Claim OwnershipSCOTUScast
Subscribed: 1,387Played: 28,450
Subscribe
© Copyright The Federalist Society
Description
SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast
476 Episodes
Reverse
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 6-3 opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.Featuring: Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute Speakers: Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate LitigationJosh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's OfficeJenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone.Join us to hear our panel break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications. Featuring:Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLPMegan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its 6-2 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its 6-3 decision in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These decisions overturning Chevron v. NRDC (1984) may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us as we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
On March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre. At issue was whether or not the government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that respondent's removal from the government’s No Fly List mooted his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case.Join us to hear Joseph Davis break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Mr. Joseph Davis, Legal Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski. At issue was whether a court or an arbitrator must decide which contract governs where parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts. Join us to hear Professor Tamar Meshel break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications Featuring: Prof. Tamar Meshel, Associate Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law
On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. At issue was whether choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law.Join us to hear Professor Andrew Hessick break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Andrew Hessick, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Strategy & Planning, University of North Carolina School of Law
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. At issue was whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. Join us to hear Alison Somin break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications. Featuring: Mrs. Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC. At issue was whether a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.Join us to hear Professor Samuel Estreicher break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law and Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of Law
On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. United States. The Court considered whether, and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Mr. Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California. At issue was whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation.Join us to hear Nancie Marzulla and Jayson Parsons break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Ms. Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla LawMr. Jayson Parsons, Associate, Rutan & Tucker LLP
On April 16th, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Devillier v. Texas. At issue was whether owners of property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas should be permitted on remand to pursue their takings clause claims through the cause of action available under Texas law.Join us to hear Prof. Ilya Somin break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McIntosh v. United States. At issue was whether a district court’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B)’s requirement to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing bars a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review.Join us to hear Stefan Cassella break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Mr. Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. At issue was whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.Join us to hear Prof. Adam Pritchard break down the decision and its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Adam Pritchard, Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pulsifer v. United States. The Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?" At issue was the meaning of the word "and" in the statute, and whether text and context required "and" in this case be read as "and" to mean "or". Join us to hear Vikrant Reddy break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling. Featuring: Mr. Vikrant Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The Court considered whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code.Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. Anderson. At issue was whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot; the Court held that Colorado did err in excluding Trump from the ballot. Join us to hear Professor Muller break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling. Featuring: Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. The Court considered whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislationPlease join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:David Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLPNancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law
On January 17, 2024 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The Court considered whether it should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. The Court considered whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement. Featuring: Professor Adam Pritchard, Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
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
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
4:02
This was an informative and useful discussion of the arguments. I appreciate the sound quality of the speaker, but I don't believe they were allowed to introduce themselves.