Month: November 2020

It's a 97% Trump-free episode! First we have to cover the bullet points Andrew foolishly thought we could get to last week, including questions like: does a 50-50 Senate mean no more Majority Leader McConnell? and what consequences should there be for law firms that take Trump's money and file frivolous election lawsuits? and more!

Then we get to the main signature deep dive, and it's not a happy one. ***content note: this episode contains discussion of sexual assault.*** Some Jehovah's Witnesses church leaders emotionally abused a rape victim, who was a minor, and she very justifiably sued them. But the backwards-ass Mormon judges of Utah conveniently decided churches can do... whatever. While this is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, it also might damage Church-State Separation along the way.

Links: Jones Day Statement Regarding Election Litigation, Snell & Wilmer withdraws from election lawsuit, Jehovah's Witnesses Lawsuit, Court hears case of woman suing Utah Jehova's Witnesses over rape audio.

On November 4, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. There were three questions before the court. The first was whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim — namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views — as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held. The second was whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited. The third was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.
Mark Rienzi joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Mr. Rienzi is President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

On November 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Borden v. United States. The question before the court was whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness.
Joining us to discuss this case’s oral argument is Kent Scheidegger. Mr. Scheidegger is the Legal Director & General Counsel at Criminal Justice Legal Foundation