Cato Daily Podcast
'Jawboning' and Murthy v. Missouri
Jul 10, 2024
Legal experts Walter Olson and Brent Skorup discuss the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, highlighting the concept of 'jawboning' and the importance of meeting specific legal criteria for standing. They explore government pressure on speech platforms, implications of the court ruling on standing, and strategies for ensuring government transparency.
20:33
Episode guests
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
- Clear factors for standing are essential in legal challenges, emphasizing traceability of injury and redressability.
- Different approaches to government influence were shown in Volo and Murthy cases, highlighting nuances in establishing harm and causal links.
Deep dives
Impact of Standing on the Outcome of the Murthy Case
The Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri focused on the importance of standing in legal challenges. Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized the need for plaintiffs to establish clear factors for standing, such as traceability of injury and redressability. By showcasing the lack of adequate showings by the plaintiffs in Murthy, the court highlighted the critical role of standing in determining the viability of a case.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
