On March 29, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The questions before the court were whether, first, a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality; and, second, whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.
Ted Frank, Director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
SCOTUScast - National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On March 31, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in NCAA v. Alston. The question before the court was Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erroneously held, in conflict with decisions of other circuits and general antitrust principles, that the National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules regarding compensation of student-athletes violate federal antitrust law.
Hon. Joshua D. Wright, professor and Executive Director of the Global Antitrust Institute at Antonin Scalia Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
Hon. Joshua D. Wright, professor and Executive Director of the Global Antitrust Institute at Antonin Scalia Law School, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
Opening Arguments - OA478: Why Biden’s Judicial Picks Are Hardball
If you're looking for evidence that Joe Biden is ready and willing to play hardball and not give a shirt about Republican votes, his first batch of judicial nominees are a great example. Andrew breaks down for us why they signal that he isn't messing around! Before that, we discuss the 9th circuit decision Young v. Hawaii about open carry.
Links: Memorandum on International Transgender Day of Visibility, Biden Announces Intent to Nominate 11 Judicial Candidates, Biden Won't Give ABA Advance Role in Vetting Judicial Nominees, ABA 2019 Report: Lawyer Demographics, Examining the Demographic Compositions of US Circuit and District Courts, Biden borrowed the Federalist Society's tactics
SCOTUScast - Torres v. Madrid – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Torres v. Madrid. This case arises out of an incident Roxanne Torres had with police officers in which she was operating a vehicle under the influence of methamphetamine and in the process of trying to get away, endangered the two officers pursuing her. In the process, one of the officers shot and injured her. Torres pleaded no contest to three crimes: (1) aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, (2) assault on a police officer, and (3) unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.
In October 2016, she filed a civil-rights complaint in federal court against the two officers, alleging claims including excessive force and conspiracy to engage in excessive force. Construing Torres’s complaint as asserting the excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment, the court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In the court’s view, the officers had not seized Torres at the time of the shooting, and without a seizure, there could be no Fourth Amendment violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
In a 5-3 vote the Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Court held that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, joins us today to discuss this opinion.
In October 2016, she filed a civil-rights complaint in federal court against the two officers, alleging claims including excessive force and conspiracy to engage in excessive force. Construing Torres’s complaint as asserting the excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment, the court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In the court’s view, the officers had not seized Torres at the time of the shooting, and without a seizure, there could be no Fourth Amendment violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
In a 5-3 vote the Supreme Court vacated and remanded. The Court held that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director and General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, joins us today to discuss this opinion.
Amarica's Constitution - Advise and Impeach
"Amarica's Constitution" welcomes our guest, Professor Michael Gerhardt, who pulls himself away from his work as Congress' go-to expert on the impeachment to share a postmortem with us from the inside. He should know - he was retained by the presiding officer, Senator Leahy, as counsel for the impeachment. His new book, "Lincoln's Mentors," is out, and we can't ever resist a Lincoln discussion. Andy and Akhil have been teasing about EverScholar - today they let us know what all the fuss is about; see for yourself at everscholar.org.
Opening Arguments - OA477: No, Judges Should NOT Be Originalists
A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 1 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad.
Then we've got Ace Associate Morgan Stringer on for some pop-law! She gives us the breakdown on the lawsuits filed against DeShaun Watson which allege sexual assault.
Links: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Gamble Decision with Thomas quote
SCOTUScast - Caniglia v. Strom – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On March 24, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral arguement in Caniglia v. Strom. The question before the court was whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
Strict Scrutiny - Spaceships and Serial Killers
Melissa and special guest Ginger Anders recap the first week of the March sitting and preview the second week of the March sitting.
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Woulda, Coulda SCOTUS
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Adam Cohen to talk about Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America, and whether Merrick Garland should heed calls to reinvestigate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern on Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, the big union case before the court this week, guns at the 9th Circuit, and Georgia’s vote-suppression legislation push.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Woulda, Coulda SCOTUS
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Adam Cohen to talk about Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America, and whether Merrick Garland should heed calls to reinvestigate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern on Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, the big union case before the court this week, guns at the 9th Circuit, and Georgia’s vote-suppression legislation push.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.