Scotuscast

On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote.Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.

On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote. Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.

On June 25, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court issued the opinion, penned by Justice Alito, in the case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.The court reversed and remanded the case to the courts below, holding that, As applied in this case, U. S. C. § 1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by a noncitizen detained for expedited removal—does not violate the suspension or due process clauses.Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg Joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.To discuss the case, we have O.H. Skinner, Arizona Solicitor General.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. By a vote of 7-2, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was reversed, and the case remanded. Per Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court: "We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to decide whether the United States Forest Service has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U. S. C. §181 et seq., to grant rights-of-way through lands within national forests traversed by the Appalachian Trail. 588 U. S. ___ (2019). We hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does grant the Forest Service that authority and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit." Justice Thomas's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in full, and by Justice Ginsburg as to all but Part III-B-2. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kagan.To discuss the

On July 9, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Jimcy McGirt sought post-conviction relief of three major sexual assault convictions, arguing his crimes occurred in Indian Country and thus were subject to the Indian Major Crimes Act. If that law applies, Mr. McGirt’s crimes should have been prosecuted in federal, rather than state court.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McGirt, holding that land in northeastern Oklahoma--reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century-- remains a reservation in accordance with a federal statute that gives the federal government jurisdiction to try certain major crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. Therefore, Oklahoma state courts did not have jurisdiction to convict Mr. McGirt. To discuss this case and its implications, we have Andy Lester, partner at Spencer Fane LLP.

On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey Berru. In a 7-2 ruling, the court held that that a “ministerial exemption” derived from the First Amendment prevents civil courts from adjudicating schoolteacher Morrisey-Berru’s age discrimination claim. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, held that the process of identifying religious ministers within a specific faith group must be largely left up to that particular faith group, resulting in the reversal of the Ninth Circuits determination that Morrissey-Berru was not a minister. Joining us to discuss this case and its implications is Daniel Blomberg, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, upholding in a 7-2 ruling a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. To discuss this case and its implications, we have Eric Kniffin, Partner at Lewis Roca Rothberger Christie LLP.

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., a case involving a dispute over whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.By a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the case, holding that The exception for calls to collect government debt from a federal ban on robocalls to cellphones violates the First Amendment, but the exception is severable from the rest of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.Justice Thomas joined the court’s opinion as to parts I and II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and

On June 29, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications. To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein

On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its first major abortion decision on the merits since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. The consolidated cases, June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services, involved the constitutionality of Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations, such as Louisiana's admitting privileges law, on behalf of their patients. The plurality opinion held that the abortion providers had standing and Louisiana's law was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden. To discuss the case, we have Stephen H. Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel at Americans United for Life.

On June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana was reversed and the case remanded.Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Kagan as to Part I. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion.To discuss the case, we have Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice.

On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that raises separation of power questions regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Specifically the Court ruled on whether Congress’s law that created the CFPB can stipulate that the President could not remove the Bureau’s director “at will”. Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opini

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded. The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and im

On June 15, by a vote of 6-3 the Supreme Court released its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (combined with Altitude Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc.), the Supreme Court affirmed that the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was reversed, and the case remanded (and the judgments of the Second Circuit in Altitude Express and the Sixth Circuit in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes are affirmed).Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh. To discuss the case, we have Curt Levey, President of the Committee for Justice.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 14, 2020, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor the Supreme Court, in a vote of 9-0, reversed and remanded the case Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group holding:Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit.To discuss the case, we have Paul Stancil, Professor of Law at Bingham Young University.

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC.By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the 11th Circuit. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that “The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.” Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.To discuss the case, we have Sadie Blanchard, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College.In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election. To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, a case involving a dispute over whether making a formal objection after pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence is necessary to invoke appellate review of the reasonableness of the sentence’s length.In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol

On May 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which involves a dispute over whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was found guilty of one count of first degree rape by instrumentation, one count of lewd molestation, and one count of forcible sodomy. McGirt was sentenced to 500 years in prison without parole. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court declined to review McGirt’s petition. He then filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction because the crimes occurred in Indian Country where McGirt was a member of the Creek Nations of Oklahoma.To discuss the case, we have Troy Eid, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the consolidated cases of Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which involve a dispute over:(1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.To discuss the case, we have Erin Hawley, Senior Fellow at the Kinder Institute for Constitutional Democracy at