Divided Argument Lake Shrimp
8 snips
Jan 16, 2026 The hosts delve into the Supreme Court's latest opinions on election law and the Fourth Amendment. They dissect Bost v. Illinois, where the Court ruled on candidate standing in vote-counting disputes, sparking debate about voters versus candidates. Next, Case v. Montana introduces the emergency-aid doctrine, leading to discussions on evidentiary standards and Justice Sotomayor's insights on de-escalation. The episode blends legal analysis with humor, all while revealing a generous donation to the Constitutional Law Institute.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Standing Rule Trades Competitiveness For More Litigation
- Allowing candidates to sue regardless of competitiveness avoids courts policing electoral closeness.
- That approach risks many post-election suits and raises remedial and prudential complications.
Prove Concrete Campaign Costs For Standing
- When litigating election rules, document concrete campaign expenditures and operational changes tied to the rule.
- Use those direct pocketbook harms to strengthen Article III standing arguments.
Dissent: Voters, Not Candidates, Safeguard Democracy
- Justice Jackson warned the majority centers candidates while sidelining voters' democratic interests.
- The dissent emphasized that voters, not candidates, are the primary protectors of electoral integrity.