On June 3, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. The issue was whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “An individual ‘exceeds authorized access’ under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer — such as files, folders or databases — that are off-limits to him..”
Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.
Orin Kerr, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
SCOTUScast - Terry v. United States – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 14th, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Terry v. U.S. The issue before the Court was whether pre-August 3rd, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C 841(b)(1)(c) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. We are joined today by Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.
SCOTUScast - United States v. Palomar-Santiago – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On May 24, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Palomar-Santiago. The issue was whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically entitled to a defense of invalid removal where the crime underlying his removal is no longer a qualifying removal offense within his circuit.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Each of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)’s statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack on a prior deportation order is mandatory.”
Brian Fish, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney in Baltimore, MD, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Each of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)’s statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack on a prior deportation order is mandatory.”
Brian Fish, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney in Baltimore, MD, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
Strict Scrutiny - Presto!
Kate, Melissa, and Leah get together to discuss Justice Kagan’s approach to statutory interpretation. We got two opinions this week, Sanchez v. Mayorkas, another unanimous immigration case, and the big ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act, not Affordable Care Act) opinion we’ve been waiting for-- Borden v. US. They identify an important parallel between Justice Kagan and Taylor Swift and lay out the evidence that the Justices are reading their tweets (and everyone else’s too). Finally, they are joined by three former law clerks to Judge Katzmann (Professors Rachel Bayefsky, Bernie Meyler, and Lindsay Nash) to remember the late judge.
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
Opening Arguments - OA498: The Garland DoJ Coverage is Completely Wrong
This episode is exactly why this show exists. Two stories about Merrick Garland's DoJ came out recently that gave the strong impression that Garland was defending Trump policies and even joining forces with religious bigots against LGBTQ rights. These stories are COMPLETELY misleading. As always with complicated legal stories, the truth faces a steep, uphill battle. Come along as Andrew explains why Garland is doing exactly what he should be, and would be doing even under a Bernie Sanders administration. In the first segment, we discuss the Women's Health Protection Act. Can it save us from the Supreme Court overturning Roe? Find out! Links: Manchin abortion record, Murkowski abortion record, 28 US Code § 2679 Westfall Act, Barr's first brief, E. Jean Carroll's response, CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (2006), DOJ Updates Filing, 20 US Code § 1681, Attorney General's Duty to Defend, The Indefensible Duty to Defend, Alliance defending freedom motion to intervene
SCOTUScast - Borden v. United States – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 10th, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Borden v. United States. The issue before the Court was whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with an intent requirement of mere recklessness. Justice Elena Kagan authored the four-justice plurality opinion in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch joined, reversing the judgement of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, concluding that, quote, “a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness does not qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause.” Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, Alito, and Barrett joined. Joining us today to discuss this decision is Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, and author of over 150 briefs in cases in the Supreme Court.
Amarica's Constitution - Princeton Palaver Past
Akhil and Andy continue their look around the Ivy League. Having dispensed with Harvard, Princeton enters their sights, particularly their great early product, James Madison. Was he truly “the father of the Constitution,” and why does it matter? Two of the most important early Supreme Court cases are implicated - one you probably have heard of, and one you most likely have not. And two big issues for the 21st century find their roots in these cases - and the Court will be heard soon enough on one or both. And why does Bobby Bonds find his way into this episode?
Opening Arguments - OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam
Andrew stumbled across a Marketwatch article that recommended a Christian Health Sharing company to save money on health insurance. Due to this being a complete scam, Andrew was sent on a Liam Neeson-esque crusade. Let's just say he has a certain set of skills involving documents and research and deep-diving... Listen and find out why this is a scam, and why it still persists and is in fact being incentivized by our government! Yes the Biden one still! Whatever your belief system, PLEASE don't let yourself or anyone you know be taken in by this scam! Links: dumb Marketwatch article, Membership for Health Sharing Ministries Soars, Healthcare Sharing Ministries: Read the Fine Print, Buzzfeed coverage, Member Requirements, § 1501(d)(2)(B), 2016 IRS ruling, Trump EO 13877, 85 FR 35398, 26 CFR Part 1 - INCOME TAXES, NYT coverage
SCOTUScast - United States v. Cooley – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Cooley. The issue was whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded. The Supreme Court held, “A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law.”
Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.
Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP, joins us today to discuss the Court’s decision and its implications.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded. The Supreme Court held, “A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law.”
Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.
Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP, joins us today to discuss the Court’s decision and its implications.
SCOTUScast - Sanchez v. Mayorkas – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 7, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Sanchez v. Mayorkas. The issue before the Court was whether the conferral of Temporary Protected Status under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a constitutes an “admission” into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence. The Honorable Grover Rees, III, retired U.S. Ambassador to East Timor, and former General Counsel of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1991 to 1993, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.