Divided Argument

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.

After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies.

After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour!

We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech.

After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot?