Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

American history is riddled with collisions between legally defensible rulings and morally costly outcomes. Still, "the purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice," says Yuval Levin, who joins Mark Labberton to explore the moral architecture in the foundation of the American legal system, as they review the most recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has just closed one of the most consequential terms in recent memory, articulating the tension between faithfulness to the Constitution and enacting justice and morality. Together they reflect on why and how a system founded on equality must be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian at once; why a judge's job is to articulate their legal (rather than their moral) opinion; the rise of Constitutional originalism; why pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court while "Trumpy" ones lose; the contemporary relevance of the Federalist Papers; what recourse citizens have when they believe the Court has done wrong; and why the American legal system's worst failures still cluster around race. They explore several of the 2025-26 rulings of the Supreme Court, including imposition of tariffs, immigration enforcement, and birthright citizenship, and the Voting Rights Act. Episode Highlights "The purpose of law in any society is to embody a moral framework in practice." "This is a very good time to get to know The Federalist Papers." "The role of the judge in the American system is to apply the law, not to find the moral answer per se. We hope the law does that, though it doesn't always and we know it." "The American system of government, very much for moral reasons, is expected to be both majoritarian and counter-majoritarian." [Regarding Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh] "They grew up in the same place. They literally went to the same high school and had the same history teacher. Their mothers knew each other … They agreed with each other 52% of the time in this last term of the Supreme Court." [Courts to Trump] "You are in charge of the executive branch, but the executive branch is not in charge of the American government." "If you come to this court with a pre-Trump conservative legal argument, you're going to win. If you come to this court with a Trumpy legal argument, you're going to lose." "We experienced the high water mark of executive power about a year ago, and it is now receding." "The areas where it has failed most are concentrated around questions of race. That has been true from the beginning. It is thankfully less true than it used to be, but it is still true, and I think we have to be uniquely sensitive to those questions for that reason." About Yuval Levin Yuval Levin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy and directs Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies. He founded and edits National Affairs, and he is a senior editor at The New Atlantis and a contributing editor at National Review. His books include "The Great Debate," "The Fractured Republic," "A Time to Build," and most recently, "American Covenant." He served on the White House domestic policy staff under George W. Bush and earned his PhD at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. Helpful Links and Resources Yuval Levin at the American Enterprise Institute: https://www.aei.org/profile/yuval-levin/ National Affairs, the publication Levin founded and edits: https://nationalaffairs.com/authors/detail/yuval-levin American Covenant, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/american-covenant/9780465040742/?lens=basic-books A Time to Build, by Yuval Levin: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/yuval-levin/a-time-to-build/9781541699281/?lens=basic-books The Federalist Papers, full text at the Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers Trump v. Slaughter, the decision overturning Humphrey's Executor (June 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the IEEPA tariffs decision (February 20, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Louisiana v. Callais, the Voting Rights Act decision (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Coverage of the birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara, SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/ Show Notes Yuval Levin's legal/constitutional frame: The law exists to put a society's moral convictions into workable practice. On "All men are created equal": If no one has natural authority over anyone else, we decide by majority vote—but equality also means the minority keeps its rights no matter who wins The Constitution assigns those two jobs to different institutions and lets them fight: Congress and the president answer to majorities, the courts deliberately do not Life tenure and fixed salaries exist so justices can protect minority rights without fear of majority reprisal A judge's job is to say what the law is, not to reach the most just result; therefore good judges regularly land where they might wish they didn't. What citizens can do when the Court rules wrongly: If it misread a statute, Congress can rewrite it. Constitutional rulings are harder to undo, but examples include the 16th Amendment (re: income tax) and the 14th Amendment (re: black citizenship, answering the Court directly) The pro-life movement's 50-year strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade Levin on the difficulty of simply being in the political minority, and why the system tries to make everyone a winner sometimes Originalism began as a limit on judicial power and judges' preferences Legal originalism looks for original public meaning, not the drafters' intent Parallel to biblical interpretation, where faithful readers reach wildly different conclusions The challenge of interpreting and applying the Constitution to matters of freedom and democracy today With Congress mostly absent, the Court is now deciding questions of executive power the Federalist Papers were written about Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: Same age, same hometown, same high school history teacher, agreed only 52% of the time this term Trump v. Slaughter ends the independent agency: the Court overturned Humphrey's Executor, and the president can now fire FTC-style commissioners at will 2026 Court rulings also told the president no: on tariffs, on the National Guard in Illinois without the governor's consent, and on birthright citizenship Levin's rule of thumb: Pre-Trump conservative arguments win at this Court, Trumpy arguments lose Yuval Levin: Executive power peaked about a year ago and is now receding. Louisiana v. Callais guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of racial intent A legal bind: Black voters vote Democratic by 90% in the South, so a racist map and a purely partisan map look identical Levin defends the ruling as law and grieves it as outcome—several Black-held Southern seats will likely be redistricted away Why he opposes reauthorizing the VRA with race-based set-aside districts, and where he thinks change should come from instead Software now lets parties gerrymander voter by voter—in New England, Trump won 35% and Republicans hold zero House seats The deceptions of the human heart Does constitutional structure just launder self-interest? The system's deepest failures have always clustered around race Gratitude for the Constitution in America's 250th year #SupremeCourt #Constitution #VotingRights #Originalism #ExecutivePower #FaithAndPolitics #YuvalLevin #Conversing Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.

Adam White hosts Chief Judge Susan G. Braden (Ret.) to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which held the Federal Trade Commission's statutory independence unconstitutional and explicitly overruled Humphrey's Executor. Braden argues the ruling will ripple across administrative law by treating agencies with authority to file lawsuits on behalf of the United States as executive agencies subject to presidential control, and by limiting “independent” agencies to advisory roles.Sign up for email updates from the Gray Center hereJudge Braden's paper on the future of the FTCAdam White's analysis of Slaughter and Cook in SCOTUSblog

From Apple News In Conversation: The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in recent memory — issuing major rulings on presidential power, birthright citizenship, and the rights of transgender athletes. But the story playing out in most headlines, legal analyst Sarah Isgur argues, is missing the bigger picture. Isgur is the editor of SCOTUSblog and the author of Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joined Apple News In Conversation guest host David Greene to explain why she considers this the hardest term in the Roberts Court’s history, why Trump has lost far more cases than he’s won, and why the political framework most people use to understand the court tells only a fraction of the story.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in recent memory — issuing major rulings on presidential power, birthright citizenship, and the rights of transgender athletes. But the story playing out in most headlines, legal analyst Sarah Isgur argues, is missing the bigger picture. Isgur is the editor of SCOTUSblog and the author of Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joined Apple News In Conversation guest host David Greene to explain why she considers this the hardest term in the Roberts Court’s history, why Trump has lost far more cases than he’s won, and why the political framework most people use to understand the court tells only a fraction of the story.

Last Tuesday, June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its final opinions in argued cases for October Term 2025. So it's an ideal time to review the Term that was—and to look ahead to what's on the docket for OT 2026.I could think of no better guest for this project than my husband, Zachary Baron Shemtob. Zach is the executive editor of SCOTUSblog—a leading news outlet, if not the leading news outlet, about the Supreme Court. Before joining SCOTUSblog in May 2025, he practiced at two top law firms, clerked for the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, and graduated from Georgetown Law, where he served as editor-in-chief of the law review. Prior to his legal career, Zach was an assistant professor of criminology, where he focused on legal decision making.Thanks to Zach for joining me—and thanks to him and the entire team at SCOTUSblog for their excellent work.Show Notes:* Zachary Shemtob author page, SCOTUSblog* Zachary Baron Shemtob, personal websiteSponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Sarah Isgur and David French slow things down with an overview of the yearly Stat Pack released by SCOTUSblog, look at the dissents in the birthright citizenship case, and answer listeners' questions about everything from the 14th Amendment being sex-blind to whether independent agencies could be recreated within the legislative branch.  The Agenda: –Stat Pack: Findings –Trump v. Barbara could have been a book –Birthright citizenship dissents –Is the 14th Amendment sex-blind? –Get rid of rulemaking authority in the executive branch –Choose only three justices –Getting up close to the financial disclosures Order Sarah's book here. 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 access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog & author of Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court, joined us on the Guy Benson Show today to discuss last week's monumental Supreme Court decisions, including the decision to rule against Trump's challenge of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. Isgur and Benson also discussed the bizarre story and retraction surrounding the alleged retirement of Supreme Court Justice Alito, and you can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kelsey Dallas, managing editor for SCOTUS Blog, breaks down the recently concluded court term. WVU History Professor Hal Gorby talks about appalachia's impact on America's history. Ethan with a World Cup update. Dave Croft, Ohio County School Board President, talks education funding. It's UFO Day! Charleston Mayor Amy Shuler Goodwin is ready to Regatta. Plus, your calls and texts. 

This week we mapped out how Wall Street has talked itself into a story it can’t stress-test—Accenture getting punished whether AI succeeds or fails, Saylor quietly selling the Bitcoin he swore he’d never sell, and the hyperscalers borrowing billions to fund a buildout that may be obsolete before it’s finished. Then we looked at the inflation numbers, which are stuck well above target, and the quiet methodology change coming this fall that’ll let everyone claim victory without prices actually moving an inch. Chapters Intro: 00:00:37 Quick Takes: 00:01:25 Max Notes: 00:07:06 Killer Left Take of the Week: 00:18:55 Chart of the Week: 00:21:06 Headlines: 00:26:00 Outro: 00:27:08 Resources PBS NewsHour: Stephen Miller says ‘America’s doors are closed fully to asylum seekers’ after SCOTUS ruling TMZ Clips: Dr. Oz Says Great American State Fair Crowd Is Huge, But Camera Pan Shows Otherwise CBS New York: Trump says NYC rent freeze will turn buildings “into ghettos and slums” ScotusBlog.com Motley Fool: Accenture Shares Plunged 50% This Year. Here’s What Investors Need to Know. Yahoo! Finance: Strategy Says It May Sell Up to $1.25 Billion of Bitcoin Yahoo! Finance: Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft are getting hooked on debt to fuel AI boom Reuters: Cheaper AI is better: Soaring bills are reshaping how businesses choose models TechTarget: Will data centers become obsolete? Breaking Points: “I’M DONE!” Carville, Dem Elites CRASH OUT, Demand Dem Divorce Macro Micro: US - Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index [PCE] U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index Farm Service Agency: Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) U.S. News: Methodology Changes Could Lower US May Core PCE Inflation, Economists Say Daily Kos: Thanks, GOP: Student borrowers face massive bills this week The Intercept: Abdul El-Sayed Becomes First Senate Candidate Backed by Pro-Palestine Jewish Group ProPublica: Native American Tribes Came Together to Secure Their Rights to Colorado River Water. Four States Are Stalling the Deal. UNFTR Resources Video: On The Record 6-30-26 (Wall Street Insanity | White House Depravity | Zohran Crushing) Essay: Wall Street Is Cooked. Video: SpaceX IPO: What They’re Not Telling Retail Investors UNFTR Trivia UNFTR Newsletter 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Become a member at unftr.com/memberships. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility.Support the show: https://www.unftr.com/membershipsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.wethefifth.comWe are lucky to be joined once again by Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog, Sarah Isgur, and on a day when the Supreme Court gave everyone a lot to argue about.-Trump loses, birth tourism maybe does not-Anchor babies and America's soccer future-The 14th Amendment gets weird-A color-blind Constitution, except when it isn't-Immigration is the culture war now-Executive p…

Sarah Isgur and David French react to the latest opinions of the court in two major immigration cases and a review of Hawaii's restrictions on concealed-carry permits. The Agenda: —The SCOTUS opinion day “ritual” —Hawaii gun restrictions —Shall not be infringed —Border dispute over asylum seekers —Judicial review of TPS —Trump's “Muslim” ban Show notes: —Destiny of the Republic Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the Supreme Court's term winds down, with some notable cases still to be decided, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part two of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the power of Chief Justice John Roberts, the personalities and influence of the other justices, and her relationship with Justice Elena Kagan, who was dean of Harvard Law School when Isgur was a student and chapter president of the Federalist Society there.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the Supreme Court's term winds down, with some notable cases still to be decided, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur (IHS-ger). Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part two of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the power of Chief Justice John Roberts, the personalities and influence of the other justices, and her relationship with Justice Elena Kagan, who was dean of Harvard Law School when Isgur was a student and chapter president of the Federalist Society there.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Watergate BurglaryOn this day in 1972, at roughly 2:30 in the morning, a security guard at the Watergate office complex on Virginia Avenue in Washington named Frank Wills noticed that the latches on a stairwell door had been taped over and called the District police. The police arrested five men inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee on the sixth floor: James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. McCord was the security coordinator for the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Two days later, the FBI traced a $25,000 cashier's check found in Barker's bank account to the Committee to Re-Elect's finance chairman. The burglary itself was a third-rate one — bad lockpicking, surveillance gear that did not work, men carrying address books that linked them to the White House — but the legal consequences took two years to play out and rewrote large parts of American constitutional law in the process.The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, chaired by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, conducted public hearings in the summer of 1973 that produced the disclosure of the White House taping system. The Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973 — Nixon's firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus — produced the legal scholarship that became the modern law of presidential removal and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's independent-counsel framework. United States v. Nixon in July 1974 produced the doctrine that executive privilege is qualified rather than absolute and must yield to a demonstrated need in a criminal proceeding, a holding that is still the foundational separation-of-powers case the Court returns to whenever an administration claims that internal deliberations cannot be subpoenaed.The articles of impeachment voted by the House Judiciary Committee in late July 1974 produced the modern template for impeachment-as-constitutional-remedy that has been deployed four times since. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The constitutional residue of what began with five men and a roll of tape in a Watergate stairwell is in the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Inspector General Act, the Presidential Records Act, the post-Saturday-Night-Massacre statute book that defines what limits an administration faces when it tries to use the criminal-justice system politically. Fifty-four years on, the question of how much of that residue has held up is, as the saying goes, the question.U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Tuesday denied former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan's post-trial motion to vacate her December 2025 conviction for felony obstruction of a federal proceeding. Dugan had been charged after she let Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who had appeared in her courtroom in April 2025 on a state misdemeanor, and his attorney leave through a side door of her courtroom after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had assembled in the public hallway to arrest him on a federal civil immigration warrant. A jury found Dugan guilty of obstruction and acquitted her of the lesser concealing-an-individual count.Her post-trial motion pressed two principal arguments. The first was that the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Edwards — which addressed the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 obstruction as applied to interference with administrative agency proceedings — applies to ICE warrant service and so the trial court should have given a narrower jury instruction. The second was that her conduct was protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity for acts taken on the bench. Judge Adelman rejected both. On Edwards, the court held that the Fourth Circuit's reasoning addresses a different statutory provision and a different agency context, and that Dugan's case is governed by Seventh Circuit precedent on the obstruction statute she was convicted under.On judicial immunity, the court held that the doctrine is a civil shield against private damages liability and does not bar federal criminal prosecution for affirmative conduct in aid of evading federal law-enforcement officers. Dugan's team has announced that the case will go to the Seventh Circuit. Sentencing is now back on the calendar. The appellate question that will dominate the briefing is the one Judge Adelman teed up: whether a state judge taking administrative action in the courthouse — guiding a litigant to a back exit — falls inside or outside the federal obstruction statute's reach when the action is calculated to defeat federal law-enforcement service. That issue has not been squarely decided in the Seventh Circuit. The case is going to be the vehicle.Ex-Judge Loses Bid To Undo ICE Obstruction Conviction | Law360A Maryland federal judge on Tuesday denied SCOTUSblog co-founder Thomas C. Goldstein's post-trial motion for acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial on the twelve counts on which a jury had convicted him in February — tax evasion, assisting in the preparation of false returns, willful failure to pay over employment taxes, and false statements to mortgage lenders. The case is one of the more striking falls in modern Supreme Court practice. Goldstein had argued for years before the Court and was, for two decades, one of the most visible private SCOTUS practitioners in the country, with SCOTUSblog itself becoming the standard public-facing reference for Supreme Court news.The criminal case grew out of his recreational high-stakes poker, which prosecutors used to build out a pattern of unreported gambling income, gambling debts paid out of law-firm funds, and gambling losses claimed as business expenses. The post-trial motion principally argued that the trial court's jury instructions on willfulness improperly conflated the negligence standard with the higher mens rea Cheek v. United States requires in federal tax-evasion prosecutions, and that the court had wrongly excluded evidence going to Goldstein's claimed reliance on his accountants' advice. The court rejected both. On the willfulness instruction, the court found the instruction tracked the Fourth Circuit's pattern instruction on Cheek and made clear to the jury that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law was a defense. On the accountant-reliance evidence, the court held that the offer of proof was insufficient to establish that Goldstein had actually relied on professional advice in the particular omissions the indictment turned on, as opposed to relying on his own judgment. Sentencing is now the next event.The federal sentencing guidelines on the tax counts alone, with the loss amount the jury found, point to a substantial custodial term. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the willfulness instruction; that is the cleanest reversible-error vehicle in the record.SCOTUSblog Founder Goldstein Denied Acquittal Or Retrial | Law360A Delaware federal judge on Tuesday denied Guardant Health's post-trial motion to vacate, reduce, or stay enforcement of the $83.4 million jury verdict TwinStrand Biosciences won against it in late 2023 for willful infringement of diagnostic-sequencing patents covering duplex-sequencing technology used in liquid-biopsy cancer-screening assays. The court also declined to enhance the award under 35 U.S.C. § 284, even though the jury had found willfulness, reasoning that the multi-factor Read v. Portec analysis the Federal Circuit has refined in Halo Electronics and its progeny cut both ways here: Guardant's pre-suit notice and continued use of the accused technology supported some enhancement, but its defenses on infringement and validity, while ultimately rejected, were not objectively reckless.The decision is notable for two doctrinal reasons. First, it reflects how district courts are continuing to deploy Halo's discretion-based framework in the post-pandemic-era diagnostic-patent landscape, where the gap between objectively defensible defenses and reckless infringement is being drawn case by case in a way that is making certworthy issues for the Federal Circuit and, eventually, the Supreme Court. Second, it underscores the $83.4 million is significant but not transformative: the broader competitive question in the diagnostic-sequencing space is whether Guardant can design around the asserted claims fast enough to keep its cancer-screening assays on the market without paying a recurring royalty to TwinStrand. Guardant has indicated it will appeal to the Federal Circuit. Both the underlying infringement findings and the no-enhancement ruling are likely to be appealed in parallel — Guardant on infringement and validity, TwinStrand on the refusal to enhance. The verdict stands for now.Del. Judge Upholds $83.4M Patent Verdict Against Guardant | Law360My Bloomberg Tax column this week argues that the IRS's disclosure of taxpayer address information to ICE should be understood less as a narrow immigration-enforcement controversy and more as a tax-data governance failure.I argue that Section 6103 does not make IRS data impossible to share, but it does make confidentiality the default and disclosure the exception. That distinction matters because a statutory exception should not become a bulk-transfer mechanism whenever another agency wants access to IRS records. The IRS holds unusually sensitive information because taxpayers are legally compelled to provide it, so any interagency disclosure should require necessity, precision, security, and auditability on a record-by-record basis.The TIGTA report is troubling because the IRS apparently built an automated matching process that was vulnerable to bad ICE inputs, inconsistent formatting, malformed records, and weak matching rules. ICE also had unresolved safeguard issues and missed corrective-action deadlines before the data transfer. In my view, that combination means the problem was not simply that data moved; it was that protected taxpayer information moved through a process that treated matching quality and backend security as implementation details rather than core privacy protections.The broader point is that bad data inputs are not just a programmer's inconvenience. If the IRS relies on another agency's messy file to decide whether protected tax information can be disclosed, the quality of that file becomes part of the taxpayer-confidentiality analysis. Loose input standards and crude matching rules effectively expand the statutory exception beyond what Congress authorized.My proposed fix is straightforward: before the IRS discloses taxpayer information, requesting agencies should have to provide clean, structured, validated data; legally certify the need for each record; meet defined match-confidence thresholds; submit ambiguous cases for manual review; and accept strict limits on use, retention, and auditing. The column's central line is that Section 6103 exceptions should operate like locked doors, not loading docks.IRS Sharing Taxpayer Info With ICE Is a Data Governance Issue 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

Sarah Isgur and David French break down the most recent cert grants out of the Supreme Court's order list and Trump's argument for suspending habeas corpus. The Agenda: —Paid petitions vs. In Forma Pauperis —Six-person juries in Florida —Can undocumented immigrants be held indefinitely? —New York Times reporting on Trump and habeas corpus —Leaked memo fallout —Lawyers using AI —Georgia campaign finance laws —On LSAT accommodations Show notes: —Ramos v. Louisiana —The White House staff secretary's habeas corpus memo Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the Supreme Court's term comes to an end, with decisions on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes, and gun rights still to be rendered, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part one of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the current court, the cases it takes up, and the divisions she sees among the justices, based on their ideology and institutional outlook.          Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As the Supreme Court's term comes to an end, with decisions on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes, and gun rights still to be rendered, we take a behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court and how it operates with SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur. Her new book on the topic is titled "Last Branch Standing." In part one of our discussion, we talk to Sarah Isgur about the current court, the cases it takes up, and the divisions she sees among the justices, based on their ideology and institutional outlook.        Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The story of Donald Trump's court battles over the past few days has felt less like a legal calendar and more like a rolling constitutional stress test, and listeners, you and I are watching it in real time. In New York, the hush money criminal case continues to cast a long shadow. After the jury's guilty verdict on dozens of felony counts related to falsifying business records, the focus lately has shifted from what happened at trial to what comes next: sentencing and appeals. Reporters from the New York Times and CNN have described Trump's legal team rushing to frame the conviction as legally flawed and politically motivated, laying the groundwork for an appeal that could stretch well into the presidential campaign season. At the same time, court watchers like those on Court TV have emphasized how unusual it is to see a former president, and active candidate, facing potential probation or even a custodial sentence from a New York judge. Down in Florida, in the federal classified documents case, the action over the past several days has largely been on paper, but the stakes are enormous. According to coverage from the Washington Post and Politico, Judge Aileen Cannon has been wrestling with a blizzard of motions: Trump's lawyers pushing to dismiss the indictment, to limit what prosecutors can show a jury under the Classified Information Procedures Act, and to delay any trial date deeper into the election cycle. Prosecutors tied to Special Counsel Jack Smith, as reported by NBC News, have pushed back hard, arguing that no citizen, even a former president, can store national defense documents at a private club and then refuse to give them back. The judge's most recent hearings, summarized by legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security, suggest a cautious, methodical pace, one that has critics accusing the court of slow‑walking the case and supporters saying it is simply giving the defense the process any defendant would get. In Washington, D.C., the federal election interference case is mostly frozen while the Supreme Court weighs in on Donald Trump's sweeping claim of presidential immunity. SCOTUSblog and Oyez have detailed how Trump's attorneys argued that many of the acts underlying the indictment, from pressuring officials to challenging the vote count, were “official acts” insulated from prosecution. Justice Department lawyers responded that immunity has never covered a president's attempt to overturn an election. Over the past week, commentators on MSNBC and Fox News alike have focused on one thing: the clock. Every day the Supreme Court takes to finalize its opinion is another day the D.C. trial cannot realistically start, and many analysts now say it is increasingly unlikely that listeners will see a full trial there before the next Election Day. Back in Georgia, in Fulton County, the state racketeering case over efforts to overturn the 2020 result has been dominated by fights over District Attorney Fani Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, recent hearings have revisited questions about her past relationship with a special prosecutor and whether that creates a conflict of interest strong enough to derail the case. Trump's lawyers have used those allegations to call the entire prosecution tainted, while Georgia legal experts quoted by the Associated Press point out that even if Willis were removed, the charges themselves would not automatically disappear. But the practical effect is delay; jury selection that once seemed imminent now looks distant. Put together, these last few days in Trump's legal world have been about timing, positioning, and perception rather than dramatic witness testimony. Appeals are being prepared in New York. Motions are grinding forward in Florida. The Supreme Court's looming immunity decision hovers over Washington. And procedural battles in Georgia test how far a state court can go in holding a former president to account. Listeners, however you feel about Donald Trump, the court system is quietly answering a question it has never quite faced before: how to treat a man who is simultaneously a criminal defendant, a former president, and a leading candidate for the White House. That tension is why every small filing, every scheduling order, every judicial comment has been dissected so intensely over the last few days by outlets from Reuters to CBS News. Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands. Highlights[00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews[00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke[00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank)[00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors[00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap[00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview[00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term[00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance[00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel[00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake[00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion[00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel[00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach[00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location[00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems[00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute[01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct[01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions[01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the three SCOTUS decisions that dropped Thursday morning,  a D.C. Circuit decision on President Donald Trump's ban on transgender military members, and accommodations running rampant at law schools. Oh, and a federal judge charged with battery and destruction of physical property.  The Agenda: –Sign up for the SCOTUSblog newsletter –We are faced with the duddiest of duds –What is estoppel? –You can only try a defendant in the district where his crime was committed –Why is a Church of the Holy Trinity reference basically a backhand? –Transgender people can serve in the military  –We should get rid of accommodations for aspiring attorneys  –Burden of proof: Federal judge caught in altercation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French look at what's left on the docket from this term before diving into a little Los Angeles mayoral politics.  The Agenda: –Supreme Court bingo –Do Rastafarians get religious exemptions? –The mighty small-dollar donor  – United States v. Hemani –Wolford v. Lopez –Appearance of election corruption –No, a GOP candidate did not have a chance to become mayor of Los Angeles –Birthright citizenship case –Trump v. Cook: an explainer –Banning trans athletes from girls' sports Show Notes: –Evangelicals for Mitt Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Burning of the GaspeeOn this day in 1772, a Royal Navy revenue schooner called HMS Gaspee, captained by a notably overzealous Lieutenant William Duddington, ran aground in shallow water in Narragansett Bay while chasing a Rhode Island packet boat called the Hannah. Within hours of the grounding, roughly sixty Providence merchants, sailors, and “Sons of Liberty” — led by John Brown, one of the wealthiest men in the colony — rowed out under cover of darkness in eight longboats, boarded the Gaspee, shot Duddington, and burned the ship to the waterline. The legal significance lies in what came next. The Crown convened a Royal Commission of Inquiry with authority to ship the perpetrators across the Atlantic for trial in England, bypassing colonial juries entirely, a procedural maneuver that the colonies read as a direct attack on the right to jury trial in the vicinage.The Virginia House of Burgesses responded in March 1773 by forming the first Committee of Correspondence, a sustained intercolonial communication network that became, two years later, the institutional skeleton of the Continental Congress. The Gaspee Affair never produced a single prosecution — the commission could not get the colonial governor or the Rhode Island courts to cooperate, and witness testimony evaporated — but it produced something more durable: the colonial conviction that the Crown's willingness to detour around local juries was itself a constitutional grievance worth organizing against. The right-to-jury-in-the-vicinage point that Madison wrote into the Sixth Amendment seventeen years later is, in a real sense, the Gaspee Affair's longest-lived legacy.The Supreme Court on Monday granted, vacated, and remanded the D.C. Circuit's decision in American Gas Association v. Department of Energy, sending the long-disputed Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rule on non-condensing residential gas furnaces and commercial water heaters back to the D.C. Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General.” That last phrase is the operative one. The new Solicitor General, on behalf of the second Trump administration's DOE, told the Court in late April that the prior administration's reading of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was, in DOE's current view, wrong, and that the rule effectively bans non-condensing units that millions of homes and small commercial properties were built around. A confessed-error from a new administration doesn't automatically win a case, but the procedural vehicle — a grant-vacate-remand, or “GVR” — is the Court's standard way of saying “go look at this again with the new posture in mind” without resolving the merits itself.The trade-group plaintiffs, led by the American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association, framed the rule from the start as a de facto product ban dressed up as efficiency standards. The environmental and consumer groups that intervened to defend the rule will get another bite at the apple on remand, but their position is harder when their own client agency has switched sides. Watch the D.C. Circuit's case calendar over the next few weeks for an expedited briefing schedule.Supreme Court Vacates Decision Outlawing Gas Stoves, Water Heaters | NewsBustersSCOTUSblog on Monday published a careful overview of an increasingly organized litigation campaign to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The campaign now includes Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, and the Southern Baptist Convention, which last year voted overwhelmingly to urge the Court to reverse the decision. The underlying ground for the push is partly the Court's reasoning in Dobbs four years ago, which gave conservative litigants a road map for unwinding substantive due process precedents, and partly the gradual erosion of public-opinion support for same-sex marriage in one slice of the polling, with Republican support falling from 55 percent in 2022 to 37 percent now. The legal headcount at the Court is, however, the part of the story that is not yet there.Only Justice Thomas has been a consistent vote to revisit Obergefell, having said so in his Dobbs concurrence. Justice Alito, despite being one of Obergefell's original dissenters, recently emphasized in a public speech that he is not suggesting the case should be overruled, citing stare decisis. Justice Gorsuch's dissent in 303 Creative seems to concede that Obergefell is good law and tries instead to carve out specific exceptions to it. None of which is a reason for litigants on the marriage-equality side to relax. The path Dobbs opened up is wider than any single justice's current voting pattern, and the campaign is plainly playing a long game.The next round of test cases on standing and ripeness will start to surface in the lower courts in the next term or two — that is when the campaign's seriousness becomes measurable.The campaign to overrule Obergefell | SCOTUSblogThe third and most constitutionally significant story of the day is one we've been watching: the litigation over President Trump's $400 million ballroom — built on the site of the demolished East Wing — is on track to land in front of the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog reported Monday. The D.C. Circuit panel that heard the case for more than two hours in late April has not yet ruled, but the questioning made clear that a more substantial opinion is coming and that an appeal to the Court is the likely next stop regardless of which side wins. The legal question is unusually fundamental. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that the President has no “free-floating” power to construct major federal buildings without an appropriation from Congress, and that the Antideficiency Act and the Public Buildings Act both require the kind of statutory authorization the East Wing ballroom never received.The administration's response, delivered in a tone that several court-watchers described as unusually defiant, has essentially been that construction has “gone too far to be stopped” and that the courts have no role in second-guessing a presidential building decision once the steel is up. The structural separation-of-powers questions here — what does the Appropriations Clause actually constrain, and can a federal court enjoin a President from continuing to build something that is partially constructed — are large enough that the Supreme Court will almost certainly want to take the case if it reaches the high court. Construction, meanwhile, continues. The most likely Supreme Court resolution is a narrow opinion on standing or remedies, with the broader Appropriations Clause questions deferred for another day. We will see.White House ballroom battle may soon arrive at the Supreme Court | SCOTUSblogIn my Bloomberg Tax column this week, I argue that the SALT deduction cap's biggest problem is not that it is unconstitutional, but that it is badly designed. The latest failed challenge, Sims v. United States, involved two New Jersey taxpayers who claimed the cap violated the 10th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and broader federalism principles. The federal district court rejected those arguments, finding that Congress has broad authority to tax income and decide which deductions are allowed, limited, or denied. My point is that opponents of the SALT cap should stop looking for constitutional defects that courts are unlikely to find and instead focus on forcing Congress to fix the policy it created.I explain that the cap has always been politically loaded: supporters see it as a needed limit on a deduction that benefits many high-income taxpayers in high-tax states, while critics see it as a targeted attack on those states. But unfair or politically motivated tax policy is not automatically unconstitutional. The real weakness, I argue, is the cap's uneven design, especially the pass-through entity tax workaround. Many business owners can effectively get around the cap when state taxes are paid at the entity level, while wage earners, sole proprietors, and many individual taxpayers remain stuck behind it.That creates a serious mismatch: two taxpayers can live in the same state, earn similar income, and face similar state tax burdens, but receive different federal treatment depending on whether one has the right business structure. I argue that this kind of selective relief may be a more promising target for a narrower administrative or legal challenge than another broad constitutional attack on Congress's taxing power. Congress partly recognized the problem when it raised the cap from $10,000 to $40,000, but I note that the fix is temporary, only lightly indexed, and still leaves major structural problems in place. The marriage penalty remains especially glaring because married couples filing jointly do not receive double the cap available to similarly situated unmarried taxpayers.I also criticize the phaseout design because it can create cliffs or marginal-rate spikes that reward tax gamesmanship rather than sound policy. A better fix, in my view, would make the higher cap permanent, index it meaningfully, eliminate the marriage penalty, smooth out the phaseout, and require Treasury to rationalize the treatment of pass-through entity taxes. The lesson from Sims is that courts may uphold the SALT cap, but that does not make it good tax policy. If the cap is unfair, incoherent, or selectively porous, Congress owns that problem.SALT Deduction Cap Falls Short in Design, Not Constitutionality 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

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Supreme Court's Alabama redistricting decision, a plea deal from the former national security adviser, and the best legal movies ever made. The Agenda: –⁠June 4 Opinions ⁠ –Alabama's new maps –John Bolton pleads guilty –Did the media actually get this right? –Gender and the Supreme Court's culture –Favorite legal movies –Another round of Would You Rather! Show Notes: –⁠The Blessings of Liberty with Jeffrey Rosen - Podcast⁠ Order Sarah's book ⁠here.⁠ Advisory Opinions is a production of⁠ SCOTUSblog⁠ and⁠ The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective.⁠ Click here⁠ to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and⁠ click here⁠ to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including⁠ audio versions⁠ of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by⁠ clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French (he returns!) discuss the major Trump losses—Kennedy Center name change, motion on Trump v. IRS, and injunction on the slush fund—before reviewing scrutiny of the court and the swatting incident at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's residence.  The Agenda: –Sarah returns to the greatest state in the U-S-of-A –Kicking Trump's name from the Kennedy Center –The Flight 93 problem –Trump v. IRS –Justice Barrett swatted –A Justice's son having a job is a scandal, I guess.  Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Lat joins Sarah Isgur (see ya later, French) to discuss the three-judge panel overturning Alabama's congressional maps, a new lawsuit against President Donald Trump's slush fund, and a lying Judge. The Agenda: –No redistricting according to race –Nonsense lawsuits –Dragging courts into political fights –Moving honey buns is interstate commerce –Sanction more judges? –Feeling Wicker-ty –The Arbitration Act is sexy! –Making clerks very uncomfortable Show Notes: –Pitchford v. Cain  –Flowers Foods v. Brock –Rutherford v. United States –Fernandez v. United States–Wickard v. Filburn Advisory Opinions is a production of⁠ SCOTUSblog⁠ and⁠ The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective.⁠ Click here⁠ to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and⁠ click here⁠ to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including⁠ audio versions⁠ of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by⁠ clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss an anticlimactic dig from the Supreme Court over IQ tests and the death penalty and challenges to the $1.8 billion slush fund President Donald Trump created on weaponization, and they talk with NPR's Nina Totenberg about covering the Supreme Court. The Agenda: —Hamm v. Smith —How many IQ tests does a person on death row need to take? —Who can challenge the slush fund? —James Comey as the platonic ideal plaintiff —The embarrassing DNC autopsy, and Grifter Sarah makes an appearance —Interview with Nina Totenberg  Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French analyze President Donald Trump's $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund through the lens of three legal “buckets,” and talk about how federal appropriations work and the Obama-era case that hangs over this legal issue. The two also discuss the Supreme Court's latest cert grant on a Title IX case, plus the circuit split brewing over the First Amendment and judicial elections.  The Agenda: –Court agrees to hear case on the ability of employees to bring certain suits for sex discrimination –Going through the settlement agreement, it's practically a blank check! –Todd Blanche essentially pardons Trump's family –‘That's not how appropriations work.' –Georgia Supreme Court race finishes strong  Show Notes: –Chief Judge William Pryor's opinion –Anti-Weaponization Fund –Keepseagle v. Vilsack Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many Americans think they understand today's Supreme Court: six conservative justices appointed by Republicans, three liberals appointed by Democrats, and predictably partisan outcomes, especially in the “big” cases. But Sarah Isgur, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and one of the savviest Court-watchers in the country, is here to tell you that's wrong.In Last Branch Standing, Isgur argues that the conventional left-right framing fundamentally misconceives how the justices decide questions—not cases!—and that once you understand how they really think, the Court looks far more like a 3–3–3 institution than a 6–3 one. She also takes readers inside the building itself: the personalities, the quirks, the clerk culture, and the institutional dynamics that shape outcomes far more than partisan affiliation alone.Isgur's account of the Court's role in our current constitutional moment is equally illuminating. With Congress having largely abdicated its lawmaking responsibilities, presidents of both parties have rushed to fill the resulting policy vacuum through executive action—often setting themselves on a collision course with SCOTUS. And while the shadow docket creates a misleading impression of unremitting executive branch success, the full picture of how the current administration actually fares before the Court may surprise you.Join us for a conversation with Sarah Isgur about what may be the last constitutionally functioning branch of American government. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the IRS lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump, SCOTUS's mifepristone decision, and a unanimous verdict from the justices that no one except Sarah cares about.  The Agenda: –The 1,776 slush fund –David's ‘back in the day' lawsuit against the Obama administration –The Bivens brick wall –Trump loses on the law but wins in the politics –Ballroom and baby steps –Is Trump the Chosen One? –Brief explainer on the Comstock Act –Court rules freight brokers can face negligent hiring suits under state law Show Notes: –Federal Defender Newsletter –Jordan v. Darrisaw Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the emergency docket ruling from SCOTUS on Alabama's congressional maps, which broke down over three-justice ideological lines, Virginia's filing (yes, they did file) at the Supreme Court, and a very special 2-1 9th Circuit panel opinion.  The Agenda: –Remember Allen v. Milligan? –Central, urban bonkerstown –14th Amendment Equal Protection argument vs. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act –Virginia files gerrymandering case at SCOTUS –Biogradable cooler dispute, are you Team Gorsuch or Team Kavanaugh? –Why 5-4? –Would You Rather: Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause? Show Notes: –Remarks by Sen. A. Shane Massey on the Sine Die Resolution and Congressional Redistricting Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map in a 6–3 decision tied to a 1986 amendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As Sarah Isgur explains, “What the Supreme Court has said now for 25 years, whether it's affirmative action or voting rights, is we're going to stop discriminating on the basis of race, whether you think it's good discrimination or bad discrimination or whatever else in-between, but you will not take race into account. Not when it comes to admissions to universities and not when it comes to voting.” At the heart of the debate is an ongoing misunderstanding of equality of opportunity vs equity of outcome. With both parties seeking political advantage in a zero-sum game, disentangling racial and partisan lines in congressional districting becomes nearly impossible, especially within the framework of constitutional fealty. Thus, we arrive at our regular theme: "Congress do your job!" Instead of judicial activism, can lawmakers create a neutral redistricting framework that truly separates race from politics and regulates partisan gerrymandering?Sarah Isgur is a senior editor at The Dispatch and is based in northern Virginia. She is the host of Advisory Opinions and the editor of SCOTUSblog. Prior to joining the company in 2019, she worked in every branch of the federal government and on three presidential campaigns. She's also an ABC News contributor and the author of Last Branch Standing, a deep dive into the inner workings of the Supreme Court.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Virginia State Supreme Court striking down the state's new congressional maps, Neal Katyal's TED talk that we don't want to talk about, and David plays a fun constitutional “Would You Rather” game. The Agenda:–Virginia's gerrymandering map is unlawful–The left can't get mad at the right when the right tried the independent state legislator argument–What really won the trillion-dollar Supreme Court case–Who is Harvey?–Shout out to the coolest AP Government teacher ever? Show Notes:–Supremely Cringe: Neal Katyal And ‘TED-Gate' Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch's offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

-- On the Show: -- Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog, host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions, and a legal analyst for ABC News, joins us to discuss her new book "Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court" -- Donald Trump announces plans for an “Election Integrity Army” in the 2026 midterms while accusing Democrats of interference -- Donald Trump repeatedly declares the Iran conflict over while new strikes, escalation, and military activity continue 11 weeks into the war -- Sebastian Gorka claims the Iran war is lasting longer than just a few weeks because the Trump administration has been “too effective” -- Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett and Energy Secretary Chris Wright continue blaming Joe Biden for inflation and energy costs -- Donald Trump gives confusing answers about vaccines, Cuba, Fort Knox, football prices, and future military operations -- Donald Trump gives a $6.9 million no-bid contract for the Washington reflecting pool renovation to his own pool contractor -- David gets medical testing, including an ultrasound, after some viewers speculate about his health and appearance online -- On the Bonus Show: Democrats strategize following a court axing Virginia's new congressional map, more than a third of Americans believe the midterms will be stolen, the US will start revoking passports from those who owe child support, and much more...

The Court's latest Voting Rights Act decision, Louisiana v. Callais, narrows Section 2 in a way that could reshape redistricting, weaken majority-minority districts, and intensify the fight over how race and partisanship interact in elections. We unpack what the Court said, what it quietly overruled, and why the reasoning matters far beyond Louisiana.We walk through the statutory text, the long-running collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Court's racial gerrymandering cases, and the practical consequences for future election-law litigation. Along the way, we debate whether this is best understood as a textual decision, a constitutional avoidance move, or a major shift in how the Court treats political power and racial representation.The conversation also covers the Court's emergency procedural move after judgment, Justice Kagan's forceful dissent, and the broader question of whether the decision is likely to help one party more than the other in the short run. The result is a sharp, candid look at one of the term's most consequential rulingsKey Topics[00:00:20] - Introduction to the episode and SCOTUS Blog partnership update[00:03:06] - Brief Supreme Court news: mifepristone litigation and shadow-docket timing[00:05:20] - Louisiana v. Callais and why the case is a major Voting Rights Act decision[00:11:35] - Voting Rights Act history: Section 2, Section 5, and Shelby County[00:13:39] - The collision course between racial gerrymandering doctrine and Section 2[00:16:17] - Allen v. Milligan and how the Court shifted course[00:21:21] - Procedural background of the Louisiana map challenge[00:23:02] - Is the decision constitutional, statutory, or both?[00:24:28] - Section 2's text and the 1982 amendments[00:29:14] - The Court's reading of “less opportunity” and the role of partisanship[00:41:46] - How the majority treats Allen v. Milligan and prior precedent[00:43:06] - Constitutional avoidance and the Section 5 enforcement-power question[00:46:28] - The Court's “updated” Gingles framework and why that matters[00:52:29] - Likely effects on majority-minority districts and partisan gerrymandering[00:54:25] - Justice Kagan's dissent and the Court's broader democracy critique[00:56:04] - The post-judgment timing dispute and Justice Jackson's separate dissent[00:58:55] - Final assessment of the decision and its likely consequencesRelevant LinksRick Pildes's post on the decision: https://democracyproject.org/posts/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-gutting-of-voting-provision-was-long-time-comingTravis Crum Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/373625/20250903201226237_2025.09.03%20Callais%20Crum%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

This week on We Saw the Devil, Robin tears through the most chaotic news cycle of the second Trump administration so far. Donald Trump told a White House crowd he'll be in office "eight or nine years from now," and they applauded. Politico reports the President personally offered Senator John Fetterman a "financial windfall" to switch parties (usually a bag of cash), on the record, while a sitting US senator "absorbed the suggestion." Trump publicly accused Pope Leo XIV of "endangering Catholics" with his pro-peace stance on the Iran war, sending Marco Rubio to Rome on damage control. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Wall Street Journal flat out: "Trump is the problem. The president is the problem."Robin breaks down Operation Epic Fury, Project Freedom, and the Strait of Hormuz standoff Pete Hegseth insists is "not a ceasefire violation" while Iran sinks ships and the UAE shoots down Iranian missiles. The Senate's $1 billion taxpayer giveaway for Trump's East Wing ballroom, the Supreme Court's gutting of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, RFK Jr.'s campaign to "deprescribe" antidepressants, the closure of the ICE Detention Ombudsman office, the eight Republican AGs arguing in federal court that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is unconstitutional, and the hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship in the Atlantic that nobody at HHS is equipped to track.Pour something strong. We're going in.Sources:Marjorie Dannenfelser, Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, John Fetterman, Joaquin Castro, Adam Kinzinger, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Nellis, Mrs. Frazzled, Abraar Karan, Adam Isaacson, Wall Street Journal, Politico, HuffPost, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, CNN, NPR, CBS News, Washington Post, SCOTUSblog, NAACP Legal Defense Fund.Keywords:political podcast May 2026, Trump news this week, Trump second term podcast, Iran war 2026, Pope Leo Trump feud, Fetterman financial windfall, Trump ballroom taxpayer money, Voting Rights Act gutted, Louisiana v. Callais, RFK Jr. HHS, Christofascism, Section 504 lawsuit, ICE detention oversight, hantavirus outbreak 2026, Met Gala 2026, Athena Strand verdict, Secret Service scandal, Susan B. Anthony Trump problem, anti-Trump podcast, progressive podcast, queer podcast host, snarky political podcast, true crime political podcast, We Saw the Devil podcastBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

Political partisanship is one way to measure how the Supreme Court justices think about how their rulings affect the nation. SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur says another, she believes more important way, has to do with their tolerance for change, with the justices ranging from order-loving institutionalists to true chaos agents. *** Thank you for listening. Help power On Point by making a donation here: wbur.org/giveonpoint

  The Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that would limit the power of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, the latest blow in a battle over redistricting state voter maps. This has already spurred major changes in primary races, as Louisiana is delaying its primaries to reevaluate after this decision. We speak with Kelsey Dallas, Managing Editor of SCOTUSblog, to detail what the justices said during the debates and how this will affect districts going forward. 

Karin Lips sits down with Sarah Isgur—ABC News legal analyst, co-host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and author of The Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court. In this episode, Sarah quickly busts the myth that the Supreme Court is simply divided along partisan lines. She […]

Will the Supreme Court overturn religious precedent in the case of a Catholic preschool challenging its exclusion from a Colorado “universal preschool” program? Should the Supreme Court care about its own popularirty? And, is Ted Cruz a great option as for Supreme Court justice? Sarah Isgur and David French answer these questions and more, live at the University of Denver.Also: We are launching a SCOTUSblog newsletter on April 28!The Agenda:–‘Universal' pre-K causes court to re-re-reconsider major religious precedent–This already happened–Public Opinion, Credible Threats, and the Fezzik Principle–Watch The Princess Bride–Justice Ted Cruz?–The Shadow Docket reporting by the New York Times–Questions from the audience Order Sarah's book here.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 access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on the Gist, Mike is joined by Sarada Peri, former speechwriter for President Obama, and Sarah Isgur, senior editor at SCOTUSblog and author of Last Branch Standing, for a new installment of Not Even Mad. The trio discusses the Virginia redistricting vote, how concerning the "shadow docket" really is, and Kash Patel's lawsuit against The Atlantic. Finally, in Goat Grinders: boarding times, bad Bruce Springsteen lyrics, and the endless construction of the Purple Line. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today on the gist, Mike examines the dark psychology of political permanence following the shocking murder-suicide of former Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax. SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur returns to discuss the human element of the Supreme Court, explaining why the justices view themselves as consistent rather than hypocritical, why partisan "forum shopping" poses a far greater threat than the current ethics controversies, and the disastrous second-order consequences of ending lifetime appointments. . Plus, a look at the bizarre, brutal, and largely ignored 40-year reign of Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur, editor of SCOTUSblog & author of the brand new book Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court, joined us on the Guy Benson Show today to give us an inside look at the Supreme Court. Isgur and Benson discussed how the perceived bias of the Supreme Court might be just that; perception. The pair dove into Isgur's inside look into the SCOTUS Justices and their processes, as well as their personal lives, preferences, and processes, and you can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on The Gist, Sarah Isgur editor of SCOTUSblog and co-host of Advisory Opinions, joins to dismantle the media's most persistent myths about a strictly partisan Supreme Court. Drawing from her new book, Last Branch Standing, Isgur explains the reality of the 3-3-3 court, why institutionalists clash with "chaos muppets," and why Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh rarely vote together despite having identical conservative pedigrees. Plus, examining the political self-immolation of Eric Swalwell and questioning the dangerous reflex of using anti-Trumpism as a blanket ethical shield for gross misconduct. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Clay is Optimistic Clay Travis highlights what he sees as clear economic momentum under President Donald Trump, noting that the Iran naval blockade appears to be working as intended, with crude oil prices falling and both the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average pushing toward record highs. Clay emphasizes that listeners who avoided panic during recent geopolitical tensions and tariff scares are being rewarded, as retirement accounts and 401(k)s are rebounding strongly—underscoring a recurring theme of market confidence and economic stability tied to Trump’s policies. The hour then pivots to one of the most dramatic political collapses in recent memory: the downfall of California Congressman Eric Swalwell. Clay and Buck explain that Swalwell, once a leading favorite to become California’s next governor, has now not only withdrawn from the governor’s race but has also resigned his congressional seat amid escalating allegations of sexual misconduct and criminal behavior. The hosts stress how extraordinary the speed and severity of the collapse is, noting that Swalwell had survived previous scandals—including connections to a suspected Chinese spy and constant media exposure—only to see his career end just weeks before early voting in California’s June primary. They also note that a Republican congressman in Texas has stepped down around the same time over unrelated allegations, pointing to a broader moment of political reckoning around misconduct. Sen. Rand Paul on Everything A wide‑ranging interview with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who offers a constitutional critique of the U.S. military action against Iran. Paul reiterates that while he opposes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, he believes Congress must authorize war and questions claims of imminent threat. He discusses the risks of escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, the economic impact of rising energy prices, and the uncertainty of whether negotiations can truly resolve the conflict. Paul also weighs in on Kentucky politics, strongly endorsing Congressman Thomas Massie as a constitutional conservative, emphasizing fidelity to the Constitution over unquestioning loyalty to any single political figure. The conversation broadens into Second Amendment rights, where Senator Paul argues for national constitutional carry, citing data showing lawful gun owners commit crimes at significantly lower rates than the general population. Drawing on his personal experience during the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, Paul criticizes gun‑free zones and inconsistent state laws that disarm law‑abiding citizens while leaving criminals unchecked. He also addresses the SAVE Act and voter ID, arguing that voter identification should be a basic requirement for elections and criticizing mass mail‑in voting systems that weaken confidence in electoral integrity. Two Can Play at That Game A continued focus on the U.S.–Iran conflict, as Clay and Buck note signs of de‑escalation: the S&P 500 is within a half‑percent of an all‑time high, crude oil has fallen sharply to around $88 a barrel, and gas prices appear to be stabilizing after early war‑related spikes. They explain that markets are signaling confidence that President Trump’s blockade strategy and pressure campaign are working, with Iran’s leverage shrinking and expectations growing that further negotiations—possibly in Pakistan—could follow. Buck frames the standoff as a waiting game, describing Iran’s threats in the Strait of Hormuz as “economic terrorism” and highlighting comments from Vice President JD Vance that the United States can outlast Tehran economically and militarily. The conversation then pivots back to the Eric Swalwell scandal, which dominates much of Hour 3. Clay plays extended audio from Lana Drews, the newly public accuser who alleges Swalwell drugged and violently raped her in a West Hollywood hotel room, choking her into unconsciousness. The hosts stress that this accusation is separate from and more severe than earlier reporting, helping explain why Swalwell abruptly resigned from both his gubernatorial race and Congress. They analyze the rapidly expanding fallout, including viral videos allegedly showing Swalwell in compromising situations, and public denials from figures like Senator Ruben Gallego, who had previously endorsed Swalwell but is now scrambling to distance himself. Clay and Buck argue the scandal is triggering a broader reckoning within Democratic circles, as journalists and politicians who long protected Swalwell now appear to be running for cover. This Will Make You Laugh An in‑studio interview with Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor, Advisory Opinions podcast host, and author of Last Branch Standing. Isgur challenges popular narratives about the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court is wrongly blamed for decisions that Congress refuses to make. She explains why the Court is not simply a “6–3 partisan body,” and how Congress’s abdication of legislative responsibility has forced the judiciary into the political spotlight. Clay and Buck ask about rumors that Justice Samuel Alito may retire, with Isgur explaining why the odds are roughly 50‑50 and how President Trump could shape the Court again if a vacancy opens this summer. Isgur also unpacks internal Supreme Court dynamics, particularly tensions surrounding Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, describing her as less institutionalist and more inclined toward solo dissents—traits that can strain collegial relationships. She previews several high‑impact cases still pending this term, including Voting Rights Act redistricting disputes, birthright citizenship, election‑day ballot deadlines, and Remain in Mexico–style immigration authority, emphasizing that many of these controversies should ultimately be resolved by Congress, not the Court. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.wethefifth.comSarah Isgur, Executive Editor of SCOTUSblog, has a book! Last Branch Standing is out today. -The Ted Lasso version of the Supreme Court-The Supreme Court is not the 6-3 cartoon people think it is-RBG thought Roe was built on weak foundations-The Court decides legal questions, not good policy vs. bad policy-Congress is now mostly bookers, comms staff, and 535 Inst…

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss President Donald Trump's rhetoric over Iran, what constitutes a war crime, and what happens if a military officer fails to obey an order or regulation. The Agenda:–John Mulaney gives SCOTUSblog a shoutout–Threatening war crimes–Will President Donald Trump ever see the Hague–Judge Scalia rolling over in his grave–Article 92 and disobeying orders–David answers questions Order Sarah's book here. 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 access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1250 - A fall out of bed during a vacation in Delaware turned into a Supreme Court case, decided this term, that could have big implications for states' rights to limit tort suits… in federal court. Did Delaware take a good-faith precautionary measure to reduce frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits? Or did they put up an unfair barrier to plaintiffs who deserve restitution? Perhaps reasonable people can disagree on that. But in the rare circumstance you manage to bring that state tort case into a federal courtroom, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that it's clear Delaware's rule is a step too far. (They can still do what they want in their own courts, but not here). How far-reaching will the consequences be? Legal reporting seems split! Come for the (brief, not too gory) medical drama, stay for the review of the Erie Doctrine so you can pass your Federal Civil Procedure class. A nice chill case where the world isn't burning down and the justices mostly act like normal respectful people. Berk v. Choy, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) Rules Enabling Act of 1934: 28 U.S.C. § 2071-2077 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Robert Niles-Weed, A Sleeper Supreme Court Case Opens Door to More Frivolous Suits, Bloomberg Law, Mar. 3, 2026. Ronald Mann, Justices Reject State Limits on Malpractice Actions for Cases in Federal Court, SCOTUSblog, Jan. 21, 2026. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Sarah Isgur is joined by David French, Amanda Tyler, Akhil Amar, and SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe to react to the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship.Watch the livestream here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Colorado law that bans conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth hit a potentially far-reaching roadblock at the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the justices sided with a Christian counselor who argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights. Justice correspondent Ali Rogin discussed more with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe, the co-founder of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Hillary Clinton testifies behind closed doors before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers press for answers about Jeffrey Epstein and the DOJ's handling of the case. New reporting raises legal questions after the FBI allegedly subpoenaed phone records and secretly recorded a call between current White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and her attorney. A prominent Supreme Court litigator falls from grace as SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein is convicted on federal tax charges tied to millions in undisclosed high-stakes poker winnings. A twist in the death of NHL star Johnny Gaudreau as the accused driver claims new testing shows he was not legally drunk when he struck and killed Gaudreau and his brother.   Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com   PureTalk: Tired of big wireless prices? Switch to PureTalk for unlimited talk and text for $25/month—dial #250 and say MEGYN KELLY for 50% off your first month. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.