On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that raises separation of power questions regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Specifically the Court ruled on whether Congress’s law that created the CFPB can stipulate that the President could not remove the Bureau’s director “at will”.
Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement with regard to severability and dissenting in part in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined.
Joining us to discuss this case and its implications are John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Profesor of Law and Community Service and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of Law, and Brian Johnson, partner at Alston & Bird.
SCOTUScast - Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that raises separation of power questions regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Specifically the Court ruled on whether Congress’s law that created the CFPB can stipulate that the President could not remove the Bureau’s director “at will”.
Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement with regard to severability and dissenting in part in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined.
Joining us to discuss this case and its implications are John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Profesor of Law and Community Service and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of Law, and Brian Johnson, partner at Alston & Bird.
Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement with regard to severability and dissenting in part in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined.
Joining us to discuss this case and its implications are John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Profesor of Law and Community Service and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of Law, and Brian Johnson, partner at Alston & Bird.
Strict Scrutiny - Well Played, Sirs
*another airhorn* Leah and Melissa break down the Court's major contraception case. Welcome to Gilead!
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
Opening Arguments - OA401: Legal Eagle Sues the Trump Administration!
Today we're joined by the Legal Eagle himself, Devin Stone! Devin is suing the Trump administration, with the help of his lawyer Kel McClanahan. Devin and Kel break down for us what the lawsuit is about, and what they hope to accomplish.
Strict Scrutiny - Trollito
Leah and Kate discuss four big Supreme Court cases that came down last week (June Medical with special guest Julie Rikelman, Seila Law, Espinoza, and Alliance for an Open Society). Somehow, in three of those cases, Chief Justice Roberts defied his liberal instincts and voted to join 5-4 opinions with his fellow conservatives. They also discuss some recent news and rumors involving the Court and give Justice Alito a new nickname.
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 - What’s Left of Roe v. Wade?
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Melissa Murray of NYU School of Law and Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker for a round table discussion of the big abortion case of the term, why Chief Justice John Roberts chose to strike down the Louisiana abortion law in June Medical Services LLC v Russo, and why opinion about Roberts’ opinion seems to be divided along very gendered lines.
In the Slate Plus segment, Dahlia and Mark Joseph Stern break down the other big opinions of the week and their implications for executive power and the separation of church and state. Finally, they look ahead to what remains of the term. 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 - What’s Left of Roe v. Wade?
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Melissa Murray of NYU School of Law and Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker for a round table discussion of the big abortion case of the term, why Chief Justice John Roberts chose to strike down the Louisiana abortion law in June Medical Services LLC v Russo, and why opinion about Roberts’ opinion seems to be divided along very gendered lines.
In the Slate Plus segment, Dahlia and Mark Joseph Stern break down the other big opinions of the week and their implications for executive power and the separation of church and state. Finally, they look ahead to what remains of the term. 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.
Opening Arguments - OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend
Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news.
Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.
SCOTUScast - Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded.
The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.
To discuss the case, on this special panel episode, we have:
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
William A. Stock, Partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP
The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.
To discuss the case, on this special panel episode, we have:
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
William A. Stock, Partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP
Opening Arguments - OA399: The LAMicus Brief
We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!