Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

The Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit between rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation regarding Warhol’s works based on Goldsmith’s photo of the musician Prince. The fair use doctrine excuses from liability certain unlicensed uses of copyrighted works. The question before the Court in Warhol v. Goldsmith is whether Warhol’s creation of a series of paintings copied from the photo, and the licensure of those paintings to periodicals, constitutes a fair use. Underlying the case are core intellectual property questions about the nature and scope of the fair use doctrine.

Following oral arguments on October 12, Zvi Rosen, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the respondent (Goldsmith), joined us to break down the case.

Featuring:
Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

A viral meme claims that a fake Eli Lilly tweet declaring insulin to be free tanked the stock to the tune of billions and billions. Ignoring for a moment the fact that it seems incredibly unlikely that an easily debunkable fake tweet on fake tweet day would send a bunch of investors into a frenzy, could Eli Lilly sue the tweeter? Or the Twitter? It's another Section 230 deep dive!

Links: 47 U.S.C. § 230, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group, Gonzalez v. Google LLC - SCOTUSblog, Trump 9th Cir. brief

On Saturday, the New York Times published a piece about a former anti-abortion leader's claim that he was told the outcome of a 2014 Supreme Court case before it was public. The story offers a glimpse at a years-long campaign by conservative activists to obtain access to and ingratiate themselves with Supreme Court justices. It's really wild and really disturbing-- so Leah, Kate, and Melissa convene for an emergency episode to discuss.

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

“A Kitchen Sink Approach to Constitutional Claims”

On this week’s Amicus, - the case that threatens the Indian Child Welfare Act, but also threatens domino effects on tribal sovereignty and land rights. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Rebecca Nagle, a Cherokee writer, advocate & language learner. Nagle is host of This Land podcast. Season 2 of the podcast was a deep and broad investigation into the background of the case at hand. Maggie Blackhawk also lends her expertise to the discussion, Professor Blackhawk (Find du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe) is professor of law at NYU and an award-winning interdisciplinary scholar and teacher of constitutional law, federal Indian law, and legislation, Together, they delve through a veritable grab bag of constitutional challenges from the plaintiffs in Brackeen v Haaland. Listen up, you’re about to learn a lot, we did. 

In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about how a Georgia judge overturned that state’s abortion ban, President Biden’s record and prospects for confirming judges, and death penalty cruelty on the shadow docket again. 

 

Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. 

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

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court will address the dormant commerce clause in the context of a California law regarding the housing of farm animals. Specifically, the Court will decide "whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause..."

Oral arguments took place on October 11. The Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro joined us to analyze the arguments and examine the issues underlying the case.

Featuring:
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

...despite Mitch McConnell voting against codifying his own marriage into law... This is good news! Is it perfect news? As usual, no! But is it still very good? Yes! Would this have happened without Democrats controlling congress even by the slimmest possible majority? NO! Also, MAJOR show announcement! And it's a good one! Then Liz Dye joins to talk about a judge slapping down the Stop Woke Act.

Links: Remaining House Election Results and Race Calls - The New York Times, Bipartisan senators revive effort to pass bill codifying same-sex marriage protections, U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), 28 U.S. Code § 1738C - Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof, H. R. 8404 To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act

On October 4, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan.

Following the 2020 Census, the Alabama Legislature redrew its congressional district lines to account for shifts in the state’s population. With these new lines, only one of the state’s seven congressional districts was majority-minority. Several plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district to account for the growing African American population in Alabama.

The District Court enjoined the districts, holding that they violated the VRA. Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Certiorari and stayed the district court's injunctions.

Featuring:
David Warrington, Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
Moderator: Michael Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court, and two cases - one involving Harvard, and one implicating the University of North Carolina - were recently argued before the Court.  We have pulled out clips from the more than six hours of argument, culled the main arguments, and we present them to you.  Listen to the voices of the justices and the advocates, and hear Akhil’s commentary and analysis.  This is the first of a planned two-podcast series.

Today we get a breakdown on a few cases in which right wing goons are seeking to shut down free speech and freedom of the press in a pretty major way. AND they are finding success in our broken courts. Dershowitz v. CNN and Trump v. CNN. It also gives Andrew a chance to fawn over the Onion Amicus Brief that so many of you requested us to go over!

Links: Dersh v CNN motion for summary judgment, Novak v. City of Parma, Novak v. City of Parma, 33 F.4th 296 6th circuit opinion, Novak cert petition, Onion's amicus brief

In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases.