You may have seen some alarming headlines about Chauvin's lawyers asking for a new trial over a juror being at a BLM rally, but do those alarming headlines hold up? Should we be concerned? Andrew has the full breakdown! Before that, we tackle a very interesting component of the census called the "differential privacy" method, and why it's the subject of a new lawsuit.
Amarica's Constitution - Voracious Horatius
As Akhil and Andy celebrate the publication this week of The Words That Made Us, Akhil tells a story from the book - the crazy election of 1800 and its just-barely-peaceful transfer of power. And what is John Marshall up to? He’s everywhere: Secretary of State and Chief Justice at once, a pseudonymous scheming columnist, and in the end, the man with the Bible in his hand to swear in the eventual winner: his cousin.
Opening Arguments - OA487: How To Overturn Citizens United
All-star Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is at it again! In a Judiciary subcommittee meeting, Whitehouse laid out the groundwork for how a future Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder. These are two atrocious decisions that would make even the Andrewest judge lament stare decisis, but today's episode explains how a court could overturn them without doing damage to court legitimacy going forward! (if you're into that kind of thing...) Before that, Andrew breaks down SCOTUS granting cert in the NYS Rifle & Pistol Assn v Corlett. Then, we tackle a listener email claiming we badly misrepresented defense attorneys in last Tuesday's show.
Links: NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v. City of New York, N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f), Supreme Court of the United States opp brief, 2nd Circuit NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Beach, Cert Peition, Cert granted, Supreme Court Fact-Finding and the Distortion of American Democracy, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Citizens United, Civil Service Commission v. Nat’l Assn of Letter Carriers,
Strict Scrutiny - Burn Book on Purposivism
Leah and Kate recap the textualist bonanza in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, and the recent arguments in Americans for Prosperity Foundation (during which Justice Alito signaled that he’s a fan of the pod) and Mahanoy School District. They also preview the final case of the term, Terry v. United States.
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 - Carr v. Saul – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. was whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.”
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow at the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies of Cato Institute and Managing Editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.”
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow at the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies of Cato Institute and Managing Editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
SCOTUScast - Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On April 28, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The question before the court was whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus.
Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
Opening Arguments - OA486: Apportionment Might NOT Be Final
You all probably heard by now that NY lost a House seat by 89 people... But did they? Andrew argues that this has been misreported. Find out why! Along the way, find out way more than you ever wanted to about the math and Al Gore Rhythms behind apportionment! Also, Rudy Giuliani had some things taken in what shouldn't be called a "raid." Couldn't' have happened to a nicer obvious criminal! Then we answer some feedback on the previous episode, OA485: What If Your Client Tells You They’re Guilty?
Links: OA307: Apportionment - The Census Fight Is Not Over, NPR 2020 Census Results, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Executive Order on the Census, 2020 Census Apportionment Results, 2 U.S. Code § 2b, Method of Equal Proportions, Reapportionment Under the 1950 Census, "Computing Apportionment," US Census Bureau, Model Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
SCOTUScast - Sanchez v. Mayorkas – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On April 19, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sanchez v. Mayorkas. The question before the court was under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of temporary protected status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees joins us today to dicsuss this case's oral argument.
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees joins us today to dicsuss this case's oral argument.
SCOTUScast - Jones v. Mississippi – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi. The issue was whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, holding, “The Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.”
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel for the Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor of Right on Crime, joins us today to discuss this case and its implications.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, holding, “The Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.”
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel for the Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor of Right on Crime, joins us today to discuss this case and its implications.
Amarica's Constitution - 18 Arguments for 18 Years
The Biden Commission is in the news, with a mandate to produce ideas on judicial reform, especially at the Supreme Court level. It just so happens that Akhil has been writing about this for almost 20 years, and has fully formed ideas. How many ways would these changes make the Court better? We’ll count. Of course, the historical and constitutional background will also be explored and explained.