Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries.

Links: Twitter says it will 'enforce' Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition deal, 28Patriot” v. SEC, 15 US Code § 78u–2 - Civil remedies in administrative proceedings, Jellum & Tincher, “The Shadow of Free Enterprise”, Are the SEC's Administrative Law Judges Biased? An Empirical Investigation, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018), Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities

On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Federal Election Commission vs. Ted Cruz for Senate. Listeners may remember our guest today, Professor Bradley A. Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, who joined earlier in the term for the post-argument segment. Today, Professor Smith, a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (2004), joins to provide expert analysis on this decision.

Holding: Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — which limits the amount of post-election contributions that may be used to repay a candidate who lends money to his own campaign — unconstitutionally burdens core political speech.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 16, 2022. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

On March 31, the Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, a case which concerned judicial supervision of arbitration. Joining today to discuss the decision and its implications is Jennifer Dickey, Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Holding: Federal jurisdiction in a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act is determined by “looking through” the petition to the jurisdictional basis of the “underlying substantive controversy,” Vaden v. Discover Bank, but that approach does not apply to petitions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 31, 2022. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

On March 31, the Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, a case which concerned judicial supervision of arbitration. Joining today to discuss the decision and its implications is Jennifer Dickey, Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Holding: Federal jurisdiction in a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act is determined by “looking through” the petition to the jurisdictional basis of the “underlying substantive controversy,” Vaden v. Discover Bank, but that approach does not apply to petitions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 31, 2022. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

The issue before the Court in West Virginia v. EPA is whether, when designing rules under Section 111, EPA is limited to identifying “systems of emission reduction” that can be applied to and at the level of an individually regulated facility, or whether there are no limits to EPA’s authority other than the textual commands to consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Federal respondents argue the case is moot and should be dismissed as improvidently granted.

Featuring:
Speaker: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

Our recent podcasts, and their discussions of the constitutional landscape that will follow the release of the Dobbs opinion, have been heard, amplified, distorted, echoed, and - of course - tweeted in forms true and unrecognizable.  We were the impetus for a lead op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the subject of various blogs, and the target of innumerable media posts.  Nevertheless, we carry on, looking at key precedents and their future, analyzing Justice Alito’s framework for evaluating unenumerated rights, and beginning to think about how it might happen that Alito may not have the last word in this case.

By popular demand, we old out of touch guys have invited Ace Associate and Poplaw Expert Morgan Stringer on to explain to us just what in the h is happening in the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Who is suing whom and for what? Can we take what we're seeing on TikTok at face value? Also who is Amber Heard? All these answers and more(gan)!

Kate and Leah spend some additional time on possible fallout from a Dobbs opinion overruling or eviscerating Roe. They interview two people with insight on what we can expect in a post-Roe world. Diana Greene Foster is a professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and a researcher on reproductive health at UCSF. She's also the author of The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having--Or Being Denied--An Abortion [3:14]. And Greer Donley is an assistant professor at University of Pittsburgh Law, and one of the three authors of the extremely topical and important article, "The New Abortion Battleground," which is forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review. The paper is written together with Professor David Cohen at Drexel Kline School of Law and Professor Rachel Rebouche, Interim Dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law. The paper analyzes the inter-jurisdictional issues that will emerge if and when the Supreme Court overrules Roe [32:04]. We'll also catch up on some of the additional news and hot takes people have had since the leak happened [57:52].

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

According to a lawsuit filed by some shareholders, Twitter may have failed to disclose important information about the Musk deal, and it might be Musk's doing! Get the full breakdown on this very interesting lawsuit that isn't getting much coverage elsewhere! Also, a Connecticut Bill paves the way for how other states might fight against abortion restrictions. Something to fight for in your state! Also, why Andrew is definitely right about Clarence Thomas. Links: Code of Conduct for US Judges, 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, WHPA fails, CT bill, Orlando Police Pension Fund v Twitter, 8 Del. Code § 203, disclosure in merger agreement

As the Dobbs/Supreme Court leak, and its would-be draft opinion, percolate through the public and the media, certain alarms are sounded again and again.  Are these worries realistic?  What does the opinion say; what are the constitutional arguments and questions; where are the justices on these questions?  We look at some of the more prominent pundits saying the more meme-like (and frightening) things, and put them to the test.