Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina).

In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Tune in to hear our experts break down the oral argument.

Featuring:
Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School
Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

We're once again joined by the incredible Liz Dye to update us (and remind us of the backstory...) on the E. Jean Carroll suit. Or now, SUITS! She has been able to file another suit against Trump due to a new law that has been passed. It's good news for justice, bad news for Trump!

It’s Part 2 of our discussion of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases, with Harvard and the University of North Carolina defending their procedures  We play clips from the oral arguments, with every justice chiming in along with the advocates, and our analysis follows.  This time we address themes that recurred during the arguments - how does one determine an endpoint for racial preferences in admissions?  How can we measure or pinpoint the educational value of diversity?  What is the appropriate level of diversity - is it necessarily identical to the proportional representation in the population?  And importantly, what might take the place of the “checkbox” that currently appears on most college applications, designating one’s race?  Professor Amar’s 1996 article, co-authored with Neal Katyal, somewhat prophetically touched on these and other themes, and it is referenced frequently in these discussions. 

What happens when Thomas preps a music law episode but Andrew also preps a music law episode? You get basically 2 episodes in 1! Given that we just moved to our more frequent schedule, we definitely did not intend to create such a behemoth, but there was just too much to cover! In the first half, Andrew sketches out the legal landscape in music copyright law and it's pretty severe limitations. We analyze the Blurred Lines/Got To Give It Up lawsuit, and the Sam Smith/Tom Petty case, complete with clips! Then in the second half, we FINALLY get to the actual case at hand, which is Grigson v Lopez. Thomas takes Andrew on a bit of a musical tour discussing different elements of the songs with even more clips!

Melissa, Kate, and Leah preview the cases that the Supreme Court will hear in December-- from election law shenanigans, to discrimination as protected speech, to making fraud great again. 

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

... and his terrible f*cking attorneys. You love to see it.

We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States. 

The fact that Garland has appointed a Special Counsel means an indictment is not coming in the very immediate future. HOWEVER, everything we know about Jack Smith tells us that this is a very serious step that is not good for Trump. Listen in and find out why! Also, the 11th Circuit AGAIN slapped down Judge Cannon's horrendous ruling. The oral arguments could have been a Law'd Great Media. Andrew brought some quotes and they are great. This is the first episode of our new format, so there is no T3BE! There will be 4 episodes next week, the two smaller ones will have the T3BE question and answer. Exciting!

Links: 28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority, 28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, 28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability, Smith Appointment order, 28 CFR § 600.8 - Notification and reports by the Special Counsel, 11th-circuit-grants-stay.pdf, 11th-circuit-grants-stay.pdf, Trump still filing to Cannon, Another Eastman Loss, SCOTUS declines to intervene for Trump taxes

When the New York Times built on previous reporting in Politico and Rolling Stone  about an evangelical christian ministry that sought to sell access to and influence Supreme Court Justices with fancy dinners and donations, the Hobby Lobby leak dominated the headlines. But there is so much more to this story. To discuss how the headlines fit into a larger narrative of dark money and a captured court, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights and co-author of The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court. See also: The Supreme Court Ethics and Recusal Transparency Act. 

Want a behind-the-scenes look at how we create the show? Check out Slate's Pocket Collections for research and reading lists, as well as additional insights into how we think about the stories behind the episodes. 

Dahlia’s book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25% discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s Amarica’s Constitution’s 100th episode, and anniversary celebrations are in the air!  We bring back Professor Steve Calabresi, who returns from the Federalist Society’s Lawyers Convention - which just celebrated its own 40th anniversary.  The occasion was marked by a memorable Rosenkranz Debate, wherein Akhil took on Professor John Yoo on - what else? - the merits and demerits of ISL theory, and the forthcoming case of Moore v. Harper.  Steve Calabresi was present at the debate, and he offers his color commentary .  Of course, Steve was one of the three authors of the amicus brief that has received so much attention, together with our two Amar brothers, and we hear his perspective and his unique contributions.  On top of it all, we celebrate our milestone by launching video, through our new Instagram account, amaricas_constitution, and soon, a TikTok account as well, with highlight clips, photos, and more.