On January 14, 2021 the Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton. The question presented was whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The debtors believe that a different provision of the code, obligated the city to return the cars as soon as they filed for bankruptcy relief. The bankruptcy court agreed, and later, the 7th Circuit affirmed that ruling. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Writing for the Court, Samuel Alito indicated that “the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.”Justice Alito’s opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Barrett, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.Ralph Brubaker, Carl L. Vacketta Professor of Law at University of Illinois’s College of Law, joins us today to discuss this ruling.

On On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project. The question before the Court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the Federal Communications Commission orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law and former General Counsel of the FCC, Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Commissioner of the FCC, Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner at Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis and former General Counsel of the FCC, and Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On January 19, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The question presented was whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.Philip Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On December 18, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 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. The Fifth Circuit stated that an agreement that exempts certain disputes from arbitration does not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator for disputes that fall within the exception. Erika Birg, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, joins us today to discuss this ruling.

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The question presented was whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-empts the State of Arkansas’ Act 900, which regulates the price at which pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that ERISA preemption applied. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor indicated that Act 900 “has neither an impermissible connection with nor reference to ERISA and is therefore not pre-empted.”Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Barrett, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.Max Schulman, an Associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, joins us today to discuss this ruling.

On December 1 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cargill v. Doe I. There were two legal questions before the Court. The first was whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country. The second question before the Court was whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute.David Rybicki is Partner at K&L Gates LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir. In an 8-0 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that "appropriate relief" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) includes claims for money damages against government officials in their individual capacities.Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel at First Liberty, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.

On December 2, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Edwards v. Vannoy. The question before the court was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.William S. McClintock is an Associate at King & Spalding LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Van Buren v. United States. The question before the court was whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.Orin Kerr is a Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law and he joins us to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. New York. The first legal question before the Court was whether a group of states and local governments have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a July 21, 2020, memorandum by President Donald Trump instructing the secretary of commerce to include in his report on the 2020 census information enabling the president to exclude noncitizens from the base population number for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The second legal question before the court was whether the memorandum is a permissible exercise of the president’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment. Professor John S. Baker joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Professor Baker is Professor Emeritus at Lousiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center.