Cases and Controversies
About
Available on
Community
230 episodes
Arguments in the challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone suggest the Supreme Court will nix the dispute on technical standing grounds. Justices from across the ideological spectrum suggested the anti-abortion doctors at the center of the case were asking too much. Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lopsided arguments that focused little on the merits and almost exclusively on whether the doctors could prevent access to the drug nationwide. They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s action—or inaction—means South Carolina can use an unconstitutional voting map in the upcoming election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Lower court rulings that largely halted Biden administration communication with social media companies to combat misinformation about Covid and the 2020 election faced skepticism from Supreme Court justices. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the March 18 arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo, a second First Amendment fight about alleged government censorship. They also discuss the legal whiplash over a Texas law that makes it a crime to illegally enter the US through the state. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Biden administration and others are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender kids despite its refusal to resolve related disputes over youth sports and student bathroom use. The ACLU’s Li Nowlin-Sohl joins Cases and Controversies to discuss bans out of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Idaho pending before the court, and the chances that the justices will finally weigh in. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Headlines touting the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado presidential ballot obscured division among the justices over the Constitution’s insurrection clause. UC Davis School of Law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat joins Cases and Controversies to explain what the justices did and didn’t agree on March 4 regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that means for the November election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
It was a big week at the Supreme Court with arguments over social media and guns, and a grant on Donald Trump’s bid for immunity from prosecution over alleged election interference. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler detail arguments in Garland v. Cargill, the challenge to the federal government’s ban on so-called bump stocks, and Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, challenging state laws that target social media companies. They also explain the court’s decision to weigh into the criminal prosecution of Trump in Washington in the 2020 election case. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in fights over laws in Florida and Texas that seek to stop social media platforms from censoring conservative speech online. At issue are provisions that require platforms to keep up certain kinds of content and inform users when posts are removed. The justices are being asked to decide if those requirements are constitutional under the First Amendment’s right to editorial judgment. Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices are likely to approach a case that could impact public discourse online for decades to come. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Supreme Court justices have a number of things to sort out before deciding whether to take up or reject the question of whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for election interference. Should the justices give Trump another crack at the DC Circuit on his immunity claim? And how should they decide special counsel Jack Smith’s request to treat Trump’s appeal as a petition for a full review? Georgetown University Law Center professor Erica Hashimoto joins “Cases and Controversies” to unwrap the history, timing, and consequential decisions to come. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Supreme Court arguments in Colorado’s bid to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot tested a number of legal principles and scenarios. The justices dove into the potential impact on their deliberations of a case from the 1860s as well as whether state governments have powers to effectively decide a presidential election. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down all the technical arguments from the Feb. 8 special session and where individual justices may be heading before voting takes place on March 5. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court will hold a special session Feb. 8 to consider whether Colorado can keep Donald Trump off the primary ballot. Notre Dame Law School professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to explain the legal issues at play and the potential impacts of a court ruling that fails to give a definitive answer before the presidential election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Supreme Court justices will soon hear argument on Donald Trump’s appeal to stay on the Colorado primary ballot, but another question for the court is whether the former president will attend the proceedings. Trump has done so in other court hearings of late around the country, creating unprecedented security challenges. While the Supreme Court is used to heightened security for the justices, hosting Trump for such a blockbuster case would heighten the stakes. The court won’t say what security measures are planned for Feb. 8 whether Trump shows or not. Bloomberg Law’s judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss those possibilities and how Trump’s other appearances have played out. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The conservative-led Supreme Court seems primed to nix a bedrock principle governing the relationship between administrative agencies and federal courts. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the 3 1/2-hour argument on Jan. 17 in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. From the justices different understandings of the Chevron doctrine to uncertainties over a potential replacement for deference, the latest episode gets into all the details. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Big challenges to federal agency regulatory powers at the Supreme Court could end up as a footnote to what’s shaping up to be a momentous term. Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson discuss how the court set up a historic sitting in agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s fight to stay on the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado and a second abortion case. It was already a significant term with two challenges to the so-called administrative state, which many thought would garner the most attention. Those cases will be argued next week and Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how a ruling against the government could give judges the ability to strike down regulations they disagree with and shift power from agencies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court’s January sitting starts Monday and most of the focus will center on administrative law cases. But important arguments on government gamesmanship and property rights are also on tap. Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute joins Cases and Controversies to break down upcoming arguments. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Arguing at the Supreme Court is no walk in the park. The justices ask tough questions and give hypotheticals that can trip up even the most prepared advocate. As the year comes to a close, Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr look back at the most memorable moments from Supreme Court arguments so far this term since the court follows its own calendar. There were some uncomfortable, even awkward, exchanges during the free speech fight over a “Trump too small” trademark, the challenge to the $6 billion bankruptcy settlement involving opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, and the spat over the SEC’s use of in-house judges in fraud cases. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court added two high profile disputes to its docket and suggested it will fast-track a third involving former President, adding to an already consequential term. Hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr discuss the new cases on access to the abortion drug mifepristone, a challenge to Jan. 6 prosecutions, and immunity for former President Donald Trump on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor solidified her legacy as the first female jurist to sit on the Supreme Court. One of her former clerks, Tamarra Matthews Johnson, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her former boss as a justice and as a role model for women. She touches on O’Connor’s career hurdles and how her political experience came through in her time on the high court bench. Johnson recalls O’Connor as an active member who tried to think of things from multiple points of view—that she saw herself as someone who understood that the law meant something to people in their daily lives. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court appeared likely to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring certain enforcement actions in federal court, rather than resolve them in-house. The only question appeared to be whether the justices' ruling will ensnare other federal agencies. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss how the court might limit its ruling. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court’s inaugural code of conduct, issued under pressure from transparency advocates and Congress, does little to quell concern over how the justices conduct themselves on ethics, critics say. The Brennan Center’s Jennifer Ahearn joins Cases and Controversies to talk about how the lack of an enforcement method, special recusal rules, and general tone are unlikely to result in many changes—both in how the court operates and how it’s perceived. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
A lopsided Supreme Court appeared ready to side with the Biden administration in a Second Amendment challenge to a federal gun ban for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The real issue for the justices is how to apply their new test, established in the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that requires courts to look for historical support for gun restrictions. Duke Center for Firearms Law Executive Director Andrew Willinger joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the old test, the new one, and possibilities for the future. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The justices searched for the proper line to balance free speech protections for public officials and their constituents online, in the first of several disputes involving social media this term. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's David Greene joins Cases and Controveries to explain the competing First Amendment issues at play in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and how the cases fit in with other upcoming social media disputes. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett made news this week when she became the latest justice to back a high court ethics code, but her tale of rocking out to the turn-of-the-century hit "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the stately halls of the highest court in the land stole the show. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr catch up on all the justices' latest activities. They also highlight the biggest cases being argued during the court's November sitting, from guns, to social media, to the "Trump Too Small" trademark dispute. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn. But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers. Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Whether funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unlawful or not could rest with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, one court watcher says. Brennan Center for Justice President and CEO Michael Waldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss a challenge to the Obama-era agency that was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to regulate mortgages, auto loans and credit cards. He says it’s unclear how the court ultimately will rule following argument Oct. 3 over the agency’s funding structure, but notes that Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Barrett, especially, merit watching. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court kicks off its 2023 term on Monday with guns, abortion, and affirmative action potentially coming back—whether the justices are ready for them or not. Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court’s recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said. The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Death penalty cases are often adjudicated for years, if not decades, before they reach the Supreme Court. But once they do, the justices must make life-or-death decisions in a relatively quick amount of time. Death penalty cases at the Supreme Court often come through the court's emergency, or "shadow" docket. In recent years, the court's conservatives have handed down rulings that closed off several avenues for capital defendants to get a rehearing of their case, or to even to challenge their method of execution. On this special episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take a look at what the court's rulings mean for how the death penalty works in America, and what happens at the court when an 11th hour request comes in. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
From Antonin Scalia’s sudden death, to four new justices, a leaked opinion draft, the overturning of abortion rights, and the pandemic-era introduction of live audio for oral arguments—a lot has happened at the Supreme Court in the past decade and Cases and Controversies has been there for all of it. The Bloomberg Law podcast started in very lo-fi way in a virtual closet has grown over the years as a staple of Supreme Court coverage with studio space with really good microphones, its own producer in David Schultz, and up to three hosts offering behind-the-scene takes, and insight and analysis of court happenings and all of the turbulence that’s gone along with it. Created by Tom Taylor, Bloomberg Law’s former high court correspondent and now its newsroom’s chief of staff, Cases and Controversies marks 10 years this term with a special edition. Taylor and current co-hosts Kimberly Robinson, Greg Stohr, and Lydia Wheeler offer their observations on heightened public interest in the court, what’s changed for the justices and how the court operates, and what may be in store in coming years. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Rejection of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan suggests Supreme Court conservatives are going to be more comfortable with second-guessing federal agency determinations even when they fall within a federal statute. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what he's calling the "supersized" Major Questions Doctrine, the high court-made principle that's risen in recent terms and was the reasoning behind the 6-3 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners beyond the headlines of the biggest opinions of the term. They also look ahead to the one starting in October which Winkler says is shaping up as another with blockbuster potential on guns and the SEC to start with. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Conservative justices asserted themselves in a big way in the final days of the Supreme Court term. The six Republican-appointed justices joined together in striking down affirmative action, rejecting Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, and supporting religious liberty in a setback for LGBTQ rights. While the end of this term for argued cases wasn’t as explosive as a year ago when the court handed conservatives landmark victories on abortion and guns, the final flurry of decisions still packed plenty of drama, especially tension in written opinions and readings from the bench. In the newest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners behind the scenes to break down the biggest decisions, notable moments, and update listeners on some newly granted cases for next term. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The Supreme Court heads into the final week of the term for argued cases with a flurry of opinions on tap, including what could be a blockbuster on affirmative action in higher education and the fate of Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan. Ten 10 cases remain with work expected to be wrapped up by June 30. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr take listeners down the homestretch and behind the scenes of what court watchers might expect and whether surprises are in store. They also break down the opinions most recently handed down. That includes Friday’s decision clearing the way for the Biden administration to shift immigration enforcement priorities to focus on people who recently crossed the border or are a threat to public safety. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
In upholding a landmark measure meant to keep adopted American-Indian children with tribal families, the Supreme Court again declined to embrace a colorblind view of federal law. The conservative argument that race should almost never be a factor in setting and interpreting federal law hasn’t fared well this term. But that could change with decisions pending in challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. In a 7-2 ruling on Thursday in Haaland v. Brackeen that kept in place the decades-old Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices dismissed race-related claims on technical grounds. And the color-blind arguments were explicitly rejected in the justices’ surprise ruling June 8 in Allen v. Milligan. The 7-2 court there said claims under the Voting Rights Act didn’t have to be “race-neutral.” But Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler explain why the outcome could be different the affirmative action cases, which the court is expected to hand down before the end of June. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
