On March 22, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. The question before the Court was whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.Wen Fa, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carr v. Saul. The question before the Court was whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On March 2, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The questions before the court were: first, whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and, second, whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa's College of Law, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. The court also issued a one-sentence opinion vacating a lower-court ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a similar lawsuit brought by Holocaust survivors seeking compensation for Hungary’s confiscation of Jewish property. The justices sent Hungary v. Simon back to the lower courts for further proceedings in light of the opinion in Germany v. Philipp.Germany v. Phillip arises out of lawsuit brought by the heirs of several Jewish art dealers who are seeking compensation for what they describe as the forced sale of medieval Christian relics under the Nazi regime. The respondents filed a lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia, invoking the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” as the jurisdictional basis for their claims. Germany moved to dismiss, and the district court largely denied the motion, holding the claims fell within the scope of the expropriation exception. Germany appealed, and the U.S. Appeals Court for D.C. affirmed as to jurisdiction, reiterating its holding in a prior case that a genocidal taking is a violation of international law and rejecting Germany’s argument based on principles of international comity. In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court vacated the lower-court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to go forward, agreeing with Germany that the lawsuit does not fall within an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars lawsuits against foreign governments in U.S. courts.Alberto Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law, joins us today to discuss this ruling and its implications.

On February 24, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The question before the court was whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant. In this case, Arthur Lange was driving home on the highway in Sonoma, California when police pursued Lange with the intention of conducting a traffic stop. Police followed Lange home and activated their overhead lights once Lange pulled into his home's driveway. Lange pulled into his garage and the garage door began closing behind him. Police approached Lange and stopped the garage from closing with his foot. After brief questioning as to whether Lange knew he was being pursued, police stated they smelled alcohol on Lange's breath and charged Lange with driving under the influence.The trial court concluded that the officer had probable cause, denied the motion to suppress, and issued a conviction for Lange. Later, a civil court ruled that Lange's arrest was unlawful and an appellate court ruled that the arrest was lawful. On appeal to the California First District Court of Appeal, the court affirmed the conviction.Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute and Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, join us today to discuss this argument and its implications.

On February 22, 2021, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court denied cert in Repubulican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid. There were two questions presented, which the Court decided not to entertain. The first was whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the assembly’s broad power to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections under Article I, when the court issued a ruling requiring the state to count absentee ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day as long as they are not clearly postmarked after Election Day. The second question was whether that decision is preempted by federal statutes that establish a uniform nationwide federal Election Day. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented from the cert denial. All three Justices acknowledged that hearing this case would not alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election but would be important in the event that similar issues occurred in upcoming elections. Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa’s College of Law, joins us today to discuss this cert denial and the three justices’ dissents.

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Briggs. The question presented was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding–contrary to its own longstanding precedent–that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years. Briggs argued on appeal that rape was not “punishable by death” and thus was subject to the five-year statute of limitations for non-capital crimes. The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) rejected his challenge, but upon appeal tp to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the C.A.A.F. reversed the lower court. Justice Alito wrote for a 8-0 majority, finding that there was no statute of limitations for military rape. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the decision. Arthur Rizer, Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, and Prof. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School, join us today to discuss this decision and its implications.

On December 8, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid. The issue presented was whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”Megan Brown, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP, and Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eight Judicial Circuit Court. The issue presented was whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.Karen Harned, Executive Director at National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and Jaime A. Santos, Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On January 25, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.. The question presented was whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. This case arose out of a dispute between two dental equipment sales companies. In 2019, the 5th Circuit decided two questions. First, it concluded that the companies’ contract called for arbitration of the “gateway question” of whether a dispute is arbitrable. Second, it concluded that a court (rather than an arbitrator) should determine whether this particular dispute fell within an exception from the contract’s arbitration clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Erika Birg, Partner at Nelson Mullins, and Richard Faulkner, Of Counsel at Bennett Injury Law, join us today to discuss this ruling and its implications.