On April 28, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The question before the court was whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus. Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On April 19, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sanchez v. Mayorkas. The question before the court was under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of temporary protected status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.Hon. Grover Joseph Rees joins us today to dicsuss this case's oral argument.

On April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi. The issue was whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, holding, “The Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.”Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel for the Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor of Right on Crime, joins us today to discuss this case and its implications.

On March 23, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Cooley. The question before the court was whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Florida v. Georgia, an ongoing case of original jurisdiction involving Florida’s desire to limit the amount of water that Georgia uses in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. Justice Barrett, writing for the 9-0 majority, dismissed the case, holding that Florida failed to establish that Georgia’s overconsumption of interstate waters was either a substantial factor contributing to, or the sole cause of, Florida’s injuries.Tony Francois, Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joins us today to discuss the court’s decision in this case.

On March 29, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The questions before the court were whether, first, a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality; and, second, whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.Ted Frank, Director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On March 31, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in NCAA v. Alston. The question before the court was Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erroneously held, in conflict with decisions of other circuits and general antitrust principles, that the National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules regarding compensation of student-athletes violate federal antitrust law.Hon. Joshua D. Wright, professor and Executive Director of the Global Antitrust Institute at Antonin Scalia Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Torres v. Madrid. This case arises out of an incident Roxanne Torres had with police officers in which she was operating a vehicle under the influence of methamphetamine and in the process of trying to get away, endangered the two officers pursuing her. In the process, one of the officers shot and injured her. Torres pleaded no contest to three crimes: (1) aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, (2) assault on a police officer, and (3) unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.In October 2016, she filed a civil-rights complaint in federal court against the two officers, alleging claims including excessive force and conspiracy to engage in excessive force. Construing Torres’s complaint as asserting the excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment, the court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In the court’s view, the officers had not seized Torres at the time of the shooting, and without a seizure, there could be no Fourth Amendment violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.In a 5-3 vote the Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Court held that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, joins us today to discuss this opinion.

On March 24, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral arguement in Caniglia v. Strom. The question before the court was whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home. Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On March 23, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Cooley. The question before the court was the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.