Divided Argument

As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes.

After a vacation-related hiatus, we're back to discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron) and Corner Post v. Board of Governors (time limits for challenges to regulations). We try to figure out just how disruptive these decisions will be for the administrative state and somehow manage not to waste half the episode debating Supreme Court ethics.

The podcast delves into the Trump v. United States case, exploring legal decisions, presidential powers like the pardon power, immunity challenges, prosecution evidence, and the role of the Chief Justice. They debate statutory arguments, high-profile cases, and speculate on past justices' actions, all while engaging in lively discussions and enthusiastic banter.

We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

The podcast discusses Supreme Court cases on gun laws and jury sentencing, with insights on separate opinions, tiers of scrutiny in constitutional interpretation, post-enactment history, and the debate between concurrent and consecutive sentences. It also touches on Justice Ginsburg's rulings, tax system concerns, feedback on podcast content, and academic funding impact.

The podcast discusses Supreme Court decisions on bump stocks, abortion laws, and bankruptcy fees. They explore recusal standards, ethical implications of gifts to officials, and statutory interpretation in firearms regulation. The hosts analyze public statements by justices and debate constitutional remedies in bankruptcy cases.

The podcast delves into Supreme Court opinions on voting rights and free speech, listener feedback, and the ongoing Alito flag saga. They discuss Justice Breyer's book review, concurring opinions, flag controversies, and the challenges faced by political figures with family members in politics. Also, they explore Justice Thomas's views on racial gerrymandering, implications of NRA vs. New York Authorities, and a rare reversal of habeas grant in a capital case.

Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence. 

We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright).And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry!

The podcast covers topics like universal relief in Labrador v. Poe, takings in Devillier v. Texas, and Title VII in Muldrow v. St. Louis. They discuss Supreme Court justices' job satisfaction, prediction of Justice Alito's retirement, challenges in originalist research, certworthiness in emergency applications, complexities of takings issues, and analysis of discrimination cases under Title VII.