The hosts analyze United States v. Rahimi, a second amendment case, and the conservative shift in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. They discuss Justice Jackson's arguments against the Bruin test and the connection between Chevron and the Second Amendment. They also delve into another Supreme Court case and an exchange on sovereign immunity, as well as oral arguments and stare decisis. Finally, they criticize the Fifth Circuit's reliance on Robert Bork and tease a special episode on Dobbs related cases.
Read more
AI Summary
Highlights
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson raised concerns about the potential erosion of gun regulations and the consequences of the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, emphasizing the need to clarify and reconsider the Bruin test.
Solicitor General Prelogar highlighted the misinterpretation of the Bruin test by lower courts, leading to destabilizing consequences and invalidated regulations, and urged the court to correct the error.
Justice Kagan expressed skepticism towards the NRA's argument in NRA versus Vullo, questioning the wide-ranging implications of the court's decision on gun regulations and challenging the NRA's counsel to clarify their claims.
Deep dives
The Court considers the implications of the Bruin test
During oral arguments, Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson challenged the methodology and implications of the Bruin test, emphasizing the difficulty in determining the level of generality in historical analogies. They expressed concern over the potential erosion of gun regulations and the consequences of the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Justice Kagan questioned the applicability of the historical framing in modern legislation, while Justice Jackson raised concerns about the selective culling of history. Both justices emphasized that the court should clarify and reconsider the Bruin test to avoid chaos and disastrous implications.
Solicitor General criticizes the misinterpretation of Bruin
Solicitor General Prelogar highlighted the misinterpretation of the Bruin test by lower courts, which required a precise historical analog to justify modern-day firearms regulations. She argued that the error has led to destabilizing consequences and cited examples of cases where regulations were invalidated based on the absence of exact analogs from a historical context. Prelogar urged the court to correct the misinterpretation and reiterated the government's position that disarming dangerous individuals is constitutional under the Second Amendment.
Justice Kagan challenges the implications of the argument
Justice Kagan expressed skepticism towards the NRA's argument in NRA versus Vullo, suggesting that the consequences of the argument are untenable. She questioned whether Congress can disarm people who are mentally ill or have engaged in domestic violence, highlighting the potential wide-ranging implications of the court's decision on gun regulations. Justice Kagan challenged the NRA's counsel to clarify the argument, suggesting that they were trying to avoid the ramifications of their claims.
Conclusion on the court's stance
The court appears likely to uphold the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders in the Rahimi case. However, the broader implications of the court's ruling and the future of the Bruin test remain uncertain. Justices Kagan and Jackson demonstrated skepticism towards the current methodology and urged the court to reconsider and clarify the test. It is yet to be seen how the court will address these concerns and whether they will provide guidance on the level of generality in historical analogies under the Second Amendment.
Disagreement over lawsuits and immunity
During the podcast episode, there was a discussion about the disagreement among the justices regarding whether lawsuits could be brought against the government due to the waiver of immunity. Justice Gorsuch and the Democratic appointees seemed to believe that lawsuits could be brought, while the outcome of the case remains to be seen.
Challenges to veterans' education benefits
Another key point discussed in the podcast episode was the case Roodasil v. McDonough, which deals with the rules for veterans who qualify for education benefits under two different programs. The court explored the question of whether veterans can immediately access the more generous benefits or if they have to exhaust the benefits under the less generous program first. The court seemed inclined to allow veterans to access the more generous benefits first, but expressed skepticism towards the government's argument.
Kate, Melissa, and Leah recap the arguments in United States v. Rahimi, the case about the constitutionality of gun regulations, featuring diss tracks by KBJ.