On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Lange v. California, a case which concerned whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement apply when police are pursuing a suspect whom they believe committed a misdemeanor. In a unanimous decision, the Court held for Lange that "pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home." Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the court.
I am joined today by Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, Larry H. James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Brown and James, and Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.
Amarica's Constitution - They Are Small Colleges
Akhil and Andy continue their tour of the 9 established colleges at the Founding, 7 were in the Ivy League, so the Ancient Eight will inevitably stand out in our survey - but they are not alone, as we discuss. Still it is remarkable that such a tiny portion of the population yielded so many familiar names. Latter-day scholars from these institutions still loom large as well, from Daniel Webster and Charles Beard to Gordon Wood and Maggie Blackhawk - giants all. And learn about one of the greats that you may not know well - Douglas Adair.
SCOTUScast - National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, a case which concerned whether the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation for college athletes violated federal antitrust law. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch affirmed the ruling of the lower court, holding that the NCAA’s rules restricting certain education-related benefits for student-athletes violate federal antitrust laws under a “rule of reason” analysis. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael Murray, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice.
Opening Arguments - OA501: Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory
If you've heard the buzz about Critical Race Theory lately, you... probably have absolutely no idea what it actually is because the people who have already passed laws in several states banning it don't even know. But if you've heard an informed person talk about it, you may have heard that it has its roots in the law. Well then, what better place to give you a deep dive than on a law show! So what is Critical Legal Studies? How did it pave the way for Critical Race Theory? OA is on the case!
Links: Why are states lining up to ban critical race theory?, The Wedge Document, Critical Race Theory Briefing Book, Florida's New Law, Helms Stalls King's Day In Senate, Marxism, Understanding Marx, Understanding Modernism, Postmodernism, The Bridge: Critical Theory: CLS Movement, The skin trade Posner review
Divided Argument - Early Wittgenstein
As October Term 2020 hurtles towards a thrilling conclusion (well, hopefully), Dan and Will break down two of Monday's decisions. They explore the separation of powers and severability in United States v. Arthrex and talk about antitrust law's implications for college sports in NCAA v. Alston.
Strict Scrutiny - Love and Basketball
Leah and Melissa do a quick dash through Monday’s opinions in Arthrex, NCAA v. Alston, and Goldman v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement Systems and a quick note on Nestle v. Doe before allowing Leah time to work out some feelings on Justice Alito’s dissent in the ACA case.
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
SCOTUScast - United States v. Arthrex, Inc. – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority to appoint Administrative Patent Judges. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office, thereby vacating the lower court's judgement and remanding for further review.
Three experts join us today to discuss the ruling. They are Professor Kristen Osenga, Austen E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, Professor Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington Law School, and Professor Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Center for medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
Three experts join us today to discuss the ruling. They are Professor Kristen Osenga, Austen E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, Professor Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington Law School, and Professor Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Center for medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
SCOTUScast - United States v. Arthrex, Inc. – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 21st, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority to appoint Administrative Patent Judges. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office, thereby vacating the lower court's judgement and remanding for further review.
Three experts join us today to discuss the ruling. They are Professor Kristen Osenga, Austen E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, Professor Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington Law School, and Professor Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Center for medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
Three experts join us today to discuss the ruling. They are Professor Kristen Osenga, Austen E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, Professor Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington Law School, and Professor Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director at the Center for medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
Opening Arguments - OA500B: Bonus! Terrible Supreme Court Rulings; Machin’s New Conditions
It's bonus OA!!! Andrew takes us through whatever the hell Manchin is trying to do with Republicans, then breaks down two Supreme Court rulings for us. Spoiler: they're terrible.
Links: For the People Act of 2021, 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia, California v. Texas
Divided Argument - Triple Bank Shot
Will and Dan break down the Court's sudden burst of interesting opinions – California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, and Nestle v. Doe.