Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

After our episode on Cocaine Hippos, we were contacted by previous guest and all-star attorney Monica Miller about the efforts to free Happy the Elephant. Monica works with the Nonhuman Rights Project, and they are utilizing a fascinating legal strategy to try to free certain animals from captivity. She takes us through the case and the law! In the first segment, we've got a number of OA was wrongs and rights, about hippos, Mark Jensen, AMD, and more.

Links: Wild New York YouTube, Larry Tribe op-ed, National Geographic coverage, Martha Nussbaum amicus

Melissa, Leah, & Kate recap the remaining cases from the first week of November -- and focus on Houston Community College and NYSRPA v. Bruen, which raises the question whether NYU has a campus. (It does.)

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

Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action.

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank, law firm, and action center dedicated to the project of using the original text, purpose and history of the Constitution to achieve progressive outcomes. Together, they take us inside the chamber for the big cases at the Supreme Court this week, concerning guns and abortion. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to discuss some significant orders concerning religious exemption and capital punishment, the cert grant that’s bad news for the climate, and whether some of the justices might be having a shadow docket hangover. 

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

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

.

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

Kate speaks with Juan Perla and Neil Weare about United States v. Vaello-Madero, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on November 9th. US citizens who are otherwise eligible for SSI benefits are denied solely because they live in Puerto Rico-- a US territory. Does this denial violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

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

It's one of the most requested stories for OA to cover – Steven Donziger won billions in judgment against Chevron in an Ecuadorian court in 2011. Then Chevron fought back. Now, 10 years after the original victory, Donziger has been handed loss after loss, been disbarred, and been found in criminal and civil contempt of court. His cause is deeply sympathetic to left wing audiences. But is it as simple as the big bad oil company beating up a poor lawyer? But first, some reaction to Tuesday's election results. And then some much requested analysis of the Rittenhouse Judge's latest actions. So much good info!

Links: Rittenhouse judge fumes about media criticism, Juror Tossed from Rittenhouse Trial for Jacob Blake Joke, Rittenhouse Judge Explains the Law by Citing the Bible, The History of the Hearsay Rule, The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Coy v. Iowa, Rittenhouse: Defense Attorney Repeats N-Word in Opening Statement, Chevron v. Donziger, In RE Donziger, Chevron v. Donziger, 2nd Cir affirmation, guilty of criminal contempt, 2nd circuit ruling on bail, Donziger facing jail time for criminal contempt

We begin this October term with Wooden v. United States, argued October 4, 2021, a case which concerned the Armed Career Criminal Act. Nine justices convened, in person, to examine the issue of whether offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree, but sequentially in time, were “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement. With me today to discuss this case is Jennifer Barrow, Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Barrow is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Harvard Law School, and has served as a Supreme Court Fellow, placed at the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Our series on books and authoring takes a look back at - what else?  - the opening of a book.  What comes first can make all the difference, but what makes for a great opening?  And there are things before the opening - the forward, the preface, the dedication, the title, the cover.  It’s all grist for our mill, with classic openings as well as deep dives into Akhil’s own books’ kickoffs.

Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law. 

Kate, Melissa, and Leah recap the oral arguments in the S.B. 8 cases on Monday, November 1st.

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