Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Will and Dan ponder what this podcast is about, continue their discussion of good faith in judging, try to game out exactly what the Court is up to in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, and respond to listener feedback. 

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by two independent abortion providers, Amy Hagstrom Miller of Whole Women's Health and Tammi Kromenaker of Red River Women's Clinic, to share their reactions to two huge pieces of news in reproductive rights and health this week: the Supreme Court’s Dobbs grant, and SB8 in Texas. Then, Ian Milhiser of Vox and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island join Dahlia to discuss the courts and democracy, and why Clarence Thomas may be the most consequential justice for a generation.

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to discuss why the justices feel emboldened to take up such blockbuster cases for next term.

If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Political Gabfest—and you’ll be supporting the work we do here on Amicus. Sign up now at slate.com/amicusplus to help support our work.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

.

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by two independent abortion providers, Amy Hagstrom Miller of Whole Women's Health and Tammi Kromenaker of Red River Women's Clinic, to share their reactions to two huge pieces of news in reproductive rights and health this week: the Supreme Court’s Dobbs grant, and SB8 in Texas. Then, Ian Milhiser of Vox and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island join Dahlia to discuss the courts and democracy, and why Clarence Thomas may be the most consequential justice for a generation.

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to discuss why the justices feel emboldened to take up such blockbuster cases for next term.

If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Political Gabfest—and you’ll be supporting the work we do here on Amicus. Sign up now at slate.com/amicusplus to help support our work.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is not a misleading clickbait headline, this is literally what happened. Mississippi citizens passed a medical marijuana amendment and textualist conservative judges overruled it with a reading of the law so asinine that it rendered constitutional amendments by citizens impossible going forward. You have to hear the breakdown to even believe it. In the second segment, Andrew delivers some more real bad news out of the US Supreme Court. You likely heard about the abortion case, but Edwards v. Vannoy is a decision you didn't hear about that does not bode well.

On April 21, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com. The question before the Court was whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack[] discretion to deny or reduce” appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e).
Charles Campbell, Associate Professor of Law and Interim Dean at Faulkner University's Jones School of Law, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Caniglia v. Strom. The issue was whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Neither the holding nor logic of Cady v. Dombrowski justifies the removal of Edward Caniglia’s firearms from his home by police officers under a ‘community caretaking exception’ to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement."
Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed concurring opinions.
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Our series on civil liberties, including especially the First Amendment and free speech, continues with perhaps its greatest advocate before the Supreme Court, Floyd Abrams.  It’s natural to assume that Floyd would be an absolutist on such bedrocks as the case New York Times v. Sullivan - especially since he has represented The NY Times for years.  But no, surprisingly, he expresses, to Akhil and Andy, certain abridgments of this case that he might consider if he were, say, on the bench.  This and so much more, as a momentous career is celebrated and revealed, from one’s duty to one’s client to what it’s like to appear before the Supreme Court.

On April 21, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The question before the Court was whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.
Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On April 20, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Gary. The question before the Court was whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

Will and Dan ponder the significance Court's grant of certiorari in an abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, before going on to recap some of the opinions the Court released this week. They discuss Caniglia v. Strom, a Fourth Amendment case, and what it might mean for drug-dealing senior citizens. And they explore the puzzling world of criminal-procedure retroactivity in Edwards v. Vannoy, and in particular Justice Gorsuch's bold concurrence charting a new course for federal habeas corpus law.