Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Melissa, Kate, and Leah are joined by Robe Imbriano, producer of Amend: The Fight for America, and Michelle Adams, Cardozo Law Professor and one of the experts featured in the Netflix docuseries.

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

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Jessica Ring Amunson, who argued Brnovich v DNC at the Supreme Court this month, to take us inside the arguments and the key questions, and also to look at the wider landscape for voting rights. 

Then Dahlia’s joined by Jamal Greene who says Americans’ thinking about rights is all wrong, as they discuss his new book How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart.

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to thrash out the major issues of the week we couldn’t get to in the main show, including racism at Georgetown University Law Center, Chief Justice John Roberts’ lone dissent, and the last of the kraken election cases batted away from the high court. 

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Jessica Ring Amunson, who argued Brnovich v DNC at the Supreme Court this month, to take us inside the arguments and the key questions, and also to look at the wider landscape for voting rights. 

Then Dahlia’s joined by Jamal Greene who says Americans’ thinking about rights is all wrong, as they discuss his new book How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart.

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to thrash out the major issues of the week we couldn’t get to in the main show, including racism at Georgetown University Law Center, Chief Justice John Roberts’ lone dissent, and the last of the kraken election cases batted away from the high court. 

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.

It's here! The 1.9 trillion dollar package is officially passed! If you are one of the many listeners who donated time or money to getting Democrats to 50 seats, you truly did make this happen. Andrew did all the reading so you don't have to! He breaks down what's in this incredibly progressive plan.

Before that, we respond to lots of people asking "Didn't Republicans fire the parliamentarian in 2000?" This objection to our minimum wage episode completely falls flat for several reasons.

Links: WaPo Parliamentarian Article, Lott to Oust Senate Parliamentarian Who Ruled Against GOP, WaPo How big is the Biden stimulus bill?

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carr v. Saul. The question before the Court 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.
Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

We continue “Presidential Month” with the second set of readings - this time on Jahn Adams - from the forthcoming (in May) “The Words That Made Us.”  Adams’ unique combination of bombast, verbosity, grandiloquence, ubiquity, and insecurity, makes him an author’s dream.  It also left him extraordinarily thin-skinned, and the notorious Sedition Act was the result. Akhil and Andy take a grand tour of Adams’ constitutional misadventures.

On March 2, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The questions before the court were: first, whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and, second, whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.
Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa's College of Law, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

At oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a lawyer for Republicans admitted that eliminating voting restrictions would put Republicans at a 'competitive disadvantage.' Will this startling admission jeopardize the case for Republicans? Find out! Before that, we cover some good news and bad news. Bad first - the Texas EO on masking is worse than you thought. Good news - HR1 the Equality Act is amazingly good legislation! It's the jam packed Tuesday deep-dive you've come to expect from us! Links: TX Executive Orders GA-32 and GA-34, TX Code 418, TX Executive Order GA-10, State Voting Bills Tracker 2021, Georgia HB 531, [Brnovich v. DNC] Consolidated Oral Argument, 52 U.S. Code § 10301

On February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. The court also issued a one-sentence opinion vacating a lower-court ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a similar lawsuit brought by Holocaust survivors seeking compensation for Hungary’s confiscation of Jewish property. The justices sent Hungary v. Simon back to the lower courts for further proceedings in light of the opinion in Germany v. Philipp.
Germany v. Phillip arises out of lawsuit brought by the heirs of several Jewish art dealers who are seeking compensation for what they describe as the forced sale of medieval Christian relics under the Nazi regime. The respondents filed a lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia, invoking the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” as the jurisdictional basis for their claims. Germany moved to dismiss, and the district court largely denied the motion, holding the claims fell within the scope of the expropriation exception. Germany appealed, and the U.S. Appeals Court for D.C. affirmed as to jurisdiction, reiterating its holding in a prior case that a genocidal taking is a violation of international law and rejecting Germany’s argument based on principles of international comity.
In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court vacated the lower-court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to go forward, agreeing with Germany that the lawsuit does not fall within an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars lawsuits against foreign governments in U.S. courts.
Alberto Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law, joins us today to discuss this ruling and its implications.

On February 24, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The question before the court was whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant. In this case, Arthur Lange was driving home on the highway in Sonoma, California when police pursued Lange with the intention of conducting a traffic stop. Police followed Lange home and activated their overhead lights once Lange pulled into his home's driveway. Lange pulled into his garage and the garage door began closing behind him. Police approached Lange and stopped the garage from closing with his foot. After brief questioning as to whether Lange knew he was being pursued, police stated they smelled alcohol on Lange's breath and charged Lange with driving under the influence.
The trial court concluded that the officer had probable cause, denied the motion to suppress, and issued a conviction for Lange. Later, a civil court ruled that Lange's arrest was unlawful and an appellate court ruled that the arrest was lawful. On appeal to the California First District Court of Appeal, the court affirmed the conviction.
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute and Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, join us today to discuss this argument and its implications.