Advisory Opinions

Hosts delve into a pivotal Supreme Court case on conversion therapy, noting the surprisingly low media coverage. They explore First Amendment implications and the nuances of Colorado's Minor Protection Act. Justice Sotomayor raises provocative hypotheticals about therapy versus medical treatment, igniting a debate on malpractice versus state bans. Additionally, they discuss the federal deployment of the National Guard in Portland and tackle listener questions about sentencing and court preferences, providing a dynamic blend of legal insights and lively commentary.

David Lat, founder of Original Jurisdiction and seasoned legal commentator, joins to dissect the Supreme Court's long conference. They explore the implications of several key decisions, including the sentencing of Justice Kavanaugh's would-be assassin, and delve into why Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal was dismissed. The discussion also critiques Justice Alito's views on originalism versus living constitutionalism, shedding light on how judicial philosophies could shift the future of landmark rulings like Obergefell.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and former law professor, joins Judge Patrick Bumatay for an engaging conversation. They discuss her judicial philosophy, the significance of originalism, and the challenges of public scrutiny and recusal practices. Barrett reflects on her journey from academic to judge, the rigors of the Supreme Court confirmation process, and the role of historical context in legal interpretation. She also reveals personal stories and insights into how she balances her work with family life.

Explore the Supreme Court's intriguing upcoming term, covering vital topics. Delve into tariff cases that spark debates on foreign policy. Analyze the legalities surrounding conversion therapy and its implications. Discover the complexities of transgender participation in sports and potential First Amendment shifts concerning campaign finance. Additionally, consider how IQ tests intersect with the death penalty, as well as the importance of religious liberties in shaping legal outcomes.

The hosts dive into the contentious indictment of James Comey, exploring the grand jury process and highlighting concerns about selective prosecution. They debate whether presidents can direct individual prosecutions, citing historical examples of executive influence. The conversation touches on the potential political fallout of acquittals and dismissals and why these could intensify public polarization. They also dissect notable Supreme Court dissents, emphasizing the powerful role personal experiences play in shaping judicial opinions.

The hosts dive into the Supreme Court's surprising decision to hear a case prematurely, raising questions about judicial processes. They discuss the contentious debate over the Federal Trade Commission’s power and whether courts can intervene when officials are removed by the president. The concept of originalism takes center stage, with its influence on contemporary rulings like Roe v. Wade. Tensions in healthcare coverage for gender-affirming surgeries also spark discussion, alongside an analysis of the Alien Enemies Act and its implications for presidential authority.

Join Sarah Isgur and David French as they chat with Justin Driver, a Yale Law professor and author of The Fall of Affirmative Action. They dive into the controversial Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, unpacking the complex dynamics of racial equity versus colorblind principles. Driver argues that both conservative and progressive viewpoints oversimplify the issue. The discussion also touches on race-neutral alternatives in admissions, potential impacts on campus life, and the political pressures affecting higher education.

Richard Primus, a law professor and author of The Oldest Constitutional Question, challenges traditional views on congressional powers and their limits. He argues that limits on Congress don’t stem from enumeration but rather from broader constitutional principles. The conversation also dives into the implications of hate speech laws, the impact of emergency dockets on judicial decisions, and the nuances of the Tenth Amendment. Primus brings historical context to federal powers, making a compelling case for a reconsideration of how we view federalism.

The discussion dives into the chilling rise of violence in American discourse and its impact on free speech, especially on college campuses. It highlights the concept of stochastic terrorism and the significant effects that public figures can have on susceptible individuals. Concerns about online foreign influence and the role of social media in amplifying extreme views take center stage. The legal complexities surrounding Section 230 and the balance between security and free speech during campus events are also scrutinized.

Dive into the legal intricacies of military action as the hosts dissect the president's authority to order strikes without congressional approval. Explore the complexities of armed conflict laws and how they intersect with the Constitution. There's a critical look at ongoing Supreme Court cases, including Trump's tariffs and immigration enforcement. Additionally, the discussion touches on the Federal Reserve's unique structure and its implications for executive power. Tune in for a captivating analysis of law, politics, and the balance of power!