SCOTUScast

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.

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.