Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

The Trump administration was given a victory in the courts regarding the census. It's absolutely bad news, but Andrew has a plan for that! Ok, ok, it was Elizabeth Warren's plan, but Andrew breaks it down for us! It's a one weird trick that actually will work, assuming that we win in November. Before that, we've got yet another Mazars update. It's going exactly how Andrew told us it would go, and that's... not great but also not bad.

Links: Trump v Mazars application for stay, US v R Enterprises porn case again, Ross v. National Urban League, Warren's Census plan, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Mid-Decade Census, 2015 Census.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. on October 7, 2020. Two questions were before the court: the first was whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; the second was whether, as a jury found, Google's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use. Google reused roughly 11,000 lines of “declaring” code written by Oracle, but rewrote or purchased all other code that provided android’s functionality. Oral arguments addressed whether the 11,000 lines of “declaring” code are protected by copyright, and if so, whether Google’s use of them was “fair.”
Michael Risch joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Risch is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and author of an amicus brief in support of Google.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate discuss some of the highlights of the October sitting, as well as the conclusion of the Barrett confirmation hearings.

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of The Lie that Binds to discuss the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what her nomination to the Supreme Court means for reproductive rights. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School to discuss all the other questions that went unanswered at the hearings.

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

On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Tanzin v. Tanvir, a case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, commonly referred to as RFRA. The issue in this case is whether RFRA permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Stephanie Taub joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments.

On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Carney v. Adams, a First Amendment case involving a longstanding Delaware state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts. The leftover seats are reserved for the “other major party”, in effect barring members of minor parties and politically unaffiliated persons from joining the state’s three highest courts.
Michael Dimino joins us to discuss this case's oral arguments.

Andrew watched the hearings so you don't have to! What is super-precedent? And did ACB really rule that an employer using the n-word wasn't hostile or racist? We've got the full breakdown! Before that, we have an excellent listener question on potential federal laws on things like Roe V Wade after the Handmaid's Tale Court takes away reproductive rights

Links: McGahn petition, Article 1 sec 8, OA309 Stormy Daniels, CA v Texas, gov't opposition, Sinclair George Mason Law Review Article, Richmond Medical Center v. Gilmore, Smith v Illinois Dep't of Transportation, ACB questionnaire, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices.

Leah and Kate recap the first three days of the confirmation hearings so you don’t have to actually listen to them.

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

As we say often... there's no sugar coating this one. Alito and Thomas shouted their pathetic homophobia from the bench in a concurrence recently. What was the ruling, you ask? No ruling. It was a concurrence on a denial of cert for a case involving - wait for it - Kim Davis. Yes, that Kim Davis. The case was so stupid that not even Alito and Thomas could get behind it, but they went out of their way to yell the quiet part as loudly as they could. Andrew has the full breakdown of what happened. Oh, uh, apropos of nothing... WE NEED TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE SENATE BACK.

In happier news, Naomi Andrews is here to tell us all about the Access for All Conference Andrew will be speaking in! (Use code: openargs)

Links: Obergefell, Kim Davis's Idiot Case, Zablocki v. Redhail (1978).

Leah and Melissa recap the first week of the October sitting, as well as all of the beginning of term developments on the Court’s docket, orders list, and so much more.

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