On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, upholding in a 7-2 ruling a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. To discuss this case and its implications, we have Eric Kniffin, Partner at Lewis Roca Rothberger Christie LLP.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
