Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the Supreme Court has already entered a new era. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Heather Cox Richardson for a big-picture conversation about what that means: minority rule and the court’s role, past and present, in changing visions of democracy. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern updates us on all the election-law cases. OK, not all of them—there are more than 300 cases going on in 46 states—but Mark brings us up to speed on the key cases and the worrying signals they send about what happens if the election results are contested. 

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.

On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Torres v. Madrid. The question before the court was whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.
Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Scheidegger is Legal Director and General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard Pereida v. Barr, an immigration case. The question before the court was whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. More specifically, the Court heard arguments regarding whether Mr. Pereida, who used a false Social Security card to get a job, could legally seek relief from deportation since he was never charged with any specific violation of Section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Brian Fish joins us today to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Mr. Fish is Special Assistant to the United States Attorney of Baltimore, Maryland.

In a steroid-induced haze, Trump may have inadvertently declassified all Russia documents by Tweeting: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” BuzzFeed News jumped on the opportunity and took Trump to court. Andrew has the full break down!

Before that, we talk about updates in the E. Jean Carroll case. That case centers around the (for some reason) difficult question of whether or not slandering your own sexual assault victim is somehow within your job duties as President.

Links: OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Carroll's opposition, Trump reply, Oral argument scheduled for 10/21, BuzzFeed v DoJ, Leopold Reply, ACB responses to QFR, Senate Rule III, Pennsylvania decision, Alabama decision

On October 13, 2020, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding United States v. Collins (consolidated with United States v. Briggs). The question before the court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Arthur Rizer and Richard Sala join us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Rizer is the Director of the Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties program and Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute. Sala is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.

The Trump administration was given a victory in the courts regarding the census. It's absolutely bad news, but Andrew has a plan for that! Ok, ok, it was Elizabeth Warren's plan, but Andrew breaks it down for us! It's a one weird trick that actually will work, assuming that we win in November. Before that, we've got yet another Mazars update. It's going exactly how Andrew told us it would go, and that's... not great but also not bad.

Links: Trump v Mazars application for stay, US v R Enterprises porn case again, Ross v. National Urban League, Warren's Census plan, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Mid-Decade Census, 2015 Census.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. on October 7, 2020. Two questions were before the court: the first was whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; the second was whether, as a jury found, Google's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use. Google reused roughly 11,000 lines of “declaring” code written by Oracle, but rewrote or purchased all other code that provided android’s functionality. Oral arguments addressed whether the 11,000 lines of “declaring” code are protected by copyright, and if so, whether Google’s use of them was “fair.”
Michael Risch joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Risch is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and author of an amicus brief in support of Google.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate discuss some of the highlights of the October sitting, as well as the conclusion of the Barrett confirmation hearings.

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 Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of The Lie that Binds to discuss the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what her nomination to the Supreme Court means for reproductive rights. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School to discuss all the other questions that went unanswered at the hearings.

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 Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of The Lie that Binds to discuss the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what her nomination to the Supreme Court means for reproductive rights. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Professor Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School to discuss all the other questions that went unanswered at the hearings.

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.