On October 6th, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. Zubaydah, a case which concerned "whether the 9th circuit erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C 1782(a) against former CIA contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities." Joining today to discuss this case in two parts is Kate Comerford Todd, managing partner at Ellis George Cipollone in Washington, DC.

On October 12, 2021 the Court heard oral argument in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a case which concerned whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law. Joining today to discuss this argument and its implications is Elbert Lin, Partner and co-chair of the Issue and Appeals practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth.

We begin this October term with Wooden v. United States, argued October 4, 2021, a case which concerned the Armed Career Criminal Act. Nine justices convened, in person, to examine the issue of whether offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree, but sequentially in time, were “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement. With me today to discuss this case is Jennifer Barrow, Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Barrow is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Harvard Law School, and has served as a Supreme Court Fellow, placed at the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

We conclude the October sitting with United States v. Tsarnaev, argued on October 13th, 2021, a case which concerned procedural elements of Dzhokar Tsarnaev's capital sentences pertaining to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Joining today is Richard Broughton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Detroit Mercy.

On June 25th, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, a case which concerned whether Alaska native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act “Indian Tribes” for purposes of the CARES Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court, which held that ANCs are “Indian tribe[s]” under ISDA and thus eligible for funding under Title V of the CARES Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, arguing that the plain language and construction of the ISDA suggest that ANCs are not “Indian tribes,” supported by analogy to another statute with “nearly identical language in remarkably similar contexts,” and that the majority overlooked the critical statutory word “recognized.”With me today to discuss this case are Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fan LLP, and Jennifer Weddle, Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s American Indian Law practice.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., a case which concerned whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 decision, holding that “while public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome the student’s interest in free expression in this case.” Justice Thomas offered the lone dissent in the decision. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case which concerned whether a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court, holding that California’s access regulation constitutes a per se physical taking. Joining me today to discuss this decision in Wen Fa, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Collins v. Yellen, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Jason Levine, Partner at Alston & Bird, and Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Lange v. California, a case which concerned whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement apply when police are pursuing a suspect whom they believe committed a misdemeanor. In a unanimous decision, the Court held for Lange that "pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home." Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the court. I am joined today by Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, Larry H. James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Brown and James, and Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.

On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, a case which concerned whether the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation for college athletes violated federal antitrust law. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch affirmed the ruling of the lower court, holding that the NCAA’s rules restricting certain education-related benefits for student-athletes violate federal antitrust laws under a “rule of reason” analysis. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael Murray, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice.