just as the historical laws did. The burden it imposes—temporary disarmament based on a judicial finding—is also consistent with historical practice. While not identical to historical laws, Section 922(g)(8) aligns with the principles underlying the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulations aimed at preventing violence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined, opining that the Court correctly applied its decision in Bruen, but she continues to believe that Bruen was incorrectly decided. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, emphasizing that while Section 922(g)(8) can be constitutional in some applications, the Court's ruling is narrow and leaves open many questions about the law's constitutionality in other specific circumstances. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion to review the proper roles of text, history, and precedent in constitutional interpretation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, noting that two years' after Bruen, it is now clear that the unclear legal standard established in Bruen is difficult for lower courts to apply. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion, acknowledging lower courts' struggle to apply Bruen but pointing out that in this case, the Court settles on just the right level of generality Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: May a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause?     The case was decided on June 20, 2024.  The Supreme Court held that pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice, the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. First, the Court considered the Fourth Amendment issue. A Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim can proceed even when a baseless charge is accompanied by a valid charge. This is because a pretrial detention must be based on probable cause, and if an invalid charge causes a detention to start or continue, the Fourth Amendment is violated, even if a valid charge also exists. Second, looking at the common law tort of malicious prosecution, which was analogous to Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims when §1983 was enacted. Historical evidence shows that courts assessed probable cause on a charge-by-charge basis, and a plaintiff could bring a malicious prosecution claim for groundless charges even if they were coupled with well-founded ones. Based on these two lines of reasoning, the Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's categorical rule that barred Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims if any charge was valid and concluded that courts should evaluate such suits on a charge-by-charge basis. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined, reiterating Justice Alito's prior opinion (in which Justice Thomas joined) that a “malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on the Fourth Amendment.” Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that nothing in the language of the Fourth Amendment supports a malicious prosecution claim. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Diaz v United States.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), may a governmental expert witness testify that couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters to prove that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs?    The case was decided on June 20, 2024. The Supreme Court held that expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) is a narrow exception to the general admissibility of ultimate issue opinions established by Rule 704(a). It only prohibits expert opinions about whether a specific defendant had a particular mental state that is an element of the crime or defense. It does not bar testimony about the mental states of people in general or groups that may include the defendant. Moreover, the language of Rule 704(b), particularly the word “about,” supports the conclusion that the rule targets specific conclusions about a defendant's mental state, not just any testimony related to mental states. This interpretation is further supported by the context of Rule 704(a), which allows opinions embracing ultimate issues, making Rule 704(b) a narrow exception to that broader rule. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion to emphasize that, as Congress designed it, Rule 704(b) is party agnostic. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch argued that the majority's interpretation allows prosecutors to put an expert on the stand to testify as to what “most” people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act and then merely convince the jury that the defendant is like “most” people and convict. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we engage with Maureen Groppe, who delves into the nuanced arena of Supreme Court reporting. Host Jessica Levinson probes into the personal dynamics among justices, leading Maureen to emphasize their professional decorum despite ideological differences. Jessica's students' questions introduce topics like maintaining objectivity and Supreme Court reform, with Maureen discussing the hurdles of simplifying complex legal issues for a general audience. This discussion offers a unique glimpse into the behind-the-scenes world of Supreme Court reporting and its impact on public perception.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Court's Collegiality: Groppe shares that justices stress their collegiality, although social interactions are often downplayed by some, like Justice Kagan, who emphasizes professional respect.2️⃣ Impact of Oral Arguments: Groppe shares the challenge of determining the impact of oral arguments on court decisions, using an emergency abortion case as an example where Justice Barrett's reactions played a crucial role.3️⃣ Reporting Impartiality: The episode includes a discussion on how reporters like Groppe maintain neutrality when covering Supreme Court cases with significant implications.Follow Our Host and Guest:@mgroppe @LevinsonJessica

Justice Kagan makes remarks to the 9th Circuit and President Biden proposes SCOTUS reforms. The usual slow-moving summer legal news drag is disrupted by a number interesting cases and eye-raising comments. On the docket: —To stand or not to stand at a desk —Justice Kagan says Supreme Court reforms are "fair" —The Supreme Court's caseload —Are justices friendly? —President Biden's proposed reforms —Leonard Leo says "Dems are destroying a court they don't agree with" —Removing Chevron deference —Title IX cases launch across the U.S. —Taxes on our phone bills —PETA wins one for the gatos —Boneless chicken wings: dangerous or harmless wordplay? Show Notes: —Man makes a passionate speech on boneless chicken wings Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Biden says he'll use his last months in office to push for "reform" of the Supreme Court, possibly including term limits, while Justice Elena Kagan comes out in favor of an "enforcement mechanism" for its ethics code. What are the pitfalls of these ideas, and will Kamala Harris, as the Democratic nominee for president, endorse them as the November election nears? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a 6-3 decision, the Justices abolish "Chevron deference," a doctrine that told judges to defer to regulatory agencies on the meanings of ambiguous laws. Does this really spell the end of expertise in Washington, as Justice Elena Kagan argues in dissent? Plus, the Supreme Court sends back to lower judges two laws in Florida and Texas that regulate social-media websites. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday's decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SERIES 2 EPISODE 181: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: The would-be dictatorships are stacked up so thick they have to wait for permission to land. We rightfully fear a Trump dictatorship. Right now, however, we are being RULED by a Samuel Alito dictatorship. And now we have to take measures to overthrow it. Caught flying one insurrectionist flag at his VIRGINIA home – while he was adjudicating cases that could have benefitted the Trump Coup Attempt – Alito simply lied about it, claiming he had no role in it, then contradicted himself by telling a backstory of petty personal recrimination involving neighbors – a backstory which had its OWN set of lies. And now we know that THAT entire story was – at best – a lie of omission, because when Alito was caught improperly flying a disqualifying insurrectionist symbol in public at his primary home in 2021, he was continuing to hide the fact that through much or all of last summer he was flying a DIFFERENT disqualifying insurrectionist symbol in public at his vacation home in New Jersey. It is, as you know, the Appeal to Heaven flag, stolen by groups of Christo-Fascists from its historical role in our founding revolution and re-purposed to rationalize a fundamentalist religious dictatorship replacing representative government. As the New York Times noted in reporting this story, quote, “the phrase ‘appeal to heaven' comes from the 17th century philosopher John Locke, who wrote of a responsibility to rebel, even use violence, to overthrow unjust rule. ‘It's a paraphrase for trial by arms,' Anthony Grafton, a historian at Princeton University said in an interview,” unquote. It's a paraphrase for trial by arms, and it's been flying in public view from Samuel Alito's home. And now we have to figure out how to stop Alito from completing his plan to turn this country into a religious dictatorship - a kind of westernized Iran. On the other hand: In a surprise announcement, Donald Trump has declared himself dead. “They were authorized to shoot me!,” begins his email to try to con more money out of his dumbest cult members. Quote: “I nearly escaped death!”Uhhhh…. So… you… DIDN'T… escape death? Metaphorically, Trump may be right. The words used by the President and those around him about Trump's "Unified Reich" video are a sea change. They are calling him an antisemite. Next they need to call him a Nazi. B-Block (27:07) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, apparently cannot afford a weather app. It rained so hard on him he became Rishi Sunk. Larry Hogan, a Republican, insists he's always protected women's rights. Of course he's lying. And as we realize just how corrupted and unsalvageable the Supreme Court is, Jim Jordan provides some comic relief by saying something that provides an immediate opportunity to insult Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. C-Block (34:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: I ran into Al Roker the other day, so naturally I have to tell you all my Matt Lauer stories. These are the obnoxious, vanity ones, as opposed to the assault-y ones.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday's decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices