Legal experts Melissa, Leah, and Kate recap oral arguments in cases about unhoused people, immigration, and Starbucks unions. They address listener questions on fighting against the Comstock Act, trolling conservatives with lawsuits, and Democrat-appointed justices' behavior. They also promote their live event at the Tribeca Film Festival.
Challenging the Comstock Act should focus on liberty, equal protection, speech rights, and First Amendment objections.
The likelihood of the Chevron doctrine being abolished after this term is very high, impacting future court decisions.
Democratic-appointed justices face challenges in openly criticizing the court to maintain collegiality and relationships within.
Deep dives
Fight Against Comstock Act
Challenging the Comstock Act should focus on liberty, equal protection, speech rights, and First Amendment objections. Religious grounds objecting to fetal personhood can be raised on grounds prioritizing maternal well-being in some faiths. Addressing the Comstock Act through legal challenges requires examination of historical enforcement and potential constitutional issues.
Potential Abolition of Chevron Doctrine
The likelihood of the Chevron doctrine being abolished after this term is very high. The court might explicitly overturn Chevron, implicitly abandon it, or follow a pattern of veiled abandonment seen in other cases. The impact may vary based on the approach taken by the court.
Nationwide Injunctions and Judicial Powers
Nationwide injunctions can be ordered by a single judge to halt unconstitutional federal policies on a nationwide basis or to overturn administrative agency rules. While it can be a tool for good, it has also been controversially used. Resources by legal scholars like Mila Sohoni, Sam Bray, and Nick Bagley provide insights into the authority and implications of nationwide relief.
Implications of Judicial Opinions
Concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and partial concurrences can vary in their legal weight and impact. Concurring opinions that provide the deciding vote or outline the prevailing opinion on critical issues can hold significant authority in shaping legal precedent. Historical instances like Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown highlight the lasting influence of judicial opinions.
Challenges Facing Liberal Justices in Speaking Out
Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices face challenges in openly criticizing the court due to the need to maintain collegiality and not alienate conservative justices. Their role as institutionalists hinders them from openly calling out their colleagues for their decisions, as it could impact future rulings and relationships within the court.
Media Coverage of SCOTUS Cases
Mainstream media often overlooks significant trends in Supreme Court cases by focusing only on landmark or big cases. This limited coverage leads to a lack of nuanced understanding by the public. The technical nature of legal topics requires expertise to effectively interpret and convey the implications of court decisions. Supplementing mainstream media sources with detailed analysis, such as provided by podcasts like Strict Scrutiny, can offer a more comprehensive understanding of SCOTUS cases.
Melissa, Leah, and Kate recap oral arguments in cases about unhoused people, immigration, and Starbucks unions. Then, it's our second annual listener mailbag episode! What's the best way to fight against usage of the Comstock Act? Should liberals be using law suits to troll conservatives? Why don't the Democrat-appointed justices speak out about their colleagues' poor behavior? You asked, we answered!
Strict Scrutiny will be live at the Tribeca Film Festival on June 13th! Tickets are on sale now. Learn more and get tickets at tribecafilm.com/strict
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
