Scotuscast

On November 9th, the Court heard argument in Ramirez v. Collier, a case which concerned Texas’ decision to allow Ramirez’s pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbid the pastor from laying his hands on his parishioner. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel of the Catholic University of America. Mrs. Lichter has served on the Domestic Policy Counsel, in the Office of Legal Policy, and as in-house counsel for the Archdiocese of Washington.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.Featuring: - Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley- Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School- Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law- Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law- Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law

On November 3rd, the Court heard argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, a case which concerned whether New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violates the Second Amendment. Examining oral argument today, we have Professor Adam Winkler, the Connell Professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, and Professor Robert Leider of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School.

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced. A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On November 8th, the Court heard argument in Unicolors, Inc. V. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Zvi Rosen of Southern Illinois University School of Law.

On November 30, the Court heard argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a case which asked: "Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council permits the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data; and (2) whether petitioners’ suit challenging HHS’s adjustments is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1395l(t)(12)." Joining today to discuss this case is Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

On October 6th, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. Zubaydah, a case which concerned "whether the 9th circuit erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C 1782(a) against former CIA contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities." Joining today to discuss this case in two parts is Kate Comerford Todd, managing partner at Ellis George Cipollone in Washington, DC.

On October 12, 2021 the Court heard oral argument in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a case which concerned whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law. Joining today to discuss this argument and its implications is Elbert Lin, Partner and co-chair of the Issue and Appeals practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth.

We begin this October term with Wooden v. United States, argued October 4, 2021, a case which concerned the Armed Career Criminal Act. Nine justices convened, in person, to examine the issue of whether offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree, but sequentially in time, were “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement. With me today to discuss this case is Jennifer Barrow, Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Barrow is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Harvard Law School, and has served as a Supreme Court Fellow, placed at the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

We conclude the October sitting with United States v. Tsarnaev, argued on October 13th, 2021, a case which concerned procedural elements of Dzhokar Tsarnaev's capital sentences pertaining to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Joining today is Richard Broughton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Detroit Mercy.

On June 25th, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, a case which concerned whether Alaska native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act “Indian Tribes” for purposes of the CARES Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court, which held that ANCs are “Indian tribe[s]” under ISDA and thus eligible for funding under Title V of the CARES Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, arguing that the plain language and construction of the ISDA suggest that ANCs are not “Indian tribes,” supported by analogy to another statute with “nearly identical language in remarkably similar contexts,” and that the majority overlooked the critical statutory word “recognized.”With me today to discuss this case are Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fan LLP, and Jennifer Weddle, Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s American Indian Law

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., a case which concerned whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 decision, holding that “while public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome the student’s interest in free expression in this case.” Justice Thomas offered the lone dissent in the decision. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case which concerned whether a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court, holding that California’s access regulation constitutes a per se physical taking. Joining me today to discuss this decision in Wen Fa, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Collins v. Yellen, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Jason Levine, Partner at Alston & Bird, and Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Lange v. California, a case which concerned whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement apply when police are pursuing a suspect whom they believe committed a misdemeanor. In a unanimous decision, the Court held for Lange that "pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home." Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the court. I am joined today by Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, Larry H. James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Brown and James, and Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.

On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, a case which concerned whether the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation for college athletes violated federal antitrust law. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch affirmed the ruling of the lower court, holding that the NCAA’s rules restricting certain education-related benefits for student-athletes violate federal antitrust laws under a “rule of reason” analysis. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael Murray, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice.

On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority to appoint Administrative Patent Judges. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office, thereby vacating the lower court's judgement and remanding for further review.Three experts join us today to discuss the ruling. They are Professor Kristen Osenga, Austen E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, Professor Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington Law School, and Professor Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Center for medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

On June 17th, 2021 the Supreme Court decided California v. Texas, a case which concerned whether Texas (along with over a dozen States and two individuals) had standing to challenge the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, Justice Breyer noted that “plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.” Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Two experts join us to discuss the ruling and offer their differing views on the constitutional issues involved, including standing and the wider question of severability. They are Professor Jonathan Adler, the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow at the Co

On June 17th, 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. The issue before the court was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court, which held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Joining us today to discuss this decision is Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law at Catholic University.

On June 17, 2021 the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 decision in Nestle USA, Inc. V. Doe et al and the consolidated case of Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I. In this case, the Court considered the question of whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute can overcome the exterritoriality bar where the claim based is on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity.Discussing this decision today are Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Professor William S. Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and MLK Jr. Professor of Law at the UC Davis School of Law and Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director at the Robert A. Levy Cen