New York Magazine journalist Irin Carmon discusses the practical effects of the Supreme Court's ruling on mifepristone in front of a live audience at the Tribeca Festival. The hosts analyze recent court opinions, including the FDA approval of mifepristone for medication abortion and legal battles over abortion pills. They also reflect on accomplishments, set goals for the year, and discuss court agency deference, science, and potential Chevron overruling.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Supreme Court favored Winter four-part test in Starbucks vs. Mckinney case for preliminary injunctions.
Court unanimously sided against Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in Mifepristone case.
Implications of 'history and tradition' approach in First Amendment cases explored in podcast.
Deep dives
NLRB's Test for Preliminary Injunctions in Labor Cases
The Supreme Court examined the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction against employers in cases involving union activities. The case Starbucks vs. Mckinney focused on the NLRB's requirement to rehire workers unlawfully terminated for engaging in union activities. Justice Thomas favored the Winter four-part test endorsed by Starbucks to determine the grant of preliminary injunctions, with Justice Jackson partially concurring and dissenting with a longer opinion.
Jurisdictional Grounds in FDA vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
In the case FDA vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court reviewed the authorization of Mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion protocols. The court unanimously sided against the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, claiming they lacked standing to bring the suit. The case highlighted the complexities of jurisdictional decisions in the context of abortion laws and legal challenges.
Implications of History and Tradition Approach in First Amendment Cases
The podcast episode explored the implications of adopting a 'history and tradition' approach in First Amendment cases, specifically in the context of trademark regulations. Justice Thomas endorsed the approach in Starbucks vs. McKinney, while Justice Jackson raised concerns about its potential impact on the interpretation of free speech rights. The discussion hinted at broader implications for future rulings and the evolution of constitutional law interpretations.
Conversations with Justice Alito and Martha Alito at the Supreme Court Historical Society Dinner
At a dinner event attended by Lauren Windsor, she engaged in conversation with Justice Alito and Martha Alito, presenting herself as a religious conservative while secretly recording their discussion. Alito expressed skepticism about peacefully coexisting with differing views, emphasizing the need to win moral arguments to restore the country to godliness.
Insights into Judicial Ethics Disclosures and Gifts
The podcast delves into the disclosure forms of Supreme Court justices, highlighting Justice Alito's recent request for an extension in filing his financial report and the unique gifts disclosed by other justices. The discussion reflects on the need for comprehensive ethics reform in Congress to regulate justices' gifts and strengthen judicial oversight.
Live from New York, it's Strict Scrutiny! Elie Mystal guest hosts with Kate and Melissa in front of a sold-out crowd at the Tribeca Festival to break down opinions, perform dramatic readings of the secret Alito recordings, and imagine some end-of-year yearbook pages for the justices. Plus, New York Magazine's Irin Carmon joins to talk about the practical effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in the mifepristone case.
To watch the full episode, complete with Martha-ritas and yearbook superlatives, head to our YouTube channel