The Supreme Court recently issued its decisions in two federal vaccine mandate cases, Biden v Missouri and National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Several states and interest groups sought emergency relief on regulations issued by OSHA as well as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The OSHA rule mandated large employers to require vaccination or regular testing of their employees. CMS required vaccination of staff at health care facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid programs. The Court granted a stay of the OSHA rule pending merits review in the Sixth Circuit, but stayed an injunction of the CMS rule allowing it to go into effect.Joining today to discuss these decisions are, in order of appearance: 1) David Dewhirst, Solicitor General, Montana2) Professor Dorit Reiss, James Edgar Hervey '50 Chair of Litigation, UC Hastings Law 3) Professor Ilya Somin, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and dismissed the federal government's suit against Texas in United States v. Texas. The Court held 8-1 in Jackson that plaintiff abortion providers can pursue claims against licensing officials.A pair of distinguished federal-courts scholars join to discuss the cases, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On November 8th, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, a case which concerned whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence. Joining today to discuss this case in great detail is Dr. Riddhi Sohan Dasgupta, Counsel at Schaerr | Jaffe LLP. Dr. Dasgupta has served as the Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Special Counsel of the United States Department of Education (ED), and adjunct faculty at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School.

On December 8th, the Court heard arguments in Carson v. Makin, a case which concerned whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student aid program from choosing their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or sectarian, instruction. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Professor Nicole Garnett, The John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. This episode begins with coverage of the question and background, and proceeds in second part to focused analysis of oral argument.

On November 9th, the Court heard argument in Ramirez v. Collier, a case which concerned Texas’ decision to allow Ramirez’s pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbid the pastor from laying his hands on his parishioner. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel of the Catholic University of America. Mrs. Lichter has served on the Domestic Policy Counsel, in the Office of Legal Policy, and as in-house counsel for the Archdiocese of Washington.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.Featuring: - Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley- Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School- Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law- Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law- Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law

On November 3rd, the Court heard argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, a case which concerned whether New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violates the Second Amendment. Examining oral argument today, we have Professor Adam Winkler, the Connell Professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, and Professor Robert Leider of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School.

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced. A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On November 8th, the Court heard argument in Unicolors, Inc. V. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Zvi Rosen of Southern Illinois University School of Law.

On November 30, the Court heard argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a case which asked: "Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council permits the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data; and (2) whether petitioners’ suit challenging HHS’s adjustments is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1395l(t)(12)." Joining today to discuss this case is Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.