Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

At the conclusion of the October argument sitting, longtime SCOTUSblog contributor Mark Walsh joins Amy Howe to select 10 big themes from the court's first in-person arguments since the start of the pandemic. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The first report from the commission looking at ways to change the Supreme Court is out and its conclusions are...well, they seem to be thoughtful but unlikely to produce change in the near future. For folks concerned about the politicization of the court, that's a problem. Where do we go from here? We discuss with the Media Editor of SCOTUSblog & host of the "Words Matter" podcast, attorney and journalist, Katie Barlow and our co-hosts Dr. Kavita Patel of the Brookings Institution and David Rothkopf. Join us for an important discussion about these and other recent developments in our not-terribly-well-functioning justice system.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The first report from the commission looking at ways to change the Supreme Court is out and its conclusions are...well, they seem to be thoughtful but unlikely to produce change in the near future. For folks concerned about the politicization of the court, that's a problem. Where do we go from here? We discuss with the Media Editor of SCOTUSblog & host of the "Words Matter" podcast, attorney and journalist, Katie Barlow and our co-hosts Dr. Kavita Patel of the Brookings Institution and David Rothkopf. Join us for an important discussion about these and other recent developments in our not-terribly-well-functioning justice system.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On "EWTN News Nightly" tonight: The Supreme Court is back to the bench, and this term the justices will consider major cases on issues including abortion, gun rights and religious freedom. Co-founder of SCOTUS Blog, Amy Howe, joins to talk about the cases on the docket. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden went before the cameras to urge lawmakers to raise the debt limit. He warned that even before the default date arrives later this month, Americans could see retirement accounts take a hit, face higher mortgage rates and car payments. And the fighting continues among Democrats over the size and scope of the 2 infrastructure bills in Congress. Progressives and moderates are at odds over the final amount in the larger multi-trillion dollar Human Infrastructure Bill and that's caused a stalemate on the smaller road and bridges infrastructure package. The Vatican is preparing for the World Meeting of Families in the summer of 2022, amid the continuing pandemic. Preparations have been ongoing for more than 3 years. Senior Rome Correspondent of Catholic News Agency, Hannah Brockhaus, joins to tell us more about the World Meeting of Families. Finally this evening, the world celebrates the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi, the founder of the Franciscan order known for his love of nature and animals. Fr. Dave Pivonka, TOR, President of the Franciscan University of Steubenville joins to tell us more about the beloved saint. Don't miss out on the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Get EWTN News Nightly delivered to your email: https://ewtn.com/enn

Amy Howe is joined by SCOTUSblog's media editor, Katie Barlow, to preview the court's upcoming “long conference,” where the justices will sort through hundreds of cert petitions that have been filed over the summer. The pair also dig into the justices' recent spate of speeches criticizing the press. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

It's been a year since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Her seat on the bench is now occupied by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third judge appointed by former President Donald Trump. On October 4th, the court will resume in-person hearings -- and will also be the first time the bench will meet since RBG's passing. Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, a website covering the Supreme Court, joins to discuss how the court has changed -- and what lies ahead. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Over a two-week period, the Supreme Court issued three momentous rulings on its shadow docket: one on abortion, another on evictions, and a third on asylum policy. SCOTUSblog's publisher and co-founder, Tom Goldstein, joins the podcast to break down all three. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The US Supreme Court's "shadow docket" of emergency motion decisions has long been a source of curiosity and controversy, but no more so then when the State of Texas deputized its citizenry to enforce a new abortion law (S.B. 8). What was asked of the Court, and why did SCOTUS elect not to act? How would the dissent have dealt with the situation? And what does it signal for the future? SCOTUS - The one place we don't want shadow drops...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/6H76vQqYfbY #SCOTUS #Texas #Abortion *** SUPPORT THE CHANNEL PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/VirtualLegality STREAMLABS - https://streamlabs.com/richardhoeg STORE - https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store *** CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction 02:48 Roe v Wade and the Texas Law 07:18 Ex Parte Young and the Texas Two-Step 12:32 The Shadow Docket 14:25 The Court's Denial (Alito - Standing) 22:08 Roberts Dissent (Pragmatism and Process) 30:08 Breyer Dissent (Delegation Shouldn't Block) 34:12 Sotomayor Dissent (Flatly Unconstitutional) 38:27 Kagan Dissent (Shadow Docket) 41:24 Conclusion (Dobbs) *** Discussed in this episode: "BREAKING: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TEXAS ABORTION BAN TO REMAIN IN EFFECT." Tweet - September 2, 2021 - SCOTUSblog https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1433281871555833859 Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ "Texas Senate Bill 8" https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/2021 "Ex Parte Young" Decided March 23, 1908 https://casetext.com/case/ex-parte-edward-young 11th Amendment US Constitution https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi "Texas abortion law that bans procedure as early as six weeks set to go into effect after court cancels hearing, denies motions" Texas Tribune - August 29, 2021 https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/29/texas-abortion-law-5th-circuit-court/ "Supreme Court 'Shadow Docket' Under Review by U.S. House of Representatives" ABA Webpage - April 14, 2021 https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/publications/project_blog/scotus-shadow-docket-under-review-by-house-reps/ WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL. Denial of Injunctive Relief - September 2, 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. Decided June 17, 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf Article III, Section 2 US Constitution https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii "Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade" SCOTUSblog - May 17, 2021 https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/court-to-weigh-in-on-mississippi-abortion-ban-intended-to-challenge-roe-v-wade/ *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com

Cal Fire spokesman Henry Herrera updates on the battle against the Caldor Fire as the flames move closer to the Lake Tahoe Basin. CNBC's Valerie Castro delivers the latest on the widespread power outages impacting New Orleans after Hurricane Ida. NBC's Josh Lederman discusses the plan to evacuate Afghan allies and remaining Americans in Afghanistan without any U.S. troops on the ground Lawyer Amy Howe, co-founder of the SCOTUS Blog, delivers her insights on what the Texas Abortion Ban means and what happens next. CNBC's Meg Tirrell explains what's happening with Pfizer and Merck's new trials for antiviral pills. Plus, the latest coverage of Hurricane Ida's storm system sending tornadoes ripping through New Jersey.

SCOTUSblog has shone a light on the shadow docket, but as its breadth and import evolves, so must those who cover it. Professor Steve Vladeck, who has written on the topic extensively and recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee, joins SCOTUStalk to discuss the shadow docket's significance and how to better capture all of the court's work. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Last week, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee—upholding two Arizona voting rules by deciding that they did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution and were not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. On this week's episode, scholars debate whether that ruling was correct and how it might impact the future of voting rights and how elections are conducted in America. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Rick Hasen, professor of law at the University of California Irvine, and Ilya Shapiro, a vice president at the Cato Institute. For more insight on this case from our guests, check out Rick Hasen's recent pieces for Slate and The New York Times and Ilya Shapiro's recent pieces for The Washington Examiner and SCOTUSblog. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee—upholding two Arizona voting rules by deciding that they did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution and were not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. On this week's episode, scholars debate whether that ruling was correct and how it might impact the future of voting rights and how elections are conducted in America. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Rick Hasen, professor of law at the University of California Irvine, and Ilya Shapiro, a vice president at the Cato Institute. For more insight on this case from our guests, check out Rick Hasen's recent pieces for Slate and The New York Times and Ilya Shapiro's recent pieces for The Washington Examiner and SCOTUSblog. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

SCOTUSblog founders Amy Howe and Tom Goldstein look back on the 2020-21 term. The pair examine how Justice Amy Coney Barrett is settling in and review some of the term's most noteworthy decisions, particularly on the First Amendment. Plus, a few predictions for next term, including on Justice Stephen Breyer's possible retirement. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Anyone else beginning to notice a common theme here? Sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/oa0oq2/activist_attempt_to_give_water_to_immigrants_on_a/ https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1407732229560668162 https://www.dailyposter.com/a-backroom-deal-to-kill-single-payer/ https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1410599645420523525 https://twitter.com/MMNonMeansTV/status/1410594016626982912 https://twitter.com/commaficionado/status/1411256002549325826 https://twitter.com/hinz_tamara/status/1411069817973473288 https://twitter.com/mekki/status/1409667175212744704 https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-91-the-early-edition https://twitter.com/KM0331/status/1410359303127531520 https://twitter.com/David_Moscrop/status/1410238222484058113

It could now be more difficult to challenge local election rules under the Voting Rights Act, following a 6-to-3 Supreme Court decision upholding voting provisions that Democrats and civil-rights groups argue disproportionately hurt voters of color. SCOTUSBlog and Vox analyze the ruling. The Biden administration is pausing federal executions. The Wall Street Journal explains how this reverses the previous administration’s policy. With restaurants opening back up, the Atlantic looks at how the pandemic changed the way we tip and whether the new habits are here to stay. A massive research project has recorded more than 1 million hours of rainforest sounds. National Geographic details how these recordings help researchers better understand nature and fight poaching.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently signaled a retreat from deference to agency guidance in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Court narrowed judicial deference available to agencies construing their own ambiguous regulations. But what about judicial deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency housed in “within the Judicial Branch,” and which Justice Scalia derided as a “junior varsity Congress,” making policy choices that should be committed to the legislature? In Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the commentary the Sentencing Commission issued construing their formally adopted Sentencing Guidelines, unless they are “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of,” the relevant Guideline. The Stinson Court required such deference even if the Commission's interpretation “may not be compelled by the guideline text.” On June 17, the Supreme Court's conference is slated to include discussion on a series of cases percolating up from the courts of appeals that all raise similar challenges to the use of Stinson deference in deciding criminal defendants' sentences. The Court seems poised to grant certiorari to one or more of these cases challenging deference in order to resolve a broad and deep split among the circuits that reflects inconsistencies in sentencing nationwide. Or, at least, it would explain why the court has been holding some of these cert petitions for over six months in order to consider all of them together—perhaps in order to select the best vehicle from among the slew of petitions clamoring for the Court's consideration. Here to discuss the pending Stinson deference cert petitions is appellate attorney John Elwood, a partner at Arnold & Porter who is better known in some circles as the relist guru on SCOTUSblog. John filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of Zimmian Tabb in a case out of the Second Circuit—one of the first Stinson deference cases to reach the Supreme Court last fall. John will explain what's at stake in the reconsideration of Stinson deference, including the following questions: Do constitutional due process and the rule of lenity preclude Stinson deference when commentary to a Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence? Do courts owe deference to Guidelines commentary that appears to expand the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines? Post-Kisor, may courts defer to commentary without first determining whether the pertinent Guideline is ambiguous? Post-Kisor, must courts apply canons of construction like the rule of lenity before granting the agency deference? And, practically speaking, what might the Supreme Court be looking for to select the best vehicle for reconsideration of Stinson deference from among the pending cert petitions? Moderating the discussion will be New Civil Liberties Alliance Executive Director and General Counsel, Mark Chenoweth. NCLA authored another of the cert petitions pending before this week's conference at the Court on behalf of a defendant in the Eighth Circuit, Marcus Broadway. Featuring:-- John P. Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter -- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

The Supreme Court will hear arguments later this year in a case that could challenge Roe v. Wade. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog breaks down why the stakes are high for the future of abortion law in America. The Biden administration will soon begin distributing expanded child-benefit payments to tens of millions of American families. The Washington Post details how the program will work. Ahead of a much-anticipated government report on UFOs, the New Yorker explains how the issue has gained legitimacy over the past few years, in part thanks to the work of one investigative journalist. A lack of gender diversity in clinical trials is not only a problem in those involving humans. CNN reveals how it also affects animal experiments.

Buckle up, AO fans. There is a lot to cover on the Supreme Court front and David and Sarah talk about all of it on today’s episode. It starts with a definitive breakdown of the new Supreme Court portrait, then goes from a case that the Supreme Court will hear regarding the Second Amendment, to a case having to do with Guantanamo Bay, ending with the big First Amendment case being argued today. Plus, Sarah and David discuss the Netflix documentary about the college admissions scandal, Operation Varsity Blues, and why it’s damaging to tell kids that what college they attend is the most important factor in determining their success.   Show Notes: -New SCOTUS Portrait -Chief Justice Roberts talking to Justice Kagan Portrait -Jones v. Mississippi case -Texas v. California case -New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett -SCOTUSblog page on Guantanamo Bay case -SCOTUSblog page on Houston Community College System v. Wilson -SCOTUSblog page on Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta -Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta oral arguments -Operation Varsity Blues on Netflix -Sarah’s favorite Onion article See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Hampshire vs. Massachusetts is a monster case about taxes and federalism that could impact employers all over the United States. Who's going to win and who's going to lose? Sam Megally from K & L Gates joins us to law-splain. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota. Sources: JD Supra article from K&L Gates by William LeDoux, Sam Megally, Cindy Ohlenforst, and Macie Wagner ‘New Hampshire v. Massachusetts: Potential for Remote Working Tax Uniformity' SCOTUS Blog article ‘New Hampshire v. Massachusetts' The Volokh Conspiracy article by Ilya Somin ‘New Hampshire's Supreme Court Lawsuit Seeking to Prevent Massachusetts from Taxing NH Residents Working Remotely for Massachusetts Firms'

On this episode we discuss when police officers are allowed to enter your home without a warrant and the Supreme Court case (Lange v. California) that could change how all of that works. Professor David Gray from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law joins us to break it down. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota. Sources: Reuters article by Lawrence Hurley ‘U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Scope of Police Power to Enter Homes Without a Warrant' SCOTUS Blog article by Amy Howe ‘Justices to Consider Whether “Hot Pursuit” Justifies Entering the Home Without a Warrant' SCOTUS Blog ‘Lange v. California' Twitter... @crimprofessor

It has been a busy month for the Supreme Court, with no slowing down in sight. SCOTUSblog’s media editor, Katie Barlow, turns the mic around on host Amy Howe to get the latest. The pair discuss the court’s recent oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a dispute pitting property rights against union organizing, and a hot-button 4th Amendment issue in Caniglia v. Strom. They also talk about the court’s major 4th Amendment decision in Torres v. Madrid and preview what’s coming up, including the perfectly timed NCAA v. Alston. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by law professor, Amanda Frost, of the Washington College of Law at American University, to discuss the rights of citizenship, citizenship stripping and denaturalization, sexism and xenophobia, as well as Professor Frost’s new book, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers. What is citizenship? Who is a citizen? And furthermore, who decides the answers to these questions?   In today’s conversation, Aaron and Amanda have an incredibly relevant conversation about citizenship in the United States. Citizenship is invaluable and yet, as Amanda explains, it is always at risk. In her new book, Amanda explores the history of citizenship and citizenship stripping over the last two centuries – she explains that the U.S. government has used revoking citizenship (even from those born on American soil) as a tool to cast out its unwanted, suppress dissent, and deny civil rights to all considered “un-American.” Amanda and Aaron talk about the historical aspects of citizenship challenges but also those of today, touching on the events of the last four years and Trump’s repeated threats of deportation/denaturalization, the issues of race and equality, the notion of political power and the right to vote, as well as the Supreme Court, the civil war, and the idea of community, membership and belonging.   Amanda Frost is the Ann Loeb Bronfman Distinguished Professor of Law. Amanda writes and teaches in the fields of constitutional law, immigration and citizenship law, federal courts and jurisdiction, and judicial ethics. Her scholarship has been cited by over a dozen federal and state courts, and she has been invited to testify on the topics of her articles before both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Professor Frost’s non-academic writing has been published in The Atlantic, Slate, The American Project, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and USA Today, and she authors the “American round-up” column for SCOTUSblog. Amanda is a member of the Editorial Board of Oxford University’s Border Criminologies, an Academic Fellow at the Pound Civil Justice Institute, and a member of the National Constitution Center’s Coalition of Freedom Advisory Board; she has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, UCLA Law School, Université Paris X Nanterre, and the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany.   Before entering academia, Professor Frost clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and spent five years as a staff attorney at Public Citizen, where she litigated cases at all levels of the federal judicial system.   Listen now! To learn more about Professor Frost, please check out her bio at American here. You can also learn more about Professor Frost by visiting her personal website here. To check out Professor Frost’s new book, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers, please click here.   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Amanda Frost     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

Today, our hosts are taking a break from the news cycle to share some fun facts about the Supreme Court and answer a series of questions from their listener mailbox: Are Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices more ideologically reliable than their Republican-appointed counterparts? What are some cases where you are inclined to agree with the legal reasoning but were bothered by the policy outcome? And perhaps most important, how should one go about hiring an attorney? Sarah and David have the scoop.   Show Notes: -“Cleaning Up Quotations” by Jack Metzler in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. -“ ‘(Cleaned Up)’ Parenthetical Arrives in the Supreme Court” by Eugene Volokh in Reason. -“Larry Flynt’s Life in Contempt” by Ross Anderson in Los Angeles Magazine. -“Empirical SCOTUS: Interesting meetings of the minds of Supreme Court justices” by Adam Feldman in SCOTUSBlog. -Federal Tort Claims Act and Immigration and Nationality Act. -Cases they mentioned: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,  Knick v. Township of Scott, Bostock v. Clayton County, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Morse v. Frederick, Rucho v. Common Cause and Kelo v. City of New London. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court ducked-out on hearing two Pennsylvania election law cases. One involved the Democrat Party and the other involved the Republicans. Tune in to hear about the Constitutional issues still at play which may rear their ugly head in the next election. Professor Josh Blackman from the South Texas College of Law explains the legal challenges and policy concerns from not addressing underlying election problems in our self-governing republic. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota. Sources: Past Episodes: ‘Kraken vs. Kraken’ ‘Future Voting & the Census’ ‘Counting the Votes!’ ‘Shroom Ballots’ ‘Weed Ballots and the Constitution’ ‘President Who’ ‘Contested Elections: An American Tradition’ ‘Voter Fraud and Vulnerabilities of Mail-Ballots’ The Decision for the Joined Cases ‘Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid’ and ‘Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party’ The Heritage Foundation article ‘The Facts about H.R.1: The For the People Act of 2021’ Interactive Constitution ‘Article 1, Section 4’ Interactive Constitution ‘Article 2, Section 1’ SCOTUS Blog article ‘Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid’ The Volokh Conspiracy by Josh Blackman ‘Making Sense of Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid’

The Supreme Court ducked-out on hearing two Pennsylvania election law cases. One involved the Democrat Party and the other involved the Republicans. Tune in to hear about the Constitutional issues still at play which may rear their ugly head in the next election. Professor Josh Blackman from the South Texas College of Law explains the legal challenges and policy concerns from not addressing underlying election problems in our self-governing republic. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota. Sources: Past Episodes: ‘Kraken vs. Kraken' ‘Future Voting & the Census' ‘Counting the Votes!' ‘Shroom Ballots' ‘Weed Ballots and the Constitution' ‘President Who' ‘Contested Elections: An American Tradition' ‘Voter Fraud and Vulnerabilities of Mail-Ballots' The Decision for the Joined Cases ‘Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid' and ‘Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party' The Heritage Foundation article ‘The Facts about H.R.1: The For the People Act of 2021' Interactive Constitution ‘Article 1, Section 4' Interactive Constitution ‘Article 2, Section 1' SCOTUS Blog article ‘Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid' The Volokh Conspiracy by Josh Blackman ‘Making Sense of Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid'

Audrey Anderson from Bass Berry & Sims joins the show to talk about whether or not colleges will be able to continue using race as a factor for admissions. Tune in and find out. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota. Sources:   SCOTUS Blog by Andrew Hamm ‘Affirmative action at Harvard, border searches and pedestrian safety’   SCOTUS Blog ‘Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College’ SFFA  v. Harvard case

Katie Barlow, lawyer and media editor of SCOTUSBlog, sits in for David on today’s episode. Sarah and Katie kick off things by discussing the decision handed down in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, in which an 8-1 majority ruled that even seeking “nominal damages” can be enough to give a plaintiff standing. Plus, Katie explains how her time working for Nina Tottenberg at NPR helped her prepare for translating SCOTUS decisions into one-minute TikTok videos. And, of course, she weighs in on the “should you go to law school” debate. Make sure you stick around to the end to hear Sarah and Katie sing the praises of Oprah and react to the Prince Harry and Megan Markle interview on CBS.   Show Notes: -Nominal damages decision -SCOTUSBlog article about the decision -Nina Totenberg’s Twitter -Katie Barlow’s Twitter (which has all of her TikToks) -CBS’ Harry and Megan interview See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for February 23, 2021 is: habeas corpus • HAY-bee-us-KOR-pus • noun 1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge; especially : a writ for inquiring into the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody 2 : the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment Examples: "Embraced by America's founders, the Great Writ, as [habeas corpus is] colloquially known, is enshrined in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law, where it guarantees certain rights to the detained. Habeas corpus entitles detainees convicted in state courts to appeal to federal courts if they believe their rights were violated at trial or during sentencing." — Elizabeth Bruenig, The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2021 "[Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek] Suri … underscored the availability of habeas corpus relief under Zadvydas v. Davis, a 2001 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized an opportunity for those detained under Section 1231 to seek judicial review once it appeared that there was no significant likelihood of removal." — Gabriel Chin, SCOTUSblog, 12 Jan. 2021 Did you know? The literal meaning of habeas corpus is "you should have the body"—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person's detention can be assessed. In United States law, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called "the Great Writ," and it is not about a person's guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus—"relief" in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.

On Tuesday, Speech First, Inc. filed a free speech lawsuit alleging that the University of Central Florida and its officials “created a series of rules and regulations that restrain, deter, suppress, and punish speech about the political and social issues of the day.” David and Sarah walk us through the history of campus cat and mouse battles over restrictive speech codes and explain whether this lawsuit will matter in the long run. On today’s episode, our hosts also chat about the nondelegation doctrine, the possibility of further criminal prosecution against Donald Trump, and how Rush Limbaugh’s passing might affect the conservative media climate.   Show Notes: -Speech First vs. Cartwright and Speech First, Inc. v. Gregory L. Fenves. -Nondelegation doctrine cases: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, J.W. Hampton Jr., & Co. v. United States and Gundy v. United States. -“Trump’s Acquittal Exposed a Republic in Peril” by David French in Time. -“There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law” by Julian David Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley in the Atlantic. -“Opinion analysis: Court refuses to resurrect nondelegation doctrine” by Mila Sohoni in SCOTUSblog. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President-elect Joe Biden has not yet announced a nominee for solicitor general, the top lawyer who represents the government before the Supreme Court. SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe and SCOTUSblog’s media editor, Katie Barlow, discuss potential picks. The next solicitor general could be a Washington insider, or it could be someone unexpected -- like Elena Kagan, who had never argued a case before the Supreme Court when President Barack Obama chose her as solicitor general in 2009. The two also discuss who may be on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination if a justice were to retire in the coming year. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We are joined by SCOTUS blogger Amy Howe on This Week in Legal Blogging. She sits down with Bob Ambrogi to explain how the two publications differ and the value blogging has.

The Supreme Court changed dramatically last year, and more changes could be in store in 2021. SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein joins SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe to talk about what happened in 2020 and what’s next for the court. They discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s early impact, the benefits and drawbacks of remote oral arguments, and how the court has handled President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election. They also look ahead to what a Biden administration could do on day one to change the trajectory of some important upcoming cases, including disputes over border-wall funding and the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” immigration policy — both currently set for oral argument in the next two months. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

University of Nebraska College of Law Professor Justin Hurwitz explains the out-dated regulatory framework at the center of litigation and calls for reform to address the scourge of robocalls. Sources: Federal Communications Commission notice “FCC Actions on Robocalls, Telemarketing” The Hill article by Justin “Gus” Hurwitz “Time to hang up on a bad anti-robocall law” The National Law Review article by Russell H. Fox and Elana R. Safner ‘“TCPA Regulatory Update-FCC Reverses Course on Broadnet Declaratory Ruling; Begins Implementing Another Section of the TRACED Act” Oyez article “Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid” SCOTUS Blog article “Facebook Inc. v. Duguid” SCOTUS Blog article by Amanda Shanor “Argument analysis: Justices at odds over federal robocall ban in the face of technological change” SCOTUS Blog article by Amanda Shanor “Case preview: Justices again take on anti-robocall law” Telephone Consumer Protection Act from FCC “47 U.S.C. § 227” U.S. Supreme Court’s website for “Facebook, Inc. v. Noah Duguid, et al” Wikipedia page for “Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991”

University of Nebraska College of Law Professor Justin Hurwitz explains the out-dated regulatory framework at the center of litigation and calls for reform to address the scourge of robocalls. Sources: Federal Communications Commission notice “FCC Actions on Robocalls, Telemarketing” The Hill article by Justin “Gus” Hurwitz “Time to hang up on a bad anti-robocall law” The National Law Review article by Russell H. Fox and Elana R. Safner ‘“TCPA Regulatory Update-FCC Reverses Course on Broadnet Declaratory Ruling; Begins Implementing Another Section of the TRACED Act” Oyez article “Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid” SCOTUS Blog article “Facebook Inc. v. Duguid” SCOTUS Blog article by Amanda Shanor “Argument analysis: Justices at odds over federal robocall ban in the face of technological change” SCOTUS Blog article by Amanda Shanor “Case preview: Justices again take on anti-robocall law” Telephone Consumer Protection Act from FCC “47 U.S.C. § 227” U.S. Supreme Court’s website for “Facebook, Inc. v. Noah Duguid, et al” Wikipedia page for “Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991”

We talked a bit yesterday about the lawsuit out of Texas, cosigned by a surprisingly huge number of Republicans, seeking to turnover the presidential election. Well today — during our taping, as a matter of fact — the Supreme Court took just a few paragraphs to shoot the case down. On today’s show, Kai and Molly react in real-time. Plus: What Facebook can learn from Microsoft’s antitrust case, where unused FSA money goes and a peek into Kai’s DMs. Here’s everything we talked about today: “What can Facebook learn from the attempt to break up Microsoft?” from Marketplace Tech “What You Can Do to Protect Your Dependent-Care FSA Cash” from the Wall Street Journal Let’s do the numbers on the certified election results “The Supreme Court Rejected Texas’s Last-Ditch Legal Challenge To Biden’s Win” from BuzzFeed News “Editorial: Don’t just deny Texas’ original action. Decimate it.” from SCOTUSblog “Facebook Announces Plan To Break Up U.S. Government Before It Becomes Too Powerful” from The Onion And this video. “Make Me Smart” is powered by listeners like you — become a Marketplace Investor today!

We talked a bit yesterday about the lawsuit out of Texas, cosigned by a surprisingly huge number of Republicans, seeking to turnover the presidential election. Well today — during our taping, as a matter of fact — the Supreme Court took just a few paragraphs to shoot the case down. On today’s show, Kai and Molly react in real-time. Plus: What Facebook can learn from Microsoft’s antitrust case, where unused FSA money goes and a peek into Kai’s DMs. Here’s everything we talked about today: “What can Facebook learn from the attempt to break up Microsoft?” from Marketplace Tech “What You Can Do to Protect Your Dependent-Care FSA Cash” from the Wall Street Journal Let’s do the numbers on the certified election results “The Supreme Court Rejected Texas’s Last-Ditch Legal Challenge To Biden’s Win” from BuzzFeed News “Editorial: Don’t just deny Texas’ original action. Decimate it.” from SCOTUSblog “Facebook Announces Plan To Break Up U.S. Government Before It Becomes Too Powerful” from The Onion And this video. “Make Me Smart” is powered by listeners like you — become a Marketplace Investor today!

It's the first of December and First Light updates you on an important case being heard by the Supreme Court. Should illegal immigrants be counted in the U.S. Census? Katie Barlow of SCOTUSBlog.com joins Michael Toscano to discuss. And how much time are your kids spending playing video games? Is it too much? Dr. Mark Schillinger joins the program to offer strategies on how to deal with this unfortunate biproduct of the pandemic. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”? John Elwood, head of Arnold & Porter’s appellate and Supreme Court Practice, sits down with SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe to explain the often opaque work that happens outside of the court’s regular roster of argued cases. For much more on the shadow docket and its increasing importance, check out SCOTUSblog’s recent symposium on how this group of cases has shaped issues such as voting procedures, coronavirus responses, capital punishment and more. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professor John Greabe breaks down Texas v. California, the most recent US Supreme Court Case against the Affordable Care Act. Produced and Hosted by A. J. Kierstead Read more on the case at SCOTUSBlog: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-california/  Get an email when the latest episode releases and never miss our weekly episodes by subscribing on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Stitcher, and Spotify! UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law is now accepting applications for JD, Graduate Programs, and Online Professional Certificates at https://law.unh.edu  Legal topics include United States Supreme Court, Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, federalism, healthcare, health insurance

The transition of power is off to a rocky start; furthermore, we're told it could cause the next 9/11 style disaster. I debunk the Trump Coup hype, explain what's going on at the Supreme Court this week, and react to the new COVID-19 lockdowns. Links: Here's Every Trump Campaign Lawsuit Filed Since Election Day | Time (https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/) Mary Trump says her uncle is attempting a coup on departure from White House (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/mary-trump-donald-coup-us-election-b1720599.html) Can Trump actually stage a coup and stay in office for a second term? | US news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/11/can-donald-trump-stay-in-office-second-term-president-coup) So is President Trump staging a coup, or what? | Will Bunch Newsletter (https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/attytood/trump-coup-william-barr-mitch-mcconnell-american-democracy-20201110.html) Doctrine of Severability: The concept and its application (https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/constitutional_law/principle-of-severability/1264/) The historian Jon Meacham, who wrote of ‘the soul of America,’ has been working on Biden’s speeches. - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/the-historian-jon-meacham-who-wrote-of-the-soul-of-america-has-been-working-on-bidens-speeches.html) Jon Meacham 'abandoned' rules of journalism as the secret Biden speechwriter on MSNBC's payroll, experts say (https://www.foxnews.com/media/jon-meacham-abandoned-rules-of-journalism-as-the-secret-biden-speechwriter-on-msnbcs-payroll-experts-say) Opinion | MSNBC’s Jon Meacham problem - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/) MSNBC contributor Jon Meacham didn't disclose he reportedly helped write Biden's presidential acceptance speech when commenting on it (https://news.yahoo.com/msnbc-contributor-jon-meacham-didnt-204808927.html) MSNBC political analyst Jon Meacham DIDN'T disclose that he was also writing Biden's speeches | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8938079/MSNBC-political-analyst-Jon-Meacham-DIDNT-disclose-writing-Bidens-speeches.html) Historian Jon Meacham wrote Biden 'soul of America' speech: report | TheHill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/525166-historian-jon-meacham-wrote-biden-soul-of-america-speech-report) Tulsa Has Run Out Of ICU Beds And El Paso Is Out Of Morgue Space—Here’s The Latest Grim Toll Of Covid (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/11/10/tulsa-has-run-out-of-icu-beds-and-el-paso-is-out-of-morgue-space-heres-the-latest-grim-toll-of-covid/?sh=4c5454722133) Are presidents required by the Constitution to concede? | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/are-presidents-required-constitution-concede) Trump Hasn't Yet Conceded. Here's A History Of Concessions : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2020/11/08/932638351/the-tradition-of-a-candidate-concession-is-far-more-than-mere-courtesy) Fauci predicts COVID-19 vaccine access to all Americans in April 2021 - Business Insider (https://www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.businessinsider.com/fauci-covid-19-vaccine-april-pfizer-healthcare-elderly-vulnerable-2020-11?amp) Boris Johnson calls Trump 'previous president' (https://www.fox5ny.com/news/boris-johnson-calls-trump-previous-president) CNN tops cable ratings for election week, Biden's speech (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-52f05d6e1996ab401f5aa000ca78b69a) Pfizer's vaccine volunteers say it felt like 'severe hangover' (https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/pfizers-vaccine-volunteers-say-it-felt-like-severe-hangover/) Swiss report reveals new details on CIA spying operation - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/swiss-report-reveals-new-details-on-cia-spying-operation/2020/11/10/c93ca7fc-2386-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html) Pelosi floats above Democrats’ civil war - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/11/pelosi-floats-above-democrats-war-435799) James Carville says 'woke' people need to take 'nap' after down-ballot Dem losses | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/james-carville-says-woke-people-need-to-take-nap-after-down-ballot-democratic-losses) Here's Every Trump Campaign Lawsuit Filed Since Election Day | Time (https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/) Chief Justice Roberts: Striking down ObamaCare 'not our job' (https://theweek.com/speedreads/949127/chief-justice-roberts-striking-down-obamacare-not-job) “A scalpel rather than a bulldozer”: Severability is in the spotlight as the newest ACA challenge looms - SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/a-scalpel-rather-than-a-bulldozer-severability-in-the-spotlight-as-the-newest-aca-challenge-looms/) Obamacare Will Be Safe With Amy Coney Barrett on Supreme Court - Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-29/obamacare-will-be-safe-with-amy-coney-barrett-on-supreme-court) Supreme Court Hears Affordable Care Act Case; AG Breaks With DOJ Precedent : The NPR Politics Podcast : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933531117/supreme-court-hears-affordable-care-act-case-ag-breaks-with-doj-precedent) Britain's Johnson, France's Macron and Germany's Merkel congratulate Biden during phone calls | Euronews (https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/10/britain-s-johnson-france-s-macron-and-germany-s-merkel-congratulate-biden-during-phone-cal) New York City to try responding to mental health calls without police | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27Q33P) Postal worker admits fabricating Pennsylvania ballot tampering claims, officials say - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/) Report: In 353 U.S. Counties, 1.8 Million More Voters Registered Than Eligible Citizens | The Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-in-353-u-s-counties-1-8-million-more-voters-registered-than-eligible-citizens) US photojournalists getting the shot of Trump golfing. : PraiseTheCameraMan (https://www.reddit.com/r/PraiseTheCameraMan/comments/jrn0ja/us_photojournalists_getting_the_shot_of_trump/) Paris Hospital Director Calls for Christmas Gatherings to be Canceled as France's COVID Cases Rise (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/paris-hospital-director-calls-for-christmas-gatherings-to-be-canceled-as-france-s-covid-cases-rise/ar-BB1aThcQ) Giuliani presents evidence for Trump's legal battle - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xurB9TiCWE) Trump adviser leading election legal fight tests positive for COVID-19 - Axios (https://www.axios.com/david-bossie-coronavirus-8de450a7-92f4-4099-8a88-1a012e10802d.html) The historian Jon Meacham, who wrote of ‘the soul of America,’ has been working on Biden’s speeches. - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/the-historian-jon-meacham-who-wrote-of-the-soul-of-america-has-been-working-on-bidens-speeches.html) CDC releases updated Thanksgiving guidelines focusing on small household gatherings (https://www.fox5ny.com/news/cdc-releases-updated-thanksgiving-guidelines-focusing-on-small-household-gatherings) Jon Meacham, Presidential Historian, Helps Shape the Words of Joe Biden - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/jon-meacham-biden-speech.html) Officials fear Trump could reveal secrets (https://www.chron.com/news/article/Officials-fear-Trump-could-reveal-secrets-15715183.php) Refusing to concede, Trump blocks cooperation on transition (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-virus-outbreak-elections-voting-fraud-and-irregularities-2d39186996f69de245e59c966d4d140f) Top Republicans back Trump’s efforts to challenge election results - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-republicans-election-challenges/2020/11/09/49e2c238-22c4-11eb-952e-0c475972cfc0_story.html) Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/barr-elections.html) Kremlin: Putin won't congratulate Biden until challenges end (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-vladimir-putin-elections-275d5b3306bce272a77c17eb05d54b84) Trump campaign voter fraud hotline flooded with prank calls | TheHill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/525071-trump-campaign-voter-fraud-hotline-flooded-with-prank-calls-report) Pfizer says COVID-19 vaccine is looking 90% effective (https://apnews.com/article/pfizer-vaccine-effective-early-data-4f4ae2e3bad122d17742be22a2240ae8) Graham: If Trump concedes election, Republicans will 'never' elect another president | TheHill (https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lindsey-graham-if-trump-concedes-election-republicans-will-never-elect-another) Pfizer’s Early Data Shows Coronavirus Vaccine Is More Than 90% Effective - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer.html) Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is strongly effective, data show (https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/) Trump to continue to hold campaign-style rallies as legal team girds up - Axios (https://www.axios.com/trump-legal-strategy-fraud-45ab43eb-c5bd-4710-a227-0dceacebb511.html) Trump allies brace for 30-day legal war as Senate hangs in the balance - Axios (https://www.axios.com/trump-legal-battle-republicans-senate-gop-59e38b9d-de91-4054-985d-580c13a71e75.html) Covid vaccine: Pfizer says drug 90% effective in blocking infection (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/covid-vaccine-pfizer-drug-is-more-than-90percent-effective-in-preventing-infection.html) Michael Cohen Predicts Trump Will Leave Early, Skip Inauguration (https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/michael-cohen-predicts-trump-will-abandon-white-house-hide-out-at-mar-a-lago-through-inauguration-he-cant-be-there-knowing-world-is-looking-at-him-as-a-loser/) Britain's Johnson, France's Macron and Germany's Merkel congratulate Biden during phone calls | Euronews (https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/10/britain-s-johnson-france-s-macron-and-germany-s-merkel-congratulate-biden-during-phone-cal) Fox News cuts away from Kayleigh McEnany press conference | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/kayleigh-mcenany-press-conference-today-fox-news-trump-b1720003.html) No Matter the Liberal Metric Chosen, the Bush/Cheney Administration Was Far Worse Than Trump. - Glenn Greenwald (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/no-matter-the-liberal-metric-chosen)

Are we headed for another Bush v. Gore? What would that case even look like in 2020? What is happening with all of the coronavirus-related litigation coming up to the Supreme Court right now?With less than a week to go before the 2020 election, SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe talks to election law expert and Ohio State University constitutional law professor Edward Foley about these questions and more. To follow all the latest developments on important election disputes that may reach (or have already reached) the Supreme Court, visit our Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of SCOTUSblog and Election Law at Ohio State. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed as the newest Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. What does it mean for cases such as Rowe vs Wade? We'll talk to SCOTUSblog.com editor James Romoser about it. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Amid an ongoing pandemic, the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a looming confirmation battle, the eight justices of the Supreme Court began a new term last Monday. SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe sits down with SCOTUSblog media editor Katie Barlow to discuss the first week of the term, including an apparent procedural tweak to telephonic oral arguments and which justice is now handling emergency appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Ginsburg had been the "circuit justice" for the 2nd Circuit). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett will begin on Monday. And despite opposition from Democrats and some Republicans to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat before the election, Barrett has the votes needed for her confirmation. Amy Howe, Co-founder of SCOTUSblog, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what we can expect from the hearings. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

President Donald Trump is one of at least two dozen people tied to the White House who have tested positive for COVID-19. Negotiations on the next round of COVID relief are off again — maybe. And the FDA and CDC continue to fight for scientific credibility. Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Kimberly Leonard of Business Insider and Erin Mershon of Stat News join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss these issues and more. Plus, Rovner interviews Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog about what the Supreme Court might do with the latest case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

Who is Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what’s next for her confirmation battle? Amy Howe answers these questions and more on this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk. Amy sits down with SCOTUSblog media editor Katie Barlow to discuss the significance of President Donald Trump’s third nomination to the court, what the truncated confirmation timeline will be like, and what hot-button issues she would face as the court’s newest justice. The full transcript is below. [00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.AH: [00:00:13] On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that he was nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What does Barrett's nomination mean for the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to begin its new term on Monday, October 5th? Joining me to suss this out is Katie Barlow, SCOTUSblog's media editor. Katie, thanks for joining me. Let's go ahead and dive in.Katie Barlow: [00:00:37] Now that we know who President Trump's nominee is, then we can start to dig into her background and some of the opinions that she's written. It's easy to get into the weeds, but let's zoom out to ten thousand feet for a second and just talk about what is the significance of this nomination and what could it mean?AH: [00:00:58] So if Amy Coney Barrett turns out to be a justice in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked and whose jurisprudence she says she emulates, it really could be a seismic shift on the court. Many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the sort of hot button social issues of the day have been five, four decisions. And many of the decisions in which the justices have reached what many would consider to be a liberal result have been because the either the chief justice or before him, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the court's four more liberal justices. And now that group of four more liberal justices is down would be down to three, because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last week, was one of the most reliably liberal justices on the court. And so, you'd have three liberal justices and a really solid majority of six conservative justices.[00:02:01] And so it wouldn't really so much matter anymore if one of the conservative justices peeled off to vote for with the liberal justices because there would still be a very solid majority of five conservative justices. And so this could affect all kinds of issues like abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, you name it.KB: [00:02:21] All right. So, having taken that wider lens view, now let's zoom back in. And who is Amy Coney Barrett? What do we know about her? Who is she?[00:02:32] So we know quite a lot. She is a forty-eight-year-old judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which is based in Chicago. She grew up in Louisiana, went to law school at Notre Dame, where she was a top student before coming to Washington, first a clerk on the D.C. Circuit and then to clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Scalia. She stayed in Washington for a couple of years to practice law, starting at a law firm called Miller Cassidy, which was a boutique law firm and really was one of the hardest jobs to get in Washington as a young law student at the time. So ,she stayed there for a couple of years and then she went back to Notre Dame to teach as a law professor there for 15 years before becoming a federal judge in 2017. While she was at Notre Dame, she won teaching awards. She had very broad support from the faculty and her students when she was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Court of Appeals in 2017.KB: [00:03:30] We heard at the nomination ceremony yesterday how excited the conservatives were.[00:03:35] I mean, there was an uproar of applause. Why are they so excited about her nomination?AH: [00:03:41] So she has said that she is in terms of her judicial philosophy and originalist and textualist. And so an originalist is someone who interprets the Constitution according to what the words meant to the people who drafted them when it was drafted back in the 1780s. And a textualist. When you're interpreting the law, you look at the words on the page. You don't go looking at what Congress might have intended to do when it passed the law. And really, almost anyone whom the president nominated probably would have said that. But, Amy Coney Barrett really became a heroine to social conservatives at her 2017 confirmation hearing. There were a lot of questions about the extent to which her Catholic faith might influence her judging. And there was a famous moment in which Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said to her, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” And it really sort of went viral, I think, among social conservatives. There were mugs and T-shirts printed with that. It probably had the opposite effect from what Feinstein had intended. And so I think that the social conservatives, conservatives believe that she's going to be like her old boss, Justice Scalia, on important social issues. She signed a statement of protest while she was at Notre Dame criticizing the accommodations that the Obama administration had created for religious employers, for example, who would have otherwise needed to comply with the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. Religious employers had argued that even the workaround that the Obama administration had created still violated their religious rights by making them complicit in providing birth control to their female employees. And the president had promised while he was running for president back in twenty sixteen that he was going to appoint judges who would vote to overturn Roe versus Wade. And they probably believe she's likely to vote to do that in her votes in a couple of cases on the bench while she's been on the 7th Circuit, or at least suggest they were.[00:05:46] There's a little bit of nuance in the sense that these were votes on whether or not the full 7th Circuit should rehear cases in which a three-judge panel had struck down Indiana laws regulating abortion. But those votes suggest that she supported those laws in Indiana regulating abortion.KB: [00:06:06] So you mentioned her abortion related decisions, not written opinions, but her votes in cases to rehear en banc. And it's interesting because she spent three years on the 7th Circuit before her nomination, whereas her fellow Trump appointee colleagues, if she gets confirmed, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh spent nearly 10 years each in their respective federal judgeships on the 10th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit.[00:06:34] And in fact, hot button issues like abortion didn't come up for Justice Gorsuch, who was able to avoid those types of decisions in his nearly decade on the 10th Circuit. And she's going to have more than just abortion come up. She's written opinions already on things like gun rights and immigration and sexual assault on college campuses. So, what do you think is going to come up based on the opinions that you've looked at already? You've written about them. SCOTUSblog has started to delve into them. In fact, we have all nearly one hundred of her opinions on our website if anybody wants to look at them. But what do you think is going to be top priority out of her opinions in the Judiciary Committee hearing?AH: [00:07:16] So, yes, I think it's a great point about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. We were left to sort of pass his book about euthanasia, which arose out of his Ph.D. dissertation to try and figure out what that might mean for his views on abortion, because I don't think it had come up at all while he was on the bench.[00:07:39] I think certainly the Affordable Care Act is something that is going to be top of mind for Democrats at the confirmation hearing. She was quite critical of the chief justice's vote, his decision to uphold the individual mandate.[00:07:54] She really was very skeptical about it. And the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate are going to be back at the Supreme Court on November 10th. And I think we may talk a little bit more about the timeline, but it's certainly something that she could very well be on the bench to hear oral argument in. And so that is something I think that they're likely to address. I think abortion is certainly going to be something that they're going to address. Gun rights in 2019, she dissented from a ruling in which the majority on a three-judge panel rejected the argument that a federal law, state law that barred people who've been convicted of felonies from having guns violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. She dissented. She said, you really have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. This guy had been convicted of mail fraud and at the time of the country's founding, legislatures looked at whether or not someone was likely to be dangerous before they took away his gun rights. And the implication was this guy is not dangerous. And she said the Second Amendment confers an individual right. I think everyone believes that if she were confirmed, which seems at this point likely that she's likely to take a broader reading of the Second Amendment. I think, as you mentioned, there's a case in which she wrote for a three-judge panel that reinstated a lawsuit brought against Purdue University by a student who had been found guilty of sexual assault through the university's student discipline program.[00:09:27] One expert on university compliance with the federal laws barring gender discrimination in education said that this opinion was a trendsetter. He called it that would make it easier for students to bring these kinds of lawsuits against universities to trial.KB: [00:09:43] All of those things are obviously reflective of what is concerning liberals at the moment. Democrats circulated a memo already outlining 19 potential delay tactics for this nomination. But is it more than just those opinions? What is so concerning to the left right now?AH: [00:10:03] I think there is I think there's a couple of things going on, I mean, I think there there is this sense that she will be like her old boss, Justice Scalia, and could well be once she's on the bench, kind of a thought leader, in the same way that Justice Scalia was. I mean, I think there's also the element, the liberals, both because of what's at stake generally and then because of the process, the idea that back in 2016 Republicans refused to fill the vacancy when President Obama was nearing the end of his second term, but are now filling a vacancy when President Trump's is up for reelection and election is looming so large, that this is just wrong. I think they certainly would have opposed whoever the president would have nominated. It's almost unimaginable that he would nominate someone who would be acceptable both to his base and to Democrats. I think Barack Obama tried that. It didn't go so well. And now she does have, unlike some of the other judges who were reportedly in the mix as potential nominees, this long paper trail on issues that they can point to.KB: [00:11:23] So we kind of got our first national public glimpse of her beyond her, her judiciary hearing for the 7th Circuit, which was interesting, but I'm not sure the entire nation was watching in the same way as they were watching the ceremony in the Rose Garden when President Trump nominated her, and she spoke after he gave his speech, officially nominating her. Talk a little bit about what she said when she spoke in the Rose Garden. What did she say to us and to the country?AH: [00:11:51] It was only eight minutes. We'll see a lot more of her. At the confirmation hearing. She said some of the things you'd expect. You know, that she was deeply honored. She was truly humbled. She paid tribute to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She observed that this was all happening very quickly, that the flags were still flying at half-staff. She talked about her family. She's the mother of seven children and her husband. And she really tried to address some of the divisions in the country, particularly when it came to her nomination. She talked about Justice Ginsburg as a pioneer, but she also talked about Justice Ginsburg's friendship with Justice Scalia. And she said they disagreed fiercely in print, but they always got along in person. And, you know, maybe she seemed to me to be alluding to the controversy over her Catholic faith and what role that might play in her judging. And she said the Supreme Court belongs to all of us and she pledged to be impartial.KB: [00:12:47] It's been a bit of a long road to get to her nomination. She had been circulating in conversations about potential nominees. She was in the conversation for when Justice Kavanaugh was nominated.[00:13:03] Can you talk a little bit about the road to this nomination, the short list, the multiple short lists, including one we got not so very long ago, and other finalists that were considered.AH: [00:13:15] So the president back in twenty sixteen when he was running for president, released a list of potential nominees. And he said, if I'm elected and there's a vacancy, I will draw from this list. The list was a big success, really, I think sort of upped his credibility with conservatives and particularly with religious conservatives who been somewhat skeptical about him, whether he was really one of them, so to speak. Remember, there are videos circulating like a clip of him on Meet the Press with the late Tim Russert saying, you know, “I'm very pro-choice.” And so I think this helped to reassure them before the election that if he were elected, he would pick a conservative, because at that point there was the opening created by the death of Justice Scalia. And then he added to the list. Again Justice Kavanaugh was added to the list later on so that he was on the list of potential nominees by the time Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018. And then just recently, President Trump released a new list of potential nominees that was added to the old list. And among the people on that list was a judge in Florida named Barbara Lagoa, who's on the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Alison Jones Rushing, who's quite young, she's only 38 years old and has been on the bench for about a year and a half. And Justice Ginsburg passed away on Friday, and the president made his announcement the following Saturday. But after Justice Kennedy's retirement, as you as you mentioned, Judge Barrett was by all accounts, on the short list for that vacancy. And there was reporting by Axios after the vacancy was filled by now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that Trump had told his advisers that he was saving a Amy Coney Barrett in case Justice Ginsburg were to leave the court during his presidency.[00:15:18] And so it all moved very quickly after Justice Ginsburg passed away, eight days before the nomination was made. But you had the sense, I don't know that anyone knew inside the White House or even outside her close circle of friends sort of how she was doing. But there had been reports about her health problems. And I imagine that inside the White House, they were prepared to be ready, at least for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. There hasn't been any reporting yet, but it's not clear whether or not anyone else was ever seriously in the mix besides Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Lagoa, there was there was a lot of political upside to nominating her. She was the first Hispanic woman and the first Cuban-American woman on the Florida Supreme Court. Obviously, there's an upcoming election. Florida's got a lot of electoral votes and she's very well regarded in conservative circles but doesn't necessarily have the conservative track record that Amy Coney Barrett has yet. Jeremy Diamond of CNN reported that at a fundraiser in Florida just in the last couple of days, that the president told Florida leaders that if he's re-elected, and there's another vacancy, that judge Lagoa would definitely be in the mix. Alison Jones Rushing, as I mentioned, is only 38. She's only been on the court of appeals for about a year and a half. And so, although I don't think anyone would question her academic credentials to be on the court, she may just not be quite seasoned enough as a judge to be on the Supreme Court yet.KB: [00:17:00] So now that she has been thrown into the fire, so to speak, both she and the Senate Judiciary Committee have to work quickly.[00:17:10] We're expecting hearings to begin the week of October 12th, which is in two weeks. And typically, that process takes about six weeks from nomination to hearing.[00:17:19] So talk a little bit about what happens next, how quickly that's going to happen, what the timeline is going to look like. Clearly, multiple things are going to be happening at once.AH: [00:17:27] Sure. I mean, you know, there's no requirement, obviously, that they work quickly. Obviously, it sounds like the president wants to get her on the Supreme Court before the election for a variety of reasons. And having done that, then they would have to work quickly because there were 38 days from Saturday when the president made the nomination until Election Day. So the hearings are scheduled for October 12th. Senator Lindsey Graham has said that they would like to have Judge Barrett's nomination clear the committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by October 26th to set up a vote before the election. So it is certainly much faster than most Supreme Court nominations move. I've seen reporting that some Democratic senators have said that they don't intend to meet with Judge Barrett. Normally, a nominee will come to Washington if they're not already there and do a round of courtesy visits with different senators to sort of get to know them a little bit, talk a little bit about judging in advance of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So that will save Judge Barrett a little bit of time, I guess, if she's not meeting with all of the senators.KB: [00:18:36] Right. A lot of people got the short end of the stick here, but I mostly feel sorry for everyone in the Supreme Court press corps because they had last term go over and had to go into the summer. It's been an incredibly busy summer with election litigation and other things. And now not only is the term starting in a week with some major cases, but you guys will have a simultaneous coverage of a nomination confirmation, not just a normal one, one that's happening extremely quickly at the same time.AH: [00:19:05] I don't feel sorry for the people that feel sorry for the people in the Supreme Court's public information office. They are the ones working overtime.KB: [00:19:13] Right. I feel sorry for them, too. There's a lot ahead. What are your thoughts? Can she can she be confirmed before the election?AH: [00:19:20] I mean, it sounds like they intend to do it. It would be much faster than most confirmations. As I said, it was 38 days between Saturday when the president nominated Judge Barrett and Election Day. Justice Ginsburg's confirmation process was relatively quick. Hers was 50 days. Justice Gorsuch, nd this was a situation in which Justice Scalia's seat had been vacant for quite a while. So I think there was a little bit of a pressure to fill it. His was 66 days. The average has been around 70 days. I mean, there's nothing magic about the election, even if, as the president has suggested, he wants to have someone on the Supreme Court to deal with any election related litigation. That election related litigation is not going to magically arrive at the Supreme Court on November 4th. It would take a while to bubble up through the lower courts and arrive at the Supreme Court, but they've obviously made a decision that they would like to try and do it. And I think it's one of those things where you have to borrow an old cliché, if there's a will, there's a way. KB: And there's certainly there's certainly a will, so it seems. So you mentioned potential election litigation. But putting that aside, what are the cases coming up which her nomination and confirmation could make a difference? What's on the docket already, short term and longer term.AH: [00:20:44] So in the short term, this and this could be a reason why they want to have her on the bench, certainly, putting aside the election related litigation. On November 4th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case called Fulton vs. City of Philadelphia. And this is about the balance between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws and in particular, anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people. It's sort of a slightly different version of the Masterpiece Cake Shop case that the Supreme Court heard a couple of years ago. That was the case of the Colorado baker who did not want to make a cake for a same sex wedding celebration. This is a lawsuit brought against the City of Philadelphia by Catholic Social Services. Catholic Social Services has a policy of not working with foster care parents who are same sex couples because of the agency's religious beliefs. And as a result, the City of Philadelphia has a policy of not working with Catholic Social Services. And Catholic Social Services says that violates its religious beliefs. The Supreme Court had a hard time with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case back in 2018 while Justice Kennedy was still on the bench. They sort of dealt with it very narrowly. They ruled in favor of the baker, but on the ground that the Colorado administrative agency that had ruled against him had been unfair to him because of his religious beliefs. They didn't issue some sort of broader constitutional pronouncement. So it's not clear whether the Supreme Court will do that this time.[00:22:20] But there may be more likely to be five votes for some sort of broader constitutional rule with a Justice Barrett on the bench. And then the big one on November 10th is the battle over the Affordable Care Act. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional now that Congress has taken away, in essence, the penalty for failing to get health insurance. And so there's a couple of different questions in that case. Back in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's former liberal justices in saying that the mandate was constitutional because it's a tax. But even if there were no longer five votes for the proposition that it is still constitutional, there's a separate question. And then what happens? Is it just that the mandate is no longer a part of the Affordable Care Act? Or does some or all of the Affordable Care Act go with it? And then looking further down the road, it seems very likely that the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with issues relating to abortion. Affirmative action, acouple of weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard oral argument in the challenge to Harvard's admissions policies. The argument is that Harvard is discriminating against Asian-Americans in its admissions policies. Back in 2016, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's three liberal justices because Justice Kagan was recused. So the vote was four to three to uphold the University of Texas’ admissions policy.[00:24:00] But that was then. This is now. There's been quite a change in the composition of the court. And then gun rights. In 2019, in December, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a New York City rule that banned people who live in New York City and have a license to have a gun from taking their guns outside of New York City. But then they dismissed that case as moot. There is no longer a live controversy, just as Brett Kavanaugh suggested that perhaps the court should take up another case to say more about how broadly the Second Amendment applies, because the Supreme Court has said there is a Second Amendment right to have a gun in your home for self-defense, but really hasn't said much more than that in about 10 years. But the Supreme Court didn't do that. They had an opportunity to do that with a whole group of cases right after the New York case. And the conventional wisdom, for what it's worth, is that there would be four conservative votes on the Supreme Court to take up a Second Amendment case, but that they hadn't done so because they're not sure about what Chief Justice John Roberts would do in such a case. And so to sort of take this and project, if Justice Amy Coney Barrett were on the bench, there may well be five votes to take up a Second Amendment case and say more about what the Second Amendment protects.KB: [00:25:26] All right. Well, it sounds like there's a lot in the long-term future, but for now, we have the nomination and confirmation process to focus on.[00:25:34] And as always, Amy, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.[00:25:38] We always learn something. We're grateful.AH: [00:25:40] Thank you. We'll be back to talk about it soon. I imagine there's going to be plenty more in the weeks ahead.[00:25:47] That's another episode of SCOTUStalk.[00:25:49] Thanks for joining us. Thanks to Casetext, our sponsor, and to our production team Katie Barlow, Katie Bart, Kal Golde, and James Romoser. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

SCOTUStalk Host Amy Howe spoke this week with two groups of former law clerks for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the first of these interviews, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Lori Alvino McGill, and Amanda Tyler share their memories of meeting Ginsburg for the time and working for a boss who herself was such a hard worker.Full Transcript:[00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.AH: [00:00:13] Welcome to SCOTUStalk. I'm Amy Howe. Thanks for joining us. Members of the public generally knew her as the Notorious RBG or as a tiny but mighty figure in the courtroom. For her law clerks, though, Ginsburg was a warm and thoughtful role model and mentor. We're so lucky to have three of her law clerks with us to talk about the time they spent working with Ginsburg as well as their relationships with her after they finished their clerkships. Kelsi Brown Corkran is the head of the Supreme Court practice at Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe. Lori Alvino McGill is an appellate lawyer who clerked for Justice Ginsburg during the October term, 2005. And Amanda Tyler is the Shannon Cecil Turner professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.Let's start at the beginning. Talk about how you came to be a clerk for Justice Ginsburg. What was the interview process like? You're all relatively young lawyers going to talk to Justice Ginsburg, who was not much of a small talker. What was the interview like?Kelsi Brown Corkran: Yeah, so I was actually a little bit older. I was pregnant with my son when I clerked for Judge Tatel on the D.C. Circuit.So I waited until after my kids were born before I applied to clerk on the court. It's pretty well documented that when Justice Ginsburg was recommended to clerk for Justice Frankfurter by the dean of Harvard Law School, that he was initially willing to consider a female clerk, but when he found out that she was a mother, that was just too much. He could not have a mother in chambers. And so she missed out on the opportunity to do a clerkship on the Supreme Court. And so that interview was just incredible in so many ways. I mean, to see her in person, I still am not over that. And it was almost a decade ago, and I ended up working with her for a year. But I can still remember walking into chambers and seeing her there in real life. But we ended up talking about my kids. I brought them up at some point and she smiled and asked how old they were. And then a few minutes later offered me the clerkship. And it was it was very special to me. I think it was a joy to her to be able to give that opportunity to so many of the clerks that she lost out on. And I was just one of many clerks who came to chambers, both male and female, who already had kids. So, it was a particular piece of it that was special to me.AH: [00:02:51] Lori, how about you?LAM: Well it’s hard to follow that story. But I have a couple of sharp memories from my interview process. The first was when I was extended the interview. I was working on the DC Circuit for Douglas Ginsburg. No relation, but they were friends.[00:03:12] But they come from a very different ideological background, I would say.[00:03:17] So the first thing I remember is DHC coming into my little part of chambers and letting me know that Justice Ginsburg had called him about me, and I was elated. Of course, I was really excited. And he said, but so here's the thing. I think she's going to call you and extend an interview. And I think if she interviews you, she's going to hire you. And he looks very serious. And I'm like, well, that sounds great. And he said, well, you understand, if she extends an offer to you, you have to accept that.[00:03:50] Yeah.[00:03:53] And then he looks at me like, what, Lori? I just want to make sure that there's not some other justice who would prefer to clerk for me. I looked at him like, wow, you had no idea there was one of us here in chambers. And so I was a sleeper liberal with nothing to indicate as such on my resume. But so he was surprised, as surprised that I was excited as I was surprised that she was interested in the interview. The process was stressful, as you'd imagine. I was busy on the D.C. Circuit. I was also studying for the bar exam, and I remember studying a lot for the interview. And I got there and I could not have been prepared for the first question that she asked me, which was, Lori, we've had a lot of trouble with our panel. And I have to tell you, I just secured it was beautiful new grand piano for the West Conference Room. The reason we have a new piano is the old piano would not stay in tune. Would you mind going downstairs and playing the piano after we're done here and letting me know if it sounds OK? So, you know, on my resumé, I had indicated I was a pianist, but I was not prepared to play the piano for a justice of the Supreme Court.[00:05:09] And I spent the entire forty five minute period with her not appreciating the experience. Or like really present in our conversation, but instead I was thinking, but my nails aren't trimmed and I haven't touched the piano in 12 months, and what could I possibly play for the justice that would be impressive. It turned out, mercifully, that after our conversation, she just sent me downstairs with one of her current clerk, Ginger Anders, who I knew from law school, and I was able to, in relative privacy, test out the grand piano and report back to her when she called to extend the offer that the piano was in tune and sounded great.AH: What did you play?LAM: I actually I played a pop song. I played Possession by Sarah McLaughlin because I hadn't played anything classical in a long time. But I had a keyboard in my apartment, and that was the kind of thing I was playing in those days. But I did.AH: Amanda. How was your interview?AT: [00:06:03] I was more nervous for that job interview than any job interview I've ever had in my life. And yet what was really nice, and I've heard the others say this as well, she put me at ease right away, and it really took it took a lot of the nerves out of the situation.[00:06:19] My interview story is actually less about the interview and more about what happened immediately after. So very fortunately, she offered me the job at the end of the interview and I, of course, accepted on the spot. And I went back to the airport to fly back to Boston.[00:06:34] I was in school still, and I called my grandparents from the airport to tell them I was very close with my grandparents and neither of them had gone to college.[00:06:42] It became immediately apparent in the conversation they had no idea who Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, and they didn't understand the enormity of this incredible opportunity.[00:06:54] And so I then had to explain to them who Ruth Bader Ginsburg was. And I remember I said something to the effect of grandma, you don't understand. I was only able to go to law school because she changed everything in this country for women and for both genders. Really. Excuse me. And I remember my grandmother saying, my God, she sounds amazing. Amanda, I'm so, so proud that you will go and clerk for her. So this whole story connects back. It's not a story about me. I wrote the justice, a letter the next day saying how excited I was and how honored I was to be able to go and work for her. And I decided to tell her, write up a story about my grandparents and the conversation and specifically what my grandmother had said. The justice wrote me back and sent a card for my grandmother with a letter to my grandmother, which my grandmother then framed and hung in her living room. So that was pretty special.AH: [00:07:51] That's a great story. What was it like working with her sort of on a day to day basis? I feel like, you know, the stories you hear from clerks about life at the Supreme Court, that different chambers have sort of different personalities, depending on the justice. What was it like working with her?AT: It was great, but she didn't let anything slide. She had the most exacting standards and she herself had an incredible work ethic. And she was a workhorse and she never wasted a minute. She used every minute for constructive purposes. And so you had you had to measure up. You had to do your best. I wrote something up recently where I said working for her was like playing with Michael Jordan. She pulled you up and made you perform at your best level.[00:08:43] I was not a pianist. I was an athlete. So I use sports analogies on my glory. She was she was a Michael Jordan, the Leo Messi, Megan Rapinoe of athletes in the sense that she she really made you rise to the occasion and meet her standards or certainly die trying, which I certainly did. The other thing, though was that just the meticulous care with which she took that she took with her opinions.[00:09:12] So you would give her a draft and she would give it back, really marked up, but then walk through why she thought you should change this. And I'm sure Lauren anf Kelsi, you're going to say this, I was such a better writer at the end of it, although I'm still trying to measure up.AH: Lori?LAM: [00:09:28] I would agree with all of that. I mean, I guess I would add, at least when I was clerking, she ran her chambers in quite a formal manner. I remember exchanging handwritten notes and typewritten notes, sort of regular thing, instead of knocking on her door because we were all so respectful of her process. And if she had her door closed and she was working on something, you wouldn't want to interrupt. And she was sort of old fashioned in that way. And we all sort of abided by that, as you would expect. I think her working process sort of in her manner and being sort of earned her a reputation for being cold. I think some people who didn't work with her directly may have had the impression that she was being standoffish or too formal or not. Not a warm person, and I can't emphasize enough how different that is from the person who I got to know. I think she was a deeply shy person, which is somewhat surprising given her chosen profession and her being drawn to being the trailblazer, an absolute iconic heroine for justice. She was a very shy person, but when you got to know her, she was also fiercely loyal. And we saw that sort of in the day to day workings of chambers. And then after the clerkship in the way that she really took care to continue the relationships that she formed during that year with the clerk.AH: Kelsi, do you have anything to add?KBC: [00:11:03] So I think appearing together, what Lori and Amanda said, Lori described, is exactly my memory of the pool memo process or bench memos.[00:11:16] There is lots of handwritten notes back and forth, and we each had our own little kind of folder area where she would put her comments and then we'd bring them back to her. It was the one job I've had in my adult life where my good penmanship actually was an attribute. But then, as Amanda was saying, when you got to the opinion writing process, it was much more intimate. You would sit in her office. She would outline what she had in mind for the opinion, you would draft it, and then you would give it to her in a printed copy that was triple spaced. So there's plenty of room for her to kind of do her her edits by hand. And then when she was done, as Amanda said, you would be called into chambers and you would sit at her table with her and she would go over every single edit and explain why she had done it. And it wasn't for her benefit. It was four ours to kind of teach us how to become better writers. And so I will always be grateful for that.[00:12:09] I think we all left the clerkship with this just master class on persuasion and writing and so grateful that she took the time to do that.AH: [00:12:21] You've already talked about some really special stories, but you haven't. What is your fondest memory, perhaps of Justice Ginsburg as a mentor or a friend? Lori?LAM: [00:12:33] Is it ok if I have two?[00:12:39] I'll start with the one that's later in time. So the thing that sort of sticks with me and is the perfect illustration of how much she cared for her law clerks as people happened about a year after my clerkship, a little bit more than a year, I gave birth to my first child. And one of the only things I remember about that experience, because it was a long, drawn out kind of marathon that I got a phone call from the justice who was, I believe, in Italy at the time. She called my hospital room to make sure that she told me that she knew I had had a cesarian section after a long labor and that it was really important that I surrounded myself with people who knew how much help I needed and that it was a major surgery and I needed to take care of myself like nothing to do with them. And are you planning to go back to work? And what does the law firm think of this? Because it was completely about the care and feeding of a person that she cared about. And it was incredibly meaningful to me. And I think it sort of illustrates the person she was. The other memory I will share, I shared recently on Facebook with our friends, Dr. Buloch, who some of you know, I remember her saying to me at the end of the term, right after our law clerk musical parody, which I think is still a tradition of the court. I had the role of an advocate who was delivering her first argument before the court and the first argument before the brand new Justice Alito and Sasha had written up an adaptation of Frank Sinatra's Mona Lisa and the new lyric for Sam Alito, Sam Alito, You're my fifth vote. And so it was my job to serenade him in this little parody show.[00:14:47] And at the end, she came up to me and she grabbed my hand and to look right at me and said, Lori, with a voice like that, how did you ever become a lawyer?[00:14:59] And at that moment, knowing what an opera afficionado she is and how much musical opinion, I couldn't decide if it was a huge compliment or if she was telling me that I should have kept my night job.[00:15:14] I still I tell that story with great fondness, and every time I see Justice Alito, we talk about it. It was a moment that was unforgettable.AH: Kelsi?KBC: [00:15:27] So this is not poignant, but it still makes me laugh.[00:15:32] So in chambers, there's that we had our land line telephones. And if calls came from other parts of the court, there was a kind of a regular sounding ring.[00:15:43] But if the justice called you, it was like a different I don't know how to describe it. It was like it was just a different tone. It was the justice calling. And we all would have this kind of Pavlovian response to that ring because it was why why is she calling? What's happening? What do they do? And not because of anything she did. She was always she was not a scary boss, but with someone that impressive, you just you wanted to do your best all the time.[00:16:08] So this was when we were working with her to help her come up with questions for the Shakespeare kind of mock trial that is done every year. And you're supposed to come up with kind of funny things for her to ask about. And so I had put together some questions and I wish I could remember exactly what it was, but it was some sort of joke about George Clooney in his unrequited love. So I think this is right around when he had gotten married. And so the phone rang. That kind of jarring ring and I picked it up and she said, can you explain this part about George Clooney to me? And I was like, oh, well, justice, he's an actor, he's been in a lot of movies. And I kind of go on for a couple sentences. And she stops me because I know who George Clooney is. Just why is this funny? And I don't know that I had a good response. But, you know, with her, you just kind of never knew where she was at in terms of cultural awareness. And apparently I misjudged that one.AH: [00:17:08] That's great, Amanda?AT: [00:17:13] Oh, my gosh, so many memories. And one of the really fun things is getting together right now with other clerks and hearing their great stories. Share these. When I was clerking for her, as Kelsi's story mentioned, you would sometimes help her prepare for the many, many speeches she was invited to give.[00:17:32] And I clerked for her before she was the notorious IBG and she was in huge demand then. I can't imagine after being a clerk, but she was giving one speech excuse me about the progress women had made in the workforce.[00:17:48] And she called me and she wanted me to work with her on it. And she said, you know, this is really incredible that she said this, said, you know, I'm much older than your generation and I don't really have a handle on what the current issues are.[00:18:03] So will you go around and get together with all the women law clerks and talk to them and come back and give me a real sense of what the biggest issues are that you and your peers in your age cohort, in your career cohort facing and thinking about and worried about. And I thought that was pretty amazing because she kind of wrote the book on how to figure out how women, you know, can succeed and overcome barriers. And she built so many roads of equality. But she was one constantly still trying to to open up those opportunities and break down barriers. And too she was and this is this comes out in her jurisprudence. She was trying to understand the experience of people who weren't in the exact same position as her to other stories. I mean, I could tell certainly more, but to others that immediately come to mind. She cited me once in an opinion, some of my scholarship. I was very, very excited. It was the first time I was cited by the court. I remember I'm laughing because I told my spouse and he said it doesn't count if it's Justice Ginsburg. She was just being nice. That's kind of our marriage. But she autographed the opinion with a really sweet inscription, one of the slip opinions, and sent it to me because I think she knew about was the first time I've been cited so that I have it framed in my office.[00:19:23] It was really, really sweet. A final story is just there was a period I'm so moved by Lori's story and there was a period in my life where I had I was going through something that was very, very difficult. And it was parallel to something that she had been through in her life around the same time. And there were some difficult months. And in the middle of that, she reached out. She she knew and she reached out. She wrote me a really beautiful letter about how I couldn't see it now, but that decades later I would look back and actually find much to appreciate from the experience once I got to the other side. And one she was right, of course, because she was profoundly wise and two that was incredibly kind and generous because of the parallels. I knew there was wisdom in those words, and it really carried me through some very difficult period.AH: That actually sort of touches on my next question.[00:20:22] So I guess I'll start with Kelsi. Lori and Amanda have both talked a little bit about sort of their relationship with the justice after they left the clerkship. And you all can, of course, talk about more.[00:20:36] But so what was it like? Does it change once you leave the court and you're no longer the clerk? You're a former clerk?KBC: [00:20:43] Yeah. You know, she was very accessible. So you could always any time you wanted to email her secretary and asked to come visit her.[00:20:54] And as Lori and Amanda point out, she would reach out to us when she knew things, significant things were going on in our lives. So after I had my first Supreme Court argument, it wasn't long before I got it. I got a note from her about what a great job I had done. And when I came into chambers later, she kind of grabbed my hands and she said, oh, you were super, she loved the word super.[00:21:18] But what really changed for me was my ability to be present in the moment with her during the clerkship.[00:21:24] I just felt like I always wanted to to do a job and to impress her and to live up to her standards. And I remember being in chambers one time and just sitting with her maybe a couple of years ago. And we were talking about travel and the kids and what she was up to. And I said, I just remember thinking in my head, this is extraordinary what I'm getting to do right now to just sit with her and talk for 30 minutes. And so I think that was the real difference, know, thinking, gosh, we don't cry when I say this, but I think the last time I saw her was in the winter before the pandemic started. And I had moved for someone's admission that day. If you go to the court a lot, this is something where you stand up and you just you get a script that tells you what to say. And there's not a lot that goes on. It's always granted by the chief justice. But I went to visit her afterwards and she said completely deadpan to me, you did a super job moving for admission. And I laughed. I said, thanks, justice.[00:22:32] But she was clearly being sarcastic because there's not any way to mess up looking for someone's admission.[00:22:38] So I will always remember that fondly.AH: She always paid attention to those in a way that most of the other justices didn't show respect…KBC: For any of us who appeared before her, whether it was moving for admission or arguing, you would always get a little smile for her, just a little recognition to kind of build you up on your standing at the podium, which is special.AH: [00:22:59] Lori and Amanda, do you have anything you want to add?LAM: [00:23:02] I will. I'll just add a quick one to what Kelsi just said, which is every time I had a reserved three chambers, she made a point to make eye contact with me when she entered the courtroom and gave me that same supportive little smile, which, you know, of course, delighted me every single time. I guess the other thing that I will say that that kind of changed about my relationship with RBG after I left chambers like healthy, I became less focused on am I doing a really good job right now in my interactions with her?[00:23:38] And I think it was long after the clerkship that I learned, you know, one of the most valuable lessons that she taught me and and stays with me to this day was that even Justice Ginsburg knew, and knew well, that we cannot do all things well at the same time.[00:24:00] And it was from that teaching that I had the strength to step away from my long term career and spend more time with my children. This is what I'm doing now. And it is also from that teaching that I know that when I choose to step back into the ring as a practicing lawyer or something else, that I will be fully capable of doing that very well again, but that there is a time for all things and we can't be everything all at the same time. And I think she would be the first to admit that she leaned on Marty when she needed to be the primary parent at times in her career.[00:24:42] And I think that that is probably one of the most underrated but important parts of her legacy for her women who are trying to be parents at the same time as having fulfilling careers.AH: [00:24:56] Amanda?AT: Yeah, I'll pick up on what Lori was just saying. I had the great good fortune to host her several times at various law schools where I've taught. And I remember I asked her, my students, they're always coming in and asking for advice. How do you find the work life balance? I have students that ask me what should I look for in a partner? So when I was interviewing her in front of the whole UC Berkeley law school community last last fall, I asked her what her advice was and she said, and this is exactly, of course, the story of her marriage with Marty.[00:25:30] She said choose someone choose a partner who thinks your work is as important as theirs. And it was really sweet because I was able to draw her out and have her connect directly with my students, which was a really special moment. So many of them told me afterwards they so appreciated that. But I also want to say a word about that visit. She was originally supposed to come to Berkeley the prior winter when she broke her ribs and they discovered the lung cancer event was to honor one of her best friends, Herma Hill Kay, who'd been faculty member, the second woman faculty member, and the first woman Dean at Berkeley Law. They wrote a first case book on sex based discrimination, had a wonderful friendship, and Herma had just died. So we had launched a new memorial lecture in Herma's honor. And the justice was so devoted to giving, to appearing for the event that even in the original schedule she would not cancel. I kept calling her saying, you cannot come. You need to focus on your health. You cannot. She said, I have to honor Herma, I must do it. And it was only when I think the family and the doctor said, no, you need to cancel all your events for a while, that she finally relented. And then immediately, once she got to the other side of that difficult period, she said, All right, Amanda, when are we doing this? We have to honor Herma. And she did come out and I'm very grateful. But she was you know, it was a struggle. She wasn't at full steam. And I was just in awe of her every moment of that visit, because the the will that drove her to want to honor this friendship and the and the special person in her life was truly was truly inspiring.KBC: [00:27:] Picking up on the last thing Amanda just said about her fierce desire to honor her friend.[00:27:21] I think what I carry with me is just the inspiration of the justice’s work ethic. And I don't she was not a workaholic. She was a life aholic. Everything.[00:27:35] There was no moment wasted from the moment she got out of bed until the end of the day. She was intentional in every way.[00:27:41] And the reason she was able to be so extraordinary in her work, but also so committed on a personal level to her clerks, to her friends, she made time for her workouts. You can't do all of that if you are unintentional about your time, if you're kind of just dawdling or and so I having seen her go full steam for eighty seven years, not a moment was wasted.[00:28:09] And I take that with me. When I get up in the morning, I try to live my life the same way so that I can be the parent and mother I want to be and also fully committed to my job and try to get that workout in and try to make the phone call to the friend. You can live a whole life that way and get a lot done. It's tiring, but it's so rewarding. And so when I when I'm sorry, I start to feel tired, I think of the justice and I don't want to waste any time either.AH: [00:28:36] That is a wonderful way to finish. Thank you, Kelsi Corkran, Lori Alvino McGill and Amanda Tyler for joining me to talk about the personal side of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[00:28:50] That's another episode of SCOTUStalk. Thanks for joining us. Thanks to Castext, our sponsor and to our production team, Katie Barlow, Katie Bart, Kal Golde and James Romoser. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As soon as the public learned of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday evening, mourners began gathering outside the Supreme Court. Leaving flowers, candles and messages in chalk written near the courthouse steps, thousands of people have paid their respects to a woman who inspired a generation and, late in life, attained an iconic status in American culture. Over the weekend, SCOTUSblog’s deputy manager, Katie Bart, interviewed members of the public who gathered in remembrance and mourning. Their words make up the latest episode of SCOTUStalk.Full Transcript:[00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.Katie Bart: [00:00:13] Welcome to SCOTUStalk. I'm Katie Bart. Thanks for joining us. On Friday, September 18th, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away from complications related to pancreatic cancer. She served on the Supreme Court for 27 years. The Supreme Court released statements from the eight justices and two retired justices on Saturday. Chief Justice John Roberts called her a “tireless and resolute champion of justice.” Justice Thomas said that she was a “superb justice who exacted the best from each of them, whether in agreement or disagreement.” Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said that to them, as to countless others, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a hero. Justice David Souter, who retired from the bench in 2009, said that he “loved her to pieces.” Almost immediately after news of her passing, thousands of people were drawn to the steps of the Supreme Court to mourn and celebrate her life. Here's Tiffany Thompson on why she visited the court and what Ruth Bader Ginsburg meant to her.Tiffany Thompson: [00:01:15] We have suffered an extraordinary loss and we need to, I think, come together in a way that we haven't had a chance to come together. That's sort of how I feel. She gave us hope. She gave us an extraordinary power that we didn't know that we had. She gave us an opportunity to be free in a way that we didn't know how to. We never had a chance to do that before.KB: [00:01:42] Here's Jill Marie Bussey on why she visited the court.Jill Marie Bussey: [00:01:46] I couldn't help but be here. I felt called to come to the court. I'm a woman lawyer. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a tremendous role model in my life and so many women in my field. When she was appointed to the Supreme Court, I remember that day vividly. I was in college at that time and I remember them doing the background on the news and learning about how she learned from Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall's approach to challenging the law. And not just inspired me because I had already heard of Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall, but I didn't know that she took a page from their book and applied it to trying to achieve equality for women. And I then realized that I was able to play high school sports because of her, like there was so much. I just remember that all coming to me when I was in college and I knew I wanted to go to law school at that time. But it was her inspiration that made me think of how I could apply a law degree for good. And now I'm an immigrant attorney, immigrant advocate, and I've seen her. I've come here to the court and seen cases before her in the court, and I'm just very grateful for her service. And it's a tremendous loss. But her legacy will live on.KB: [00:03:14] Here's Dawn Popp, who drove in from Elkridge, Maryland, on why she visited the court.Dawn Popp: [00:03:19] I just felt such a tremendous sense of loss when I heard yesterday. I was just so devastated. And as soon as I heard that something was happening today, I knew I had to be here. I'm a lawyer. And I mean, I think every female lawyer in this country is inspired by her. I mean, she's a role model and she's someone that I have looked up to for as long as I can remember. She's just such an incredible trailblazer in terms of her career before being on the court. And then her decisions on the court have been just so groundbreaking in terms of women's rights. I mean, I just I every female attorney I know idolizes her. It's just it feels like a huge, very personal loss. Her whole career. I feel like I have been I've been following her. And I always I mean, her dissents are just works of art. And, you know, in addition, in addition to sort of the law that that she has been part of making, you know, just as a writer and as a thinker, I'm just you know, she's the kind of lawyer that that I aspire to be.KB: [00:04:33] Here's Emma on why she visited the court and why RPG inspires her.Emma: [00:04:39] Sure, she was pretty much a legend to so many young women, including myself. And it's just a lot of people, like my friends included, like we're all kind of like, you know, women like us and we try to like, you know, empower others. I'm 16. And the thing is, none of us really, really know her and we respect her. As we all have all of our lives, but we've never really known the stuff that she fought for until now, and we've never really it's never really come to light because we've kind of grown up with those privileges.KB: [00:05:10] Emma brought her mom with her to the court, hears Emma's mom on what RBG means to her.Emma’s Mom: [00:05:16] Oh, yes, I’m Emma’s mom. And yeah, I think she was an important, definitely an important figure. And at this moment in time, it is just all the more serious. It's something that you take seriously. It's disheartening. It's very it's you know, you felt the gut wrenching when you heard the news and she meant so much to so many people.[00:05:47] And one little petite little lady could do so much with her demeanor and her ease of getting in the fight, she thought, and how tenacious she was with her battles with her health as well as the walls going to a school at Harvard with all the men and having to stand out.[00:06:10] And we're doing that today and we're still fighting that fight.[00:06:14] And, you know, we as a culture and a representative, we want to hopefully live up to that and inspire the young people and inspire people just out of the goodness. Right. It's not vicious or vitriolic. She carried herself very well. She was classy, I think. I think she did a lot.[00:06:39] When I come to mind, when you think of, like, sorry to say, Mother Teresa, somebody's bigger than life that took on so much and stood for so much and had the integrity and the principles to live by and to teach young kids. I mean, just her notoriety now with young kids is just amazing. I had graduated from high school in 1991. She was momentous at that time. And you know her. It was just amazing. And, you know, hopefully it will. I hope this moment will remind people it is important to vote.KB: [00:07:19] Here's an 11-year-old girl who came to the court in her RBG shirt.Girl: [00:07:24] I am here to mourn. And she definitely made an impact on my life. She was just a really amazing person who I did not know personally, unfortunately.KB: [00:07:34] Yeah. Maybe one day you can be on the Supreme Court.Girl: Hopefully!KB: [00:07:38] We will end with words from Justice Stephen Breyer: “A great justice, a woman of valor, a rock of righteousness. And my good, good friend. The world is a better place for her having lived in it. And so is her family, her friends, the legal community and the nation.”We plan to be back next week with stories and memories from former clerks to Justice Ginsburg.AH: [00:08:05] That's another episode of SCOTUStalk. Thanks for joining us. Thanks to Casetext, our sponsor, and to our production team, Katie Barlow, Katie Bart, Kal Golde and James Romoser. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ever since Bush v. Gore, the case that effectively decided the 2000 presidential race, the Supreme Court increasingly has been asked to intervene in fraught disputes over election procedures. Add in a pandemic, and the 2020 election season promises to be unprecedented. This week on SCOTUStalk, SCOTUSblog’s social media editor, Katie Barlow, joins Amy Howe to break down the court’s influence on the election. They survey major election-related rulings the justices have already handed down this summer and preview what role the court might play in the run-up to Election Day – and, potentially, the weeks afterward. Katie and Amy also discuss the launch of an exciting new project between SCOTUSblog and Election Law at Ohio State: the 2020 Election Litigation Tracker. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today on The Daily Beans: a discussion about the final Supreme Court opinions from this term with SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe, an update on the Russia bounty story with the man who wrote the book on the presidents daily brief, Trump threatens to withhold funding for states that fail to re-open schools in the fall, Harvard and MIT sue the administration over a rule stripping visas from international students, plus an interview with David Priess. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices