Podcasts about supreme court term

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler

It's Hump Day! Sam and Emma speak with Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate, to discuss the ongoing oral arguments of this current Supreme Court term. First, Sam runs through updates on the last two weeks heading into US elections, Trump's fascism, Israel's indiscriminate offensives on Gaza and Lebanon, election interference, Rudy Giuliani's legal (and financial) woes, Georgia's election regulations, the House GOP's leadership jocky, and Trump's upcoming Rogan appearance, before diving a little deeper into the moral, humanitarian, and all-around political failure that has been the Biden Administration's full-scale backing of Israeli genocide. Mark Joseph Stern then joins as he and Sam first unpack the suspicious lack of a major (both in quantity and quality) court load for the final Supreme Court term heading into the 2024 elections, exploring the conservative-majority Court's active attempt to fade into the background rather than risk making controversial decisions (which they surely would) should they hurt Trump's chances. Stern then looks to a few major cases that SCOTUS has shunted to after November, first tackling Garland v. VanDerStok's insane argument over the sale of disassembled munitions (aka Ghost Guns) to skirt background check, serial number, and tracking requirements for arms sellers, why the Court likely won't make an extreme decision, and how victims of this insanely criminal scheme are already taking action. After expanding on the particular role the extremist Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) plays in advancing these absurd cases to the Trump-packed Supreme Court, Mark and Sam dive into the potential play the Court might make regarding abortion access nationwide, and look to the potential bolstering of anti-trans healthcare legislation via US v. Skrmetti. They wrap up the interview with DeSantis' legal battle against Florida's abortion referendum and the Trump Campaign's ongoing lawfare to undermine and obstruct ballot tallies come November. And in the Fun Half: Tim Pool loudly quits one of his shows to become a theoretical family man, Tim Walz discusses the Harris Campaign's relationship to dipshits like the Cheneys and the Trump Campaign's relationship to dipshits like Elon Musk, and JD Vance attempts to claim that Donald Trump – the Kleptocrat-in-Chief – isn't attached to monied interests. Kerry from New York and Sam unpack the relationship between masculinity, maturity, and comedy, MTG and the Trump Campaign start laying the groundwork for election denial (with some help from fair-and-balanced reporting by CBS), and Rudy Giuliani has to turn over practically all of his property to the Georgian election workers he got harassed. Alex from Boston explores some misunderstandings of the pharmaceutical industry, and John Kelly calls Trump a fascist, plus, your calls and IMs!   Follow Mark on Twitter here: https://x.com/mjs_DC Check out Mark's work at Slate here: https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityrep ort Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 20% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Shopify: Upgrade your business and get the same checkout AllBirds & Skims use. Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/majority. Go to https://shopify.com/majority to upgrade your selling today. SHOPIFY DOT COM SLASH majority. Blueland Cleaning Products: Blueland has a special offer for listeners. Right now, get 15% off your first order by going to https://Blueland.com/MAJORITY. You won't want to miss this! https://Blueland.com/MAJORITY for 15% off. Ridge Wallet:“If you're tired of bulky wallets I highly recommend giving Ridge a try. Go to https://ridge.com/majority and use code MAJORITY for 10% off!  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

On the FIRST official episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry tees up some big cases at the Supreme Court--controversial enough that they’re sure to grab headlines. AND we air former SCOTUS 101 host Zack Smith’s recent Supreme Court Preview event at the Heritage Foundation with some legal heavyweights.

On the FIRST official episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry tees up some big cases at the Supreme Court--controversial enough that they're sure to grab headlines. AND we air former SCOTUS 101 host Zack Smith's recent Supreme Court Preview event at the Heritage Foundation with some legal heavyweights.

Every year on On the Issues, we bring you a Supreme Court term in review with a live studio audience. This year, for the first time we're bringing you one from Washington, DC—we're going to discuss the most important rulings of the 2023-2024 term, unpacking issues from abortion rights to presidential immunity—while we prepare for what's coming next as the Supreme Court begins its new term this week.Joining us to discuss the term are some very special guests:Mark Joseph Stern: Mark Joseph Stern is a senior writer at Slate.Moira Donegan: Moira Donegan is a U.S. columnist at The Guardian.Jamelle Bouie: Jamelle Bouie is an opinion columnist at The New York Times.Madiba Dennie: Madiba Dennie is deputy editor and senior contributor of Balls and Strikes.Chris Geidner: Chris Geidner is the founder of the Law Dork Substack and an MSNBC columnist. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Support the show

We get Hurricane Milton updates and a closer look at the SCOTUS docket.

TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down: According to a new study conducted by Dr. Ira Sheskin of the University of Miami and commissioned by the Combat Antisemitism Movement, 61% of American Jews report feeling less safe since the terrorist attack last year.  A new report finds that there have been more than 50 jihadi cases across 29 states since April 2021.  It has been just over a week since Hurricane Helene devastated parts of the south east. Now Florida is bracing for another major hurricane.  White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says it is “categorically false” that the Biden administration has used FEMA funding to support migrants. Monday kicks off the first day of the Supreme Court's new term.  Relevant Links Listen to other podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/ Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription   Listen to more Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcasts Sign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agenda

TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down: According to a new study conducted by Dr. Ira Sheskin of the University of Miami and commissioned by the Combat Antisemitism Movement, 61% of American Jews report feeling less safe since the terrorist attack last year. A new report finds that there have […]

In this segment of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark is joined by Ilya Shapiro, the Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He discusses today being the first day of the new Supreme Court term and the one year anniversary of the October 7th Israel Terrorist Attack.

Democracy had a pretty rough ride at the Supreme Court last term. Presidents have criminal immunity now! Agency experts aren't the experts anymore! Sure, you can convert that rifle into an automatic weapon! And guess what? More horrors await us this term.  But we are not going to spend this last episode before the start of a new term dispassionately picking over a smattering of cases for a lawyerly preview, or helplessly doom spiraling. Instead, we will hear from two women who refuse to blithely accept what the High Court is handing down—two women who have decided to do something, in very different ways.  You're going to find out why one of these women will head to SCOTUS on Monday in the suit she wore to argue before the High Court 44 years ago. Dahlia Lithwick will ask the other woman, Sky Perryman of Democracy Forward, about the legal theories, doctrine tracking, and litigation strategies her organization is deploying to fight for democracy in the courts –– even (and especially) in courthouses and cases far from One First Street, where until now, the conservative legal movement has had almost free reign. Because any honest preview of the new Supreme Court term needs to look wider and deeper than the handful of cases docketed for the coming weeks.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Democracy had a pretty rough ride at the Supreme Court last term. Presidents have criminal immunity now! Agency experts aren't the experts anymore! Sure, you can convert that rifle into an automatic weapon! And guess what? More horrors await us this term.  But we are not going to spend this last episode before the start of a new term dispassionately picking over a smattering of cases for a lawyerly preview, or helplessly doom spiraling. Instead, we will hear from two women who refuse to blithely accept what the High Court is handing down—two women who have decided to do something, in very different ways.  You're going to find out why one of these women will head to SCOTUS on Monday in the suit she wore to argue before the High Court 44 years ago. Dahlia Lithwick will ask the other woman, Sky Perryman of Democracy Forward, about the legal theories, doctrine tracking, and litigation strategies her organization is deploying to fight for democracy in the courts –– even (and especially) in courthouses and cases far from One First Street, where until now, the conservative legal movement has had almost free reign. Because any honest preview of the new Supreme Court term needs to look wider and deeper than the handful of cases docketed for the coming weeks.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Democracy had a pretty rough ride at the Supreme Court last term. Presidents have criminal immunity now! Agency experts aren't the experts anymore! Sure, you can convert that rifle into an automatic weapon! And guess what? More horrors await us this term.  But we are not going to spend this last episode before the start of a new term dispassionately picking over a smattering of cases for a lawyerly preview, or helplessly doom spiraling. Instead, we will hear from two women who refuse to blithely accept what the High Court is handing down—two women who have decided to do something, in very different ways.  You're going to find out why one of these women will head to SCOTUS on Monday in the suit she wore to argue before the High Court 44 years ago. Dahlia Lithwick will ask the other woman, Sky Perryman of Democracy Forward, about the legal theories, doctrine tracking, and litigation strategies her organization is deploying to fight for democracy in the courts –– even (and especially) in courthouses and cases far from One First Street, where until now, the conservative legal movement has had almost free reign. Because any honest preview of the new Supreme Court term needs to look wider and deeper than the handful of cases docketed for the coming weeks.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On October 7, the Supreme Court begins its 2024–2025 term — the fourth in which it is dominated by a supermajority of conservative justices. Just months after a disastrous presidential immunity decision, and in the face of continued controversy over the justices' ethics and partisanship, the Court will reconvene to hear arguments on issues with profound consequences for American life. Among the questions on the docket: whether so-called “ghost guns” are subject to regulation, whether prosecutorial misconduct invalidates a death sentence, the power of federal agencies to protect waterways, the applicability of criminal sentence reduction laws, and access to gender-affirming medical care.  This live panel featured Brennan Center President Michael Waldman, who served on the 2021 Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, and Brennan Center Senior Fellow Caroline Fredrickson, former president of the American Constitution Society. They were interviewed by constitutional law scholar Wilfred Codrington III. It was recorded on September 25, 2024. If you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking, subscribing, and sharing with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a 5-star rating. Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing: https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing

Do you love culture war? Then the upcoming Supreme Court term is for you...You can subscribe to 5-4 Premium on Patreon, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Dustin DeSoto. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this supersized episode, Christopher Wright Durocher joins Lindsay Langholz to discuss what to expect from the imminent start to the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term.  Then, Sylvia Albert and Eyricka Geneus of Common Cause join Ashley Erickson to dig in on volunteer opportunities in this final stretch of the 2024 election cycle.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program csacasGuest: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and Program at ACSGuest: Ashley Erickson, Senior Director of Network Advancement at ACSGuest: Sylvia Albert, Director of Voting and Elections at Common CauseGuest: Eyricka Geneus, Election Protection Field Coordinator at Common CauseLink: ACS National Supreme Court Preview 2024-2025Link: The Shadow Docket by Stephen VladeckLink: ProtectTheVoteVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.

The Supreme Court kicks off its new term on Oct. 7 and the justices will hear arguments the first week in a dispute over “ghost gun” kits and an appeal from a death row inmate in Oklahoma. With about 27 cases granted for argument so far, the term is light on potential blockbusters. “There are a lot of cases that I would describe as kind of the meat and potatoes type cases that you typically see on the Supreme Court's docket,” said Kannon Shanmugam, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Paul Weiss. Shanmugam joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss the court's term and the more notable issues the justices will consider, including a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans health-care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court's latest term was marked by decisions of enormous consequence. However, the way the Court has communicated about these rulings far undersells the gravity they carry.While “expressing itself in extremely modest terms,” Professor Jeffrey Fisher says, the current Supreme Court has “[handed] down decisions that have enormously consequential effects for our democracy, people's rights, and everything in between.” He and Assistant Professor Easha Anand, co-directors of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, agree that these recent decisions could reshape American law and politics for years to come.In this episode of Stanford Legal with host Pam Karlan, Fisher, and Anand take a critical look at recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion, gun rights, tech platforms, and the power of federal agencies, examining the Court's evolving approach and considering the potential long-term impacts on American democracy and the rule of law.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Jeff Fisher >>> Stanford Law School PageEasha Anand >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction to the Supreme Court Term and Key CasesPam Karlan is joined by Professors Jeff Fisher and Easha Anand to discuss the past term at the Supreme Court, constitutional law and Supreme Court practice, highlighting key cases and themes from the term. They explore how the court's conservative majority shapes the docket and the role of Justices Barrett and Jackson in developing their judicial voices.(00:06:56) Chapter 2: High-Profile Cases: Guns, Abortion, and Administrative LawExamine major cases, including gun rights in Rahimi v. United States and Cargill v. Garland, abortion-related cases, and the pivotal Loper Bright decision affecting the administrative state. They analyze the court's reasoning and the broader implications of these rulings.(00:15:28) Chapter 3: The Court's Evolving Role and MethodologyDiscussion of the broader implications of the Supreme Court's evolving approach to its docket and decision-making processes, particularly in relation to the administrative state and the impact of recent rulings on future cases.(00:19:14) Chapter 4: The Supreme Court and Technology CasesThey delve into the significant technology cases that were brought before the Supreme Court this term. They discuss how the Court addressed state laws from Florida and Texas aimed at restricting content moderation by big tech companies, marking the first time the First Amendment was applied to social media platforms. The discussion highlights the tension between traditional legal frameworks and the evolving digital landscape, with a focus on the implications of these rulings for the future of free speech online.(00:24:10) Chapter 5: Trump and the Supreme Court: Balancing Power and ImmunityThe group explores the complex legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump's involvement in Supreme Court cases. Easha Anand provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump v. United States case, where the Court examined the extent of presidential immunity concerning acts related to the 2020 election. The discussion also touches on the broader implications of the Court's rulings on Trump's legal challenges, including how these decisions might shape future presidential conduct and accountability.(00:29:27) Chapter 6: Supreme Court's Role in Protecting DemocracyPam Karlan and Jeff Fisher discuss the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding democratic processes. They analyze the Court's reluctance to engage deeply in political matters, such as the January 6th prosecution and political gerrymandering, highlighting the tension between judicial restraint and the need to protect democratic values. The chapter concludes with reflections on the broader implications of these decisions for the future of U.S. democracy, particularly in the context of voting rights and election integrity.

In this 20-min podcast: -President Biden announces a package aimed at reforming the Supreme Court. USTL President tells the history of removal of Supreme Court Justices. -Do you agree with term limits for the Supreme Court? If so, go to www.termlimits.com/SCOTUS and sign the petition! -Indiana state chair for US Term Limits, Micah Beckwith, is running for Lt. Governor of Indiana. -FL. Gov. Ron DeSantis is fine with Supreme Court term limits, as long as we also impose them on EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS. -Ohio state chair for US Term Limits, Bernie Moreno, scoffs at those who support SCOTUS term limits without acknowledging Congressional term limits first. Stay up to date on the latest Term Limits news! Subscribe for free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can shop for hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and more at http://termlimits.com/store Has your local state Representative or Senator committed themselves to defend Term Limits? See if they are listed, and if not, ask them to sign the pledge at http://termlimits.com/pledge Help U.S. Term Limits fight to place TERM LIMITS on all members of Congress by donating at http://termlimits.com/donate. We will not stop until TERM LIMITS is enacted on ALL members of Congress, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT!! To check on the status of the Term Limits movement in your state, go to http://termlimits.com/TakeAction

President Biden has suggested some changes to the Supreme Court. One is term limits. The other is the implimentation of ethical standards. KSL Newsradio's Amanda Dickson asked her guests on A Woman's View what they think about these suggestions. Her guests this week include Francine Giani, former Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce, Lisa Walker, certified athletic trainer and teacher at Springville High School and Robin Ebmeyer, UVU's Director of Emergency Management and Safety. 

Kevin and Tim talk about the Olympics for a bit, including very online people getting mad Should the Supreme Court have term limits? Constitutional Amendment limiting immunity for Presidents and Congress from the guy Kevin ran against in 2020. A bunch of random news --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/afreesolution/support

Frank Pavone - There was some controversy to start the olympics this week in Paris, when an opening ceremony scene parodied “The Last Supper” with drag queens. Less than 24 hours after the official video was posted to YouTube, the scene was removed. In the U.S. christians are bracing for the idea of a Kamala Harris presidency. Her views align with leftist and marxist ideals of so called “tolerance”. Mike O'Fallon - “What can be, unburdened by what has been”, a phrase used by democratic nominee Kamala Harris in many if not all her speeches. What does this really mean? Plus, Joe Biden is attempting to establish term limits for the Supreme Court. The Founder of Sovereign Nations joins us to discussSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In an op-ed published Monday, President Joe Biden asserted that "no one," including Supreme Court justices, is above the law and advocated for term limits and an enforceable ethics code for the high court. Emphasizing his respect for institutional separation of powers, Biden argued that the current state of affairs undermines public confidence in the court. Later today, at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, Biden is expected to propose a system where the president appoints a justice every two years for an 18-year term and call on Congress to pass binding conduct and ethics rules for justices, including gift disclosures, a ban on public political activity, and mandatory recusal in cases of conflicts of interest. Biden will also push for a constitutional amendment to limit the broad immunity enjoyed by presidents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court wrapped up a memorable term in July with several decisions that will impact America's cities, towns and villages. Amanda Karras, the Executive Director and General Counsel of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, joins CitiesSpeak to explain what the court's decisions mean for local governments and leaders.For more information, visit us at nlc.org.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comOne of the most consequential developments of the last Supreme Court Term was the overruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the 40-year-old precedent directing courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. It came about through two cases: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, argued by Roman Martinez, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, argued by former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement (a past podcast guest).Today I'm pleased to be joined by Roman Martinez. One of the leading Supreme Court advocates of his generation, Martinez, 45, has argued 14 cases before the Court. But none has been as consequential—or controversial—as the aptly named Relentless.How does Martinez respond to claims that Relentless will have relentlessly negative consequences for American society? We explore the implications of the overturning of Chevron—along with Martinez's clerkships for then-Judge Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, his thoughts on the old versus new SCOTUS argument formats, his style as a Supreme Court advocate, and his “secret weapon” in preparing for high-court appearances—in the latest Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Roman Martinez bio, Latham & Watkins* Roman Martinez profile, Chambers and Partners* 40 Under 40: Roman Martinez, Washington Business JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

On this show, we discuss some of the major cases from the 2023-2024 Supreme Court term and implications for the future with NCCU Law Professors Don Corbett and Tamika Moses.

On this show, we discuss some of the major cases from the 2023-2024 Supreme Court term and implications for the future with NCCU Law Professors Don Corbett and Tamika Moses.

In this final (bonus) episode of Grave Injustice, Lisa Graves is joined by three top legal experts to discuss the latest term of the U.S. Supreme Court which saw the court's six right-wing appointees shelter Trump for his crimes and bestow new, almost king-like powers on the executive, uphold flagrant racial gerrymandering, and upend a long-standing legal doctrine that has major implications for the federal government's authority in keeping our air and water clean, our food and drugs safe, our environment protected, and so much more. Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the courts for Slate magazine and hosts the podcast Amicus; Michael Podhorzer, senior advisor to the AFL-CIO, Founder of the Analyst Institute and the Research Collaborative, and author of the Substack “Weekend Reading;" and Alex Aronson, director of the legal advocacy organization Court Accountability and former chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; all join Lisa to share their insights on the term and the state of the US judiciary. Subscribe to this limited series wherever you get your podcasts including Apple and Spotify. Follow COURIER on Instagram, TikTok, Threads, Facebook, and Twitter/X.You can find out more about COURIER at couriernewsroom.com

The US Supreme Court closed out a blockbuster term with rulings that are likely to shield former President Donald Trump from facing a jury until after the election and further undercut the power of federal regulators.  In decisions that split 6-3 along the court's ideological line, the justices for the first time in history said former presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts and gave businesses the ability to challenge regulations long after they've been finalized.  Cases and Controversies hosts unpack those decisions and discuss how the justices declined to rule on the constitutionality of state laws out of Florida and Texas that tried to regulate some of the largest social media platforms. They also look at how the justices voted this term and whether they issue unanimous rulings more often not, as many have claimed in public appearances.  Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Matthew Schwartz

We discuss Mark's recent column in Forbes: a brief review of five pending SCOTUS cases: (1) SEC v. Jarkesy; (2) Relentless v. Department of Commerce/ Loper Bright v. Raimondo; (3) Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; (4) Garland v. Cargill; and (5) Starbucks v. McKinney.  Administrative statists have floated a false narrative about the many indisputably important administrative law cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court this term. With at least half a dozen such cases still awaiting decision by month's end, it promises to be a watershed year. Greater freedom and constitutional restoration appear to be in the offing, which may explain the liberal meltdown that has already begun. Before the Supreme Court (erroneously) upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism last month, some commentators on the left were proclaiming that a decision leaving Congress to appropriate annual funds to the CFPB would trigger a second Great Depression. Similarly absurd claims have abounded about the remaining undecided cases, so it is time to set the record straight lest bureaucratic caterwauling lead the Court further astray.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court wrapped up oral arguments and has now turned to rolling out decisions in some of the most consequential cases of the year. Those decisions will shape policies nationwide on divisive issues like homelessness and reproductive rights, and some of them could affect the presidential election. John Yang discussed more with NewsHour Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle and Joan Biskupic. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Supreme Court wrapped up oral arguments and has now turned to rolling out decisions in some of the most consequential cases of the year. Those decisions will shape policies nationwide on divisive issues like homelessness and reproductive rights, and some of them could affect the presidential election. John Yang discussed more with NewsHour Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle and Joan Biskupic. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The Supreme Court wrapped up oral arguments and has now turned to rolling out decisions in some of the most consequential cases of the year. Those decisions will shape policies nationwide on divisive issues like homelessness and reproductive rights, and some of them could affect the presidential election. John Yang discussed more with NewsHour Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle and Joan Biskupic. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

It's the start of a new Supreme Court term... and the start of Strict Scrutiny's fifth season! While the cases ahead may seem technical and boring, they're actually quite significant. Melissa, Kate, and Leah preview the first oral arguments the Court will hear in October Term 2023.Follow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Julia Longoria, host of WNYC's "More Perfect" talks about "More Perfect's" season as some episodes re-air on WNYC this week, and Steven Mazie, Supreme Court correspondent for The Economist and legal advisor for WNYC's "More Perfect" previews the upcoming term, with cases on guns, the abortion pill and more on the schedule. 

The Supreme Court kicks off its 2023 term on Monday with guns, abortion, and affirmative action potentially coming back—whether the justices are ready for them or not. Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court's recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said. The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

UVA Law professors Scott Ballenger '96 and Aditya Bamzai discuss cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. Dean Risa Goluboff introduces Ballenger and Bamzai. The event was sponsored by the Law School Foundation. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 27, 2023)

Zach Schonfeld, staff writer for The Hill, joins Lisa Dent to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ first meeting back in Washington since leaving for their summer recess and what cases will be heard. Follow The Lisa Dent Show on Twitter:Follow @LisaDentSpeaksFollow @SteveBertrand Follow @kpowell720 Follow @maryvandeveldeFollow @LaurenLapka

LISTEN: On the Tuesday, Sept. 19 edition of Georgia Today: An Atlanta congressman leads the charge to limit the terms of U.S. Supreme Court justices; the Georgia Department of Revenue loses a bid to tax the revenue of coin-operated games; And how can state zoning laws be changed to help with the state's housing shortage?

The U.S. Supreme Court had another momentous term. From affirmative action in college admissions to critical administrative law and First Amendment cases, the court again handed down a string of decisions that will resonate for generations. In this episode, veteran court analyst Joan Biskupic returns to break down the term with Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. Biskupic has covered the court for decades and is now CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst. Her most recent book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences, was published in April.About:“More Just” from Berkeley Law is a podcast about how law schools can and must play a role in solving society's most difficult problems.The rule of law — and the role of the law — has never been more important. In these difficult times, law schools can, and must, play an active role in finding solutions. But how? Each episode of More Just starts with a problem, then explores potential solutions, featuring Dean Erwin Chemerinsky as well as other deans, professors, students, and advocates, about how they're making law schools matter.Have a question about teaching or studying law, or a topic you'd like Dean Chemerinsky to explore? Email us at morejust@berkeley.edu and tell us what's on your mind.For a transcript, please visit the episode page on the Berkeley Law podcast hub. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a 6-3 ruling at the end of the 2022-23 term, the Supreme Court handed down a major First Amendment decision about the intersection of free expression rights and anti-discrimination laws in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The Court held that Colorado could not force a website designer to design a site and create expressive designs that she disagreed with, which included creating a website for same-sex marriages. In this episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by ACLU National Legal Director David Cole and New York Times opinion columnist David French to break down the 303 Creative decision, as well as review the 2022-23 term as a whole, other key decisions from this past year, and where the Court is headed next.   Resources:    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)   ACLU (David Cole as Counsel of Record), “Brief for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado in Support of Respondents”, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis  David Cole, “The Supreme Court Picks its Battles” The New York Review (July 4, 2023)  David Cole, ACLU, “Supreme Court Term in Review: Reconciling Our Losses and Wins” July 6, 2023  David French, “Brief of 15 Family Policy Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners”, 303 Creative LCC v. Elenis  David French, The New York Times “How Christians and Drag Queens Are Defending the First Amendment” (June 30, 2023)  David French, “Harvard Undermined Itself on Affirmative Action,” New York Times (June 29, 2023)  David French, “The Supreme Court Just Helped Save American Democracy from Trumpism,” New York Times (June 27, 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. 

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Linda Greenhouse joins CT Mirror's John Dankosky to discuss the end of another consequential U.S. Supreme Court term. Greenhouse, who has covered the Court for nearly three decades at The New York Times, offers her unique perspective on what the court's recent major decisions mean, their impact across the country, and their impact on the court itself.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Between threatening Facebook and suing Wachtell, the Chief Twit is pretty active. We also talk about the end of the Supreme Court Term and the struggles in bar prep. ------ Elon Musk is desperately seeking a win and if he can't get it in a cage match against Mark Zuckerberg, he'll try his hand in court. Spoiler: it's going to go just about as badly. He's sent a legal threat to Facebook that fails to articulate much in the way of a legal issue and now he's suing Wachtell for being the lawyers that forced him to buy the company in the first place. Meanwhile the Supreme Court Term ended in a blaze of gaslighting and a hail of disingenuous spin. And now law schools are facing legal threats if their student body looks diverse. Finally, bar prep is just a little bit more stressful for students prepping with Themis, which continues to suffer website problems in the critical weeks before the exam.

New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak says the Supreme Court's liberal members have accused the conservative supermajority of engaging in politics and not applying established law to the questions before them. We'll talk about how the Court ended affirmative action in college admissions, limited the rights of gay people, and ended the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program, as well as the major ethical questions have been raised about several conservative justices.

Another Supreme Court term has come to a close. This year, the court delivered major decisions on voting rights, free speech, Indigenous sovereignty, and racial justice, among other issues. The ACLU was involved in cases throughout the term and in many ways, our wins exceeded our expectations. However, in the last two days of the term, the court dropped decisions overturning affirmative action, codifying discrimination in the name of “free speech,” and blocking President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Here to help us reconcile our wins and losses and break down the term is returning favorite, David Cole, ACLU's national legal director.

The Justices finish another historic year by barring racial preferences in college admissions and overturning President Biden's regulatory overreach in forgiving student loans. What does this tell us about the new conservative majority, and how much credit does Donald Trump get for his three High Court appointments?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Friday the Supreme Court struck down the President's plan to cancel up to $20,000 of student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans. And, the Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers Plus, protests in France continue, following the police killing of an unarmed French teenager of North African descent Also, how to protect your scared dog during 4th of July fireworks Guests: Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, Washington Post reporter on the economics of higher education, and Axios' Sam Baker. Credits: Axios Today is produced by Niala Boodhoo, Alexandra Botti, Lydia McMullen-Laird and Alex Sugiura. Music is composed by Evan Viola. You can reach us at podcasts@axios.com. You can text questions, comments and story ideas to Niala as a text or voice memo to 202-918-4893. Go deeper: Supreme Court strikes down Biden's student loan relief plan Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers How to calm scared dogs during fireworks shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

NYU Law professor and frequent MSNBC analyst Melissa Murray brings her genius perspective to the podcast this week, and explains the whys and wherefores of this intense Supreme Court term that has just come to a close. Plus, she has positive suggestions for what We, the People can do to keep our own checks and balances on the Court and lawmaking in general. There is some hope, and Professor Murray is here with it. That's not to say the M&M cookies Marissa bakes during the podcast don't help ease some of the ire of the Court's recent decision. Plus, Melissa recounts the inspiring reason she became a lawyer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court ended its term this week with three rulings that will have far reaching consequences in the lives of millions of Americans.The court struck down President Biden's student debt relief program. It also sided with a Colorado website designer who wants to refuse business to a same-sex couple, and it effectively killed affirmative action in college admissions.All three rulings were a 6-3 split. All of the court's Republican-nominated justices voting against the three justices who were put forward by Democratic presidents. NPR's Scott Detrow speaks with two legal experts, journalist Dahlia Lithwick and law professor Leah Litman from the University of Michigan, about what this term tells us about the current Supreme Court.In participating regions, you'll also hear a local news segment to help you make sense of what's going on in your community.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comTen years ago this week, the Court issued one of its most important, and devastating, decisions. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down key aspects of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This week's episode gets into the case with the legendary John Legend. It's a fitting time to do this, since I just found out I won Moore v. Harper in the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, a case that made clear that many election shenanigans are subject to serious court scrutiny. And the episode begins with a discussion of the Hunter Biden indictment and some reflections on the end of the Supreme Court Term and what to expect. There's a ton of bonus material for paid subscribers too, including John Legend's reflections on his childhood dreams and how he made the transition from a consultant at Boston Consulting Group to the mega star he is today. Please consider subscribing, and I'm giving all profits to charity.Shelby County begins back in the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. During this time, the country was deeply divided, and Jim Crow laws were rampant throughout the South. In states such as Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and others, African Americans were systematically denied their right to vote. States and counties weaponized a whole arsenal of different voter suppression tactics. Some were overt, like poll taxes to literacy tests. And others were really subtle, like changing the polling hours for an election in a minority neighborhood the day before the election took place. Or moving the polling place across the street without telling anyone.In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which was the single most important piece of voting rights legislation in American history. The Act contained many provisions, but perhaps the two most powerful were Sections 4b and 5. Taken together, these two provisions said that states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices must get federal court or federal DOJ approval before changing their voting laws. That meant any change – whether trying to have a literacy test or moving a poll across the street. Because Congress knew that there was no limit to the terrible ingenuity of racists who wanted to block people from voting.Now this didn't impact the whole country.  Section 4b, it limited the preclearance requirements only to those states and counties which, prior to the 1964 presidential election, had a voting test in place and less than 50 percent voter registration. This is known as the “Coverage Formula.” In 1965, the formula covered nine states and a few dozen counties that tended to be the most racially discriminatory.The Voting Rights Act (or VRA, as it's called) was passed in 1965 and set to expire after five years. So, the Act was reauthorized in 1970. It was reauthorized yet again in 1975, 1982, and, in 2006. Each time the Act was reauthorized, it was challenged in Court. Time and again, however, the Supreme Court upheld the law; the Court pointed to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting and gives Congress “the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”But then President Obama won the Presidency. And I was tasked with representing the federal Government in defending the Voting Rights Act. It was my 4th Supreme Court argument ever.  My boss Elena Kagan had a long confirmation process, and so instead of her as Solicitor General arguing it, the task fell to me. I worked my tail off.  But it was hard to argue about the persistence of race discrimination 3 months after the nation elected its first black President.  In any event, I threw myself in, and gave what I think was a pretty bang-up argument. I knew the Act had the blood of patriots on its pages – that Selma and the bridge were a deep part of its history.  And I made much of the argument looking directly at Justice Clarence Thomas, because I really wanted his vote.  Well, in any event, we did save the constitutionality of the VRA, in an 8-1 decision.  The one dissenter: Clarence Thomas!In that 2009 decision, called Northwest Austin v. Holder, the Court said that the VRA could stand.  But it said that it was worried the government would have to justify the coverage formula – that it hadn't been updated in 50 years. And so, over the next years, these largely Southern States argued that the coverage formula was unfair.  And so that's the issue in Shelby County.The Court heard the case, and issued a sweeping 5-4 ruling. Writing for the Majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the coverage formula was outdated and violates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. He pointed to the changes in voting registration numbers between 1965 and 2006 (when the VRA was reauthorized). For example, in Alabama in 1965, white voter registration was 50 percent higher than Black voter registration; in 2006, that difference was less than one percent. In Mississippi, there was a 63 percent difference between black and white voter registration in 1965, but in 2006, Black voter registration exceeded white voter registration by 3 percent. In short, the Chief Justice concluded that the Coverage Formula no longer addresses current voting disparities, and therefore must be unconstitutional. He writes the following: “In 1965, the States could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were…”Justice Ginsburg wrote a phenomenal dissent, one I go into some detail talking about with John Legend. There's no better person to talk about and explain these concepts—John has spent years thinking about and supporting voting rights.If you want a bunch of background material on the Shelby County case, including a short summary of the decision, a longer abridged one, and the full text of the decision, you can find it all at https://nealkatyal.substack.com/

Having accomplished their big goals of overturning Roe and giving a praying football coach back a job he never actually lost and apparently does not want to anymore, conservatives are now looking to the next Supreme Court term. This year, as part of their continued campaign to prove that racism does not exist, they'll try to eliminate affirmative action and federal Indian Law.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/fivefourpod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.