On November 10th, the Court heard arguments in City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising, a case which concerned whether the Austin city code’s distinction between on-premise signs, which may be digitized, and off-premise signs, which may not, is a facially unconstitutional content-based regulation under Reed v. Town of Gilbert. We are joined by Trevor Burrus, research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, for this installment.

On Mar 3, 2022, the Court decided United States v. Zubaydah, a case which concerned whether the 9th circuit erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C 1782(a) against former CIA contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities. In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment that the district court erred in dismissing Zubaydah’s discovery request on the basis of the state secrets privilege is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss Zubaydah’s current discovery application.Joining us today to discuss decision this is Kate Comerford Todd, managing partner at Ellis George Cipollone in Washington, DC. Ms. Todd formerly served as Deputy Counsel to the Office of the President, Chief Counsel for the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, and has held teaching positions at both George Washington University Law School and Cornell. Ms. Todd has also clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge J. Michael Luttig of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

On March 7, 2022 the Supreme Court decided Wooden v. United States, holding that William Dale Wooden’s ten burglary offenses arising from a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 7, 2022. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh joined, and in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett joined as to all but Part II-B. Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Sotomayor joined as to Part II, III, and IV.Joining today to discuss this decision is Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.

On February 24, 2022 the Supreme Court decided Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP. Joining today to discuss this decision is Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor at SIU Law, former Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law.

On Feb. 22, 2022 the Court heard arguments in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo vs. Texas, a case which concerned sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities. Joining to discuss this case is Anthony J. Ferate, of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP.

On January 18, 2022 the Court heard oral argument in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, a case which concerned the flag-flying at Boston city hall. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Scott Gaylord of Elon University School of Law.

On November 2nd, 2021 the Court heard argument in Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson, a case which concerned whether the First Amendment restricts the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech. Joining today to discuss oral argument is Jordan Pratt, senior counsel at the First Liberty Institute.

On January 11th, 2022 the Court heard arguments in two immigration cases, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland, Attny Gen. V. Gonzalez. Joining today to discuss these arguments in two parts is Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School. This episode will begin with coverage of the question and background, and proceed in the second part to focused analysis of oral argument.

On Jan. 18, 2022 the Court heard argument in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Professor Suzanna Sherry, the Herman O. Loewenstein Chair in Law Emerita at Vanderbilt Law School.

On January 19th, the Court heard arguments in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate. At issue were: (1) Whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit of 52 U.S.C. 30116(j); and (2) whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Bradley Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.