Digest

This episode of Stay Tuned delves into the Supreme Court's recent decisions, particularly focusing on the Rahimi gun case, which overturned a federal ban on gun possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The episode explores the implications of originalism, a legal philosophy that emphasizes the original meaning of the Constitution, and how the court's application of this doctrine has led to unexpected outcomes. The episode also examines the court's selection bias, highlighting how the justices' ability to choose which cases they hear influences the overall direction of the court. Additionally, the episode discusses the changing dynamics of the court's conservatives, noting how some justices, like Clarence Thomas, have become more ideologically extreme, while others, like Amy Coney Barrett, may hold the key to future decisions. The episode concludes with a discussion of the US Surgeon General's new advisory declaring gun violence a public health crisis, emphasizing the need for a public health approach to address this issue.

Outlines

00:00:00

Introduction

This Chapter introduces the episode of Stay Tuned and the guest, Steve Vladik, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a nationally recognized expert on the Supreme Court and constitutional law. The episode will focus on the Supreme Court's recent decisions, including the Rahimi gun case, and explore the implications of originalism, the court's selection bias, and the changing dynamics of the court's conservatives.

00:02:18

Dicta and Executive Orders

This Chapter addresses listener questions about legal terms and presidential powers. It explains the concept of Dicta, non-binding legal comments in judicial opinions, and clarifies that presidents cannot issue executive orders to alter the composition of the Supreme Court.

00:05:40

Julian Assange's Guilty Plea

This Chapter discusses the unusual circumstances surrounding Julian Assange's guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. It explains the reasons behind the choice of venue and the simultaneous guilty plea and sentencing, highlighting the unique aspects of this case resolution.

00:12:57

Supreme Court Season

This Chapter begins a conversation with Steve Vladik about the current Supreme Court term, noting the unusual number of blockbuster cases and the factors contributing to this trend. The discussion explores the role of lower courts, particularly the Fifth Circuit, in pushing the Supreme Court to the right, and the impact of the court's conservative majority on its willingness to take on major cases.

00:17:16

The Path to the Supreme Court

This Chapter delves into the process by which cases reach the Supreme Court, explaining the multiple levels of review and the role of lower courts in shaping the court's docket. The discussion highlights the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Dobbs and Bruen, on the litigation landscape and the emboldening of litigants to challenge established precedents.

00:19:28

Circuit Courts and the Fifth Circuit

This Chapter provides a primer on the federal circuit courts, explaining their structure, jurisdiction, and role in the legal system. The discussion focuses on the Fifth Circuit, highlighting its conservative leanings and its high rate of reversals by the Supreme Court. The episode explores whether the Fifth Circuit's record will influence its future decisions.

00:24:43

The Supreme Court's Docket

This Chapter examines the Supreme Court's docket, discussing the trend of the court taking fewer cases and the implications of this trend for the development of legal precedent. The discussion explores the court's increasing reliance on originalism and the potential consequences of this approach for the stability of the law.

00:29:12

Overturning Precedent

This Chapter discusses the trend of the Supreme Court overturning even fairly recent precedent, exploring the implications for litigation strategy and the potential for litigants to bring cases that they wouldn't have considered in the past. The discussion highlights the case of S before, a Texas state law explicitly based on a Supreme Court dissent, as an example of this trend.

00:34:05

The Rahimi Gun Case

This Chapter focuses on the Rahimi gun case, a Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal ban on gun possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The discussion explores the court's application of originalism in this case and the implications of its decision for gun control laws.

Keywords

Q&A

• What is Dicta?

  Dicta refers to non-binding legal comments or observations made by judges in their opinions that are not essential to resolving the case at hand. These comments do not have legal authority but can sometimes influence future decisions.

• Can a president issue executive orders to alter the composition of the Supreme Court?

  No, presidents do not have the power to force justices to resign, impose term limits, or alter the composition of the Supreme Court through executive orders. Such changes require congressional legislation or a constitutional amendment.

• Why was Julian Assange's indictment filed in the Northern Mariana Islands?

  Assange's guilty plea was filed in the Northern Mariana Islands due to a combination of diplomatic and legal considerations. Both sides, including Assange and the Justice Department, wanted to resolve the case without Assange setting foot in the continental United States. The Northern Mariana Islands provided a convenient location for a quick stopover before Assange returned to Australia.

• What is the Lemon test?

  The Lemon test is a legal standard used to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It has three prongs: the law must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must not be to advance or inhibit religion, and it must not foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion. The Supreme Court has recently weakened the Lemon test, leading to concerns about the future of the Establishment Clause.

• What are the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in the Rahimi gun case?

  The Rahimi gun case, which overturned a federal ban on gun possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, has significant implications for gun control laws and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The decision, based on originalism, suggests that the court may be willing to strike down other gun control regulations that lack a clear historical analog.

• How does the Supreme Court's selection bias impact its decisions?

  The Supreme Court's ability to choose which cases it hears can influence the overall direction of the court and the development of legal precedent. The justices' selection bias can reflect their ideological leanings and shape the public perception of their decisions.

• What is the significance of Amy Coney Barrett's position on the Supreme Court?

  Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative justice appointed by President Trump, is considered a key figure on the current court. Her views on originalism and her background as an academic suggest that she may hold the deciding vote in many major cases, including those involving social media, presidential immunity, and other significant issues.

• What is the US Surgeon General's new advisory on gun violence?

  The US Surgeon General has issued a new advisory declaring gun violence a public health crisis, emphasizing the need for a public health approach to address this issue. The advisory highlights the devastating impact of gun violence, particularly on youth, and calls for increased research and prevention measures.

• How does the Supreme Court's decision-making process impact the lower courts?

  The Supreme Court's decisions, particularly its willingness to overturn precedent and its inconsistent application of legal principles, can create uncertainty and confusion for lower courts. The episode highlights the challenges faced by lower courts in predicting the Supreme Court's decisions and applying its rulings to specific cases.

• What are the implications of the Supreme Court's shrinking docket?

  The Supreme Court's trend of taking fewer cases has led to concerns about the development of legal precedent and the court's ability to provide clear guidance to lower courts. The episode suggests that the court's shrinking docket may be contributing to its increasing reliance on originalism and its willingness to overturn precedent.

Show Notes