Gabrielle Bourbet is a sharp-eyed reporter who uncovered factual inaccuracies in Supreme Court rulings on gun control, while Allison Or Larson, a law professor at William and Mary, dissects the Court’s decision-making process. They discuss how historical laws challenge contemporary rulings and the critical role of amicus curiae briefs in shaping legal outcomes. The conversation highlights the evolution of legal arguments, the influence of advocacy groups like Moms Demand Action, and the necessity for precision in judicial interpretations, all while navigating the complex legacy of the Brandeis brief.
44:13
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
menu_book Books
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
question_answer ANECDOTE
The Courthouse Basement Search
Jennifer Birch, working with Moms Demand Action, searched the Orange County Historical Archives for old gun laws.
She aimed to challenge the Supreme Court's factual basis in a landmark gun rights case.
insights INSIGHT
Challenging the Supreme Court
Moms Demand Action challenged the Supreme Court's claim in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The court claimed that pre-1900 concealed carry laws weren't common, impacting gun restrictions nationwide.
question_answer ANECDOTE
A Historical Discovery
Jennifer Birch discovered an 1892 Santa Ana law banning concealed weapons.
This discovery contradicted Justice Thomas's claim, proving such bans existed pre-1900.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
Published in 1912, 'Fatigue and Efficiency' is a comprehensive study that demonstrates how excessive working hours are detrimental not only to workers but also to overall productivity. Goldmark's research emphasizes the importance of reducing working hours to improve both workers' health and efficiency. The book is a powerful plea for more humane industrial practices based on scientific grounds.
For a long time, the Court operated under what was called Legal Formalism. Legal formalism said that the job of any judge or justice was incredibly narrow. It was to basically look at the question of the case in front of them, check that question against any existing laws, and then make a decision. Unlike today, no one was going out of their way to hear what economists or sociologists or historians thought. Judges were just sticking to law books. The rationale for this way of judging was that if you always and only look at clean, dry law the decisions would be completely objective.
In the late 19th, early 20th century a movement rose up to challenge legal formalism. They called themselves the legal realists. Fred Schauer, professor of law at University of Virginia, says the Realists felt that the justices weren’t actually as objective as they said they were. "Supreme Court justices were often making decisions based on their own political views, their own economic views, and would disguise it in the language of precedence or earlier decisions," says Schauer. The realists said lets just accept that reality and wanted to arm the judges with more information so those judges could make more informed decisions. For a long time the debate between realists and formalists had been mostly theoretical. That is until the arrival of the Brandeis Brief. The Brandeis brief came during a pivotal court case in the early 20th century. And the man at the center of that case was a legal realist and progressive reformer named Louis Brandeis.
99% Invisible 
