DiscoverCase in Point: The Legal Show for Regular People
Case in Point: The Legal Show for Regular People
Author: The Heritage Foundation
Subscribed: 773Played: 19,717Subscribe
Share
© The Heritage Foundation
Description
If the thought of a legal podcast seems like a snoozer, if you’re tired of listening to Washington lawyers tell you why the Supreme Court matters, if federal rules are a mystery, you’ve come to the right place.
Host Sarah Parshall Perry is not your typical lawyer, she can break down complex legal topics so that lawyers and non-lawyers alike understand why they matter. The show is a funny, fast-paced, legal free for all that talks legal bloopers, dumb opinions, big overlords, and major cases—all in way that educates and entertains. Case in Point is the legal show you never knew you needed.
Host Sarah Parshall Perry is not your typical lawyer, she can break down complex legal topics so that lawyers and non-lawyers alike understand why they matter. The show is a funny, fast-paced, legal free for all that talks legal bloopers, dumb opinions, big overlords, and major cases—all in way that educates and entertains. Case in Point is the legal show you never knew you needed.
233 Episodes
Reverse
On this week's episode of Case in Point, Sarah Parshall Perry talks with Ian Prior, Senior advisor to America First Legal about the power of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), AFL's investigations using the FOIA tool to unearth government corruption, and what it's like to fight for the safety, privacy, and free speech rights of school children at the grassroots level. That, and a rundown of three new, high profile cert. grants from the Supreme Court on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, we cover the first (already?!) Supreme Court opinion of the October, 2024 term, and talk with Keisha Russell of First Liberty, the nation's largest public interest law firm dedicated exclusively to the defense of religious freedom in the courts. Keisha discusses First Liberty's defense of a historic church, and a religious charitable organization, plus gives us a preview of her upcoming book, "Uncommon Courage." What can Americans do in a culture increasingly hostile to religious expression? That and more on this week's episode of Case in Point.
On this special episode of Case in Point, Sarah Parshall Perry is joined by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the named respondent in the biggest case of the Supreme Court's term: United States v. Skrmetti.
The Attorney General talks about the law at the heart of the case, SB 1, talks about the dangers of "gender affirming" care for minors, gives us his impressions from oral arguments, and discusses what's next for his very busy office.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, Sarah is joined by Andy Bath, Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the Thomas More Legal Society. What do free speech rights have to do with pro-life advocacy? What is the F.A.C.E. Act, and how has it been employed by the Biden-Harris Administration? Will the Supreme Court take up abortion again this term? They'll answer these questions and more on Case in Point.
Lame ducks - and presidents: what will they do next? Description: On this week’s episode, we sit down with judicial expert and Senate veteran Tom Jipping to talk post-election plans for a Congress and President in their waning days of service.
What will congressional Democrats attempt to pass? What does the Constitution permit? And what about those last-minute judicial nominations from President Biden? Can new judges be appointed before President-elect Trump takes the oath of office at the end of January? We’ve got those answers and more on Case in Point!
This week on Case in Point, and only hours after one of the most significant Republican sweeps in a generation, we sit down with Hans Von Spakovsky, Senior Manager of Heritage's Election Law Reform Initiative. Hans offers his thoughts on the landmark 2024 election, the likelihood of future litigation on political races, the Supreme Court's election-related emergency docket orders, and why election integrity should matter to every American.
On this episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry sits down with Will Trachman, General Counsel at Mountain States Legal Foundation, to reminisce about their time working in a presidential administration.
Will also talks about their case pending at the Supreme Court that concerns what citizen petitions are required to include before an issue is included on the ballot during an election. Plus, we talk dumb judicial opinions, DEI dismantling, and whether American public education is salveagable.
On this week's episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry is joined by Caroline Moore, Vice President of Parents Defending Education (PDE). They discuss PDE's "indoctrination map," an epidemic of school gender secrecy policies, the power of an active parent, and more.
On today’s episode of Case in Point, we'll talk high-profile cases pending on requests for review at the Supreme Court. And we'll catch up with Kim Hermann, Executive Director for Southeastern Legal Foundation who's fighting in the trenches for sex-based protections for women and girls in education—from sports, to spaces, to scholarships and more. Title IX, school gender secrecy policies, preferred pronouns and more on Case in Point.
On the FIRST official episode of Case in Point, host Sarah Parshall Perry tees up some big cases at the Supreme Court--controversial enough that they're sure to grab headlines.
AND we air former SCOTUS 101 host Zack Smith's recent Supreme Court Preview event at the Heritage Foundation with some legal heavyweights.
On this episode of SCOTUS 101, Zack Smith and Giancarlo Canaparo welcome fellow Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Sarah Parshall Perry who introduces a brand-new legal podcast platform, Case In Point. The lawyers catch each other up on some goings-on in their careers, have a good laugh about the suitability (or lack thereof) of some hosts’ faces for video podcasts, and Zack and Giancarlo hand the reins to Sarah for an introduction of Case in Point, where she identifies some of the most controversial cases headed to court this year: Gender “affirming” medicine, women’s sports, porn (yes, porn), and more. Bon Voyage, SCOTUS 101, Bienvenue, Case in Point!
The term is over, and what an ending it was! Presidents are entitled to broad immunity for official acts, Chevron deference is no more, the Seventh Amendment applies against the administrative state, nobody gets to sue over social media censorship, and the 8th Amendment does not prohibit anti-camping laws. These are the holdings of just a few of the blockbuster cases released in the last few days of this term. After your hosts discuss those cases, GianCarlo gets one last chance to stump Zack in trivia, and then they follow the Court into the summer recess. Over the summer, your hosts arrange interviews with judges, lawyers, and experts, so please let them know if there are any people you'd like them to interview or legal issues you'd like them to cover in depth next term. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It's almost the end of the term and the Court is now giving us some of the term's biggest cases. Bump stocks, abortion drugs, and taxes on unrealized gains are the just a few of the hot cases this week. After your hosts explore those cases, Zack interviews Judge Kathryn Mizelle of the Middle District of Florida about her meteoric rise to the bench and her many clerkships. Tune in next week for what is likely to be the final week of the term!Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The end of the terms is a month away, and the opinions are coming fast. This week, your hosts discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case, a racial redistricting case, and the National Rifle Association's free-speech victory. After that, Zack interviews John Eastman about the lawfare used against him and other lawyers who have represented former President Donald Trump. Last up, inspired by the New York Times' latest conniption fit over flags, GianCarlo quizzes Zack about flags at the Court. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It's the end of oral arguments, and this week the Court heard two big ones. Your hosts discuss Grants Pass, where the Court will decide whether it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to enforce anti-camping laws, and they discuss the Trump immunity case, which has big implications not only for the presidential election but for the office of the presidency forever. After that, Zack interviews legendary legal philosopher Hadley Arkes about his latest book, Mere Natural Law, and then Zack shows off his criminal-law expertise in 8th Amendment trivia.Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week the Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging a January 6th prosecution, had a spirited debate about nationwide injunctions, and issued major opinions on property rights and employment discrimination. Your hosts discuss all those developments, and then GianCarlo interviews Professor Andre Archie about his fascinating new book The Virtue of Color-Blindness, which defends color-blindness with the ideas of the great Greek philosophers. Lastly, Zack quizzes GianCarlo about veterans litigating in the Court.You can find GianCarlo's review of Archie's book here, and you can find his analysis of the Muldrow decision here.Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week the Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's expansion of access to the abortion drug mifepristone. GianCarlo discusses that case, oral arguments, and the mess of standing doctrine. After that, Zack interviews Professor John Yoo who gives his expert take on the Trump immunity case and makes his case that originalism is moral. Last up, trivia about the judiciary's own administrative state.You can find Zack's articles about the Judicial Conference here and here. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This term is shaping up to be a big one for free speech cases. The Court heard arguments in three such cases this week and handed down decisions in other cases involving public officials blocking people on social media, the FBI's No-Fly-List, and the meaning of the word "and." Your hosts discuss those cases, and then GianCarlo interviews Robert McNamara of the Institute for Justice about his career defending property rights. Last up, trivia is Justices in Uniform, part 2.Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This was a big week for former president Trump who prevailed in Trump v. Anderson against an attempt to remove him from the ballot in Colorado. Your hosts dive deep into that decision unpacking the majority opinion, the debate among the concurring justices, and the case's short- and long-term implications. After that, GianCarlo interviews Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, who recounts his fascinating life and career, beginning with his immigration to the United States from Korea. Lastly, GianCarlo quizzes Zack with trivia about Justices who have served in the armed forces.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Top Podcasts
The Best New Comedy Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best News Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Business Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Sports Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New True Crime Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Joe Rogan Experience Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Dan Bongino Show Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Mark Levin Podcast – June 2024
United States
I enjoyed the format, the content, and especially the great interview with Justice Stegall.
Should have read the details on this heritage foundation propaganda... podcast. Bootlicking 101
I think you are rushing through the decisions. Please take more time to analyze the decisions and the interaction between the dissenting opinions of the justices or even concurring opinions of justices.
love this show!
What's with the giggles?