We continue our look at the big cases that rocked the end of the Supreme Court term. Turning to the Bruen gun case, we see a long opinion and two short concurrences. An ambitious, contentious opinion by Justice Thomas riled many, especially in the wake of the continuing plague of shootings around America. We draw particular attention, however, to concurrences that may be the real news here. And if this case indeed has great impact, is it in its short-term policy implications, or its long-term constitutional lessons - or somewhere else? The case turns out, in Professor Amar’s “Princess Bride” view, to perhaps not mean what you think it means.
Opening Arguments - OA612: The Supreme Court – How Did We Get Here?
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, Andrew gave a brilliant talk to the Houston Oasis group on how we got here and what we can do.
Note in the QnA section, the questions were not recorded, sorry. They are reasonably easy to figure out with context clues though!
Strict Scrutiny - Break Glass in Case of Emergency
It was a long term. It's over. Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap what all happened, what we maybe learned out of it, and what we have to look forward to.
For a transcript of this episode go to https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/
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
Divided Argument - Settling of Scores
We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine."
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - A Supreme Court Term Like No Other
Dahlia Lithwick hosts Amicus’ annual term-ending breakfast table conversation, featuring Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern, Professor Katherine Franke and Professor Nikolas Bowie. They dig into the biggest decisions of the term, and step back to survey where the court is headed, and where it’s already been.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
SCOTUScast - Patel v. Garland – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Patel v. Garland, holding that Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings enumerated under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). The judgment of the 11th circuit was affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Joining today to discuss this decision and its implications is Kelly Holt, associate in the Issue and Appeals practice at Jones Day.
SCOTUScast - Golan v. Saada – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 15, 2022 the Court decided Golan v. Saada, holding that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Margaret Ryznar of Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law.
SCOTUScast - Vega v. Tekoh – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 23rd, the Court decided Vega vs. Tekoh, a case which concerned whether an un-mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the fifth amendment and might support a section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. Joining today to discuss the Court’s decision is Misha Tseyltin, partner at Troutman Pepper and leader of the firm’s national Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group.
Opening Arguments - OA611: Cipollone to Testify! Andrew Called It! Here’s What To Expect.
Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal!
In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal!
After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important object lesson that you can never trust the fact section in a SCOTUS case involving religion these days.
Links:
- The brilliant and hilarious Merrill Markoe captured the live-captioning of Pat Cipollone's name as Patsy Baloney (and others) on Twitter.
- For the background for the crime-fraud exception, check out Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
- You can check out the Senate Judiciary testimony of Jeff Rosen as well as Richard Donohue for all sorts of new goodies, some of which we covered on the show!
- Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Carson v. Makin., which we previously broke down in Episode 608 with Andrew Seidel.
- Finally, secret link! CLICK HERE to read the Kurt Olsen draft complaint for the DOJ, which we discovered in all its madness after the end of the record.
Remember you can still donate to the Opening Arguments Foundation at OAfund.org!
Amarica's Constitution - Unprecedented
The nation continues to be abuzz over the Supreme Court’s recent decisions that rounded out the term, particularly in the Dobbs case. We take a careful look at the dissent in this case; in particular, at the various claims that it makes regarding the majority opinion and its overall approach to evaluating Roe and Casey. We reflect on the significance of the opinion and its methodology, particularly as we look to analyze the Bruen and Carson cases in forthcoming episodes, and as a big one – the ISL case – looms in the coming year.