On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., a case involving a dispute over whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.
By a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the case, holding that The exception for calls to collect government debt from a federal ban on robocalls to cellphones violates the First Amendment, but the exception is severable from the rest of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Justice Thomas joined the court’s opinion as to parts I and II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas joined as to part II.
To discuss the case, we have Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
SCOTUScast - USAID v. Alliance for Society International, Inc. – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 29, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International. By a vote of 5-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed. The justices held that the enforcement of a law requiring foreign affiliates of domestic groups receiving funds to fight HIV/AIDS to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking does not violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Our speakers will discuss the decision and its implications.
To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.
To discuss the case, we have both Casey Mattox, a Senior Fellow focusing on toleration and free speech at the Charles Koch Institute, and Krystal B. Swendsboe, Associate at Wiley Rein LLP.
Opening Arguments - OA403: SCOTUS Demolishes Church State Separation
While the SCOTUS news last episode was good, this time around it is... not that. We've had a slew of terrible decisions for anyone who believes that taxpayers should not have to fund Christianity. So, like the Founders. To ease the pain a little, we have everyone's top 2 Andrew -- Seidel! He's the Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization we encourage you to support and become a member of!
Strict Scrutiny - Diploma Privilege
Leah is joined by Dr. Pilar Escontrias, one of the founders of United for Diploma Privilege. United for Diploma Privilege is seeking to address the calamity of bar examinations (and admissions) in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Listen, learn, and take action!
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 - June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its first major abortion decision on the merits since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. The consolidated cases, June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services, involved the constitutionality of Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations, such as Louisiana's admitting privileges law, on behalf of their patients. The plurality opinion held that the abortion providers had standing and Louisiana's law was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden.
To discuss the case, we have Stephen H. Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel at Americans United for Life.
To discuss the case, we have Stephen H. Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel at Americans United for Life.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Roberts vs. Trump
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law, associate law professor Zephyr Teachout of Fordham University, and Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern to rake over the end of the Supreme Court term, taking a close look at the Trump financial records cases, the ministerial exception cases, and a landmark decision about tribal lands in Oklahoma.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA402: Good News from SCOTUS!
Yes, you read that correctly, we've got some good news! You may not quite have seen the two decisions reported that way exactly, but Optimist Prime Torrez believes that 19-635 Trump v. Vance and 19-715 Trump v. Mazars were decided about as well as we could have hoped or better!
After that, we tackle the absolutely horrendous move by ICE to try to deport international students, and what schools are doing to try to fight back!
SCOTUScast - Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana was reversed and the case remanded.
Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Kagan as to Part I. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice.
Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Kagan as to Part I. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice.
SCOTUScast - Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that raises separation of power questions regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Specifically the Court ruled on whether Congress’s law that created the CFPB can stipulate that the President could not remove the Bureau’s director “at will”.
Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement with regard to severability and dissenting in part in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined.
Joining us to discuss this case and its implications are John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Profesor of Law and Community Service and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of Law, and Brian Johnson, partner at Alston & Bird.
Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement with regard to severability and dissenting in part in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined.
Joining us to discuss this case and its implications are John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Profesor of Law and Community Service and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of Law, and Brian Johnson, partner at Alston & Bird.
Strict Scrutiny - Well Played, Sirs
*another airhorn* Leah and Melissa break down the Court's major contraception case. Welcome to Gilead!
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