It's a deep dive into law and religion in this conservative supermajority iteration of the Supreme Court. Kate talks with Micah Schwartzman of UVA and Nelson Tebbe of Cornell about some of the major religious liberty cases that have come before the Court in recent years, and what the Court may be signaling for the future.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone.
In the second of Amicus’ Summer Series of interviews that step out of the day to day of jurisprudence to look at justice and the Supreme Court through a wide-angle lens, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by actor and playwright Heidi Schreck. Schreck created and starred in the Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award - nominated “What the Constitution Means to Me” and is a fierce advocate for abortion rights. Together, they try to locate the spot at the intersection of politics, law, culture, media and art that might provide a space to adequately describe the impacts of the Dobbs decision. And that is where they find the galvanizing forces and creative feats of imagination that have served previous generations in the fight for equal rights, and that will fuel the fight to come.
On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.
Featuring: Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul Stevens Carrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
There was a truly amazing moment in the Alex Jones trial that we can't wait to share with you. And, it's a chance for some law talkin'! Jones' lawyers are completely inept and we should all enjoy nice things. Then, Andrew takes us through an interesting election situation in North Carolina involving the Green Party. Guess what, they still suck and are helping Republicans win! So much so that Republicans are literally fighting legal battles for Green Party candidates.
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan’s merits.
This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.
Featuring: David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
On June 13 and 15, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas respectively. Both cases dealt with issues of Native American law. In Denezpi, a 6-3 Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, in a case where a man was prosecuted in both a federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses. In Ysleta, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not control gambling activities on the lands of the Ysleta del sur Pueblo Native tribe.
Featuring: Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general’s motion to intervene on the commonwealth’s behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Featuring: Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vacated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capital sentences.
The Court held that the judge's conduct of voir dire conformed to its precedents and reversed the First Circuit's holding that the judge had violated a rule established by that circuit under its supervisor power. The Court held that courts of appeals have no power to circumvent or supplement legal standards established in Supreme Court precedents.
The Court also held that the judge was within his authority to exclude from the penalty trial hearsay evidence of Tsarnaev's brother's involvement in an unrelated murder. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires admission of all mitigating evidence no matter how dubious or how weakly mitigating.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
Featuring: Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Our tour through the late-term Supreme Court cases now runs through the football field where Coach Kennedy sits praying on the 50 yard line. Professor Amar calls the play - a run through the string of cases that took the Court to this point by way of Abington and progeny. We wind up in this fact-specific case with turns and twists, and detours through the pledge of allegiance and an old Missouri case along the way. It’s a master law school class in case analysis, and we aren’t so sure that the majority passed.
