Advisory Opinions

Missouri’s redistricting fight returns to the Supreme Court, raising thorny questions about timing, standing, and constitutional remedies. Sarah Isgur and David French explore how India’s relaxed standing rules contributed to judicial gridlock, revisit the limits of federal marijuana protections, and debate whether school murals count as government speech. They also weigh congressional dysfunction and the case against expanding the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s long conference sets the stage for debates over vulgar student speech, race-neutral admissions, and the heckler’s veto. A prosecutor faces referral over alleged courtroom deception. The discussion also tackles marijuana contracts trapped between state legalization and federal law, warrantless phone searches at the border, immigration rulings after Loper Bright, and surveillance of gun stores.

Amy Howe, co-founder and former editor of SCOTUSblog, joins a lively preview of the Supreme Court’s upcoming term. The discussion ranges from Trump’s mail-voting and Arizona citizenship cases to Second Amendment history, climate liability, religious liberty, jury trials, transgender care, and Apple versus Epic. They also spotlight potential blockbuster cases still waiting to reach the docket.

A disputed Missouri congressional map sparks a tense debate over whether the state nearly triggered a constitutional crisis. The conversation turns to how history and tradition shape unenumerated rights, abortion, and gun cases, before examining presidential control of the executive branch. They also weigh whether teachers’ pride flags are personal expression or government speech, with a preview of major Supreme Court battles ahead.

Chief Judge Jeff Sutton, a federalism scholar and author, and Neil Weare, a territorial-law attorney raised in Guam, explore America’s complicated territorial legacy. They unpack the racial foundations of the Insular Cases, congressional power, Puerto Rico’s oversight board, and the unsettled status of American Samoa. The conversation also examines Trump v. Barbara and the stakes for birthright citizenship.

A 5-4 Supreme Court ruling lets the White House ballroom project proceed while reigniting debate over aesthetic standing and judicial limits. The discussion explores whether justices should release their papers sooner, how AI is appearing in appellate opinions, South Carolina’s age-based absentee voting restriction, and a growing dispute over acting officials under the Vacancies Reform Act.

A lively legal grab bag explores mail-in ballot headlines, a revised constitutional reading, Pentagon Papers and the limits of prior restraint, and student visas threatened over speech. The discussion also covers felons’ voting rights, pink-bracelet viewpoint discrimination at a soccer game, Project Veritas litigation, and which First Amendment disputes could reach the Supreme Court.

Jake Auchincloss, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts and Marine Corps veteran, discusses fixing Congress and restoring institutional power. He explains multi-member districts and House expansion as representation remedies. They debate separation of powers, Article I priorities like appropriations, and reforms for the Supreme Court such as 18-year terms and ethics rules.

Tom Griffith, former D.C. Circuit judge sharing views on judging and retired judges. David Tatel, veteran D.C. Circuit jurist and author on judicial independence. They weigh civility versus collegiality, discuss how respectful debate shapes opinions, consider when dissent is necessary, and reflect on the public role of retired judges and civic education.

Chris Scalia, AEI-affiliated scholar and son/editor of Justice Antonin Scalia, helps craft and perform a Heller one-act to check AI's fidelity. The conversation scrutinizes what ChatGPT got right about Scalia's textualist, history-focused approach. They debate Breyer's pragmatic voice, the limits of AI drafts, historical analogies, and how to stage judicial arguments for accuracy.