On November 2, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Taylor v. Riojas, holding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in granting qualified immunity to correctional officers sued by inmate Trent Taylor regarding the conditions of his confinement in a Texas prison.Taylor alleged that the officers knowingly confined him for six days in cells so grossly unsanitary as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. He contends that the cells were covered in human waste, that he was forced to sleep naked in raw sewage, and that the high risk of contamination prevented him from eating or drinking for nearly four days. The Fifth Circuit rejected Taylor’s challenge, reasoning that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because it was not “clearly established” by court doctrine that the specific conditions of Taylor’s confinement would have violated the Eighth Amendment.The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. “No reasonable correctional officer,” the Court indicated, “could have concluded that, under the extreme circumstances of this case, it was constitutionally permissible to house Taylor in such deplorably unsanitary conditions for such an extended period of time.”Although the Court’s opinion was issued per curiam, it was noted that Justice Thomas dissented and Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment.Katherine Mims Crocker, Assistant Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas v. California. The issues before the court were whether the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase minimum essential coverage is severable from the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as well as whether the district court properly declared the ACA invalid in its entirety and unenforceable anywhere. Iyla Somin joins us for this special, extended edition episode of SCOTUScast. Mr. Somin is a Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School of George Mason University.

On November 4, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. There were three questions before the court. The first was whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim — namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views — as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held. The second was whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited. The third was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.Mark Rienzi joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Mr. Rienzi is President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

On November 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Borden v. United States. The question before the court was whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness.Joining us to discuss this case’s oral argument is Kent Scheidegger. Mr. Scheidegger is the Legal Director & General Counsel at Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

On November 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jones v. Mississippi. The question before the court 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. Joining us to discuss this case’s oral argument is Marc Levin. Mr. Levin is the Chief of Policy and Innovation for the Right on Crime initiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The issue in this case is whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers, or PBM’s. Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas’s Attorney General, has petitioned the court to overturn the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth District’s prior decision to maintain Arkansas’ statute regulating PBMs’ drug reimbursement rates. Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Max Schulman joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Schulman is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

On November 2, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club. This case addresses the scope of transparency under the Freedom of Information Act’s key “deliberative process” privilege. More specifically, oral argument addressed whether documents drafted as part of a statutorily required interagency consultation process between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries fall under exemption 5 of FOIA. This exemption grants that records that are “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency” are protected from disclosure.Joining us today to discuss this case’s oral argument are Nancie Marzulla and Damien Schiff. Ms. Marzulla is Partner at Marzulla Law, and Mr. Schiff is a Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Torres v. Madrid. The question before the court was whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Scheidegger is Legal Director and General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard Pereida v. Barr, an immigration case. The question before the court was whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. More specifically, the Court heard arguments regarding whether Mr. Pereida, who used a false Social Security card to get a job, could legally seek relief from deportation since he was never charged with any specific violation of Section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Brian Fish joins us today to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Mr. Fish is Special Assistant to the United States Attorney of Baltimore, Maryland.

On October 13, 2020, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding United States v. Collins (consolidated with United States v. Briggs). The question before the court 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.Arthur Rizer and Richard Sala join us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Rizer is the Director of the Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties program and Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute. Sala is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.