SCOTUScast - Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Opening Arguments - OA41: Betsy DeVos and School Vouchers
- The "Resisterhood" tweets are here.
- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
- This is the original, hand-written text of Missouri Executive Order 44 (the "Mormon Extermination Order").
- The main page for the "Naked Mormonism" podcast is here; and Andrew was on Epsiode 47, which you can download here.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Will You Accept This Robe?
In an elaborately choreographed prime-time ceremony this week, President Trump tapped Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court seat that has been vacant for almost a year. We sit down with the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Elizabeth Wydra to examine Judge Gorsuch’s judicial record, whether he really is “Scalia 2.0,” and the difficult choices confronting Senate Democrats in the wake of this nomination.
We also consider the ramifications of reports that some U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are defying federal court orders around Trump’s new travel restrictions. Slate staffers Mark Joseph Stern and Leon Neyfakh tell us what they learned from constitutional law scholars about the possibility of a standoff between two branches of the federal government. (Read our Slate piece on the subject here.)
Finally, we zero in on one of the many lawsuits filed this week against Trump’s executive order. Aziz v. Trump centers on a pair of young men who were en route to join their father in Michigan when the order was issued, and wound up being deported to Ethiopia upon their arrival at Dulles International Airport. We’re joined by the Legal Aid Justice Center’s Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus.
And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.
Podcast production by Tony Field.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA40: Who is Neil Gorsuch, and How Scared Should You Be?
- This is a link to the Washington Post article referenced by David.
- If you read only one thing from the show notes, it should be this sarcastic, nasty little article Gorsuch wrote for the National Review before he joined the bench.
- Then, if you have the stomach for it, check out Gorsuch's opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016), in which he openly muses in the text of the opinion about repealing Chevron deference. Still think he's not an activist judge?
- This is the anti-nepotism law, 5 U.S.C. §3110.
Opening Arguments - OA39: Trump’s Muslim Ban
- The CREW lawsuit is here.
- We reference two decisions on the "political question" doctrine: Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
- We initially discussed the Muslim Ban way back in OA Episode #16, which is worth another listen!
- The authorizing statute (the "1952 Law") is 8 USC §1182(f).
- The "1965 Law" is 8 USC §1152(a).
- In light of those two provisions, we think you can spot the errors in David Bier's op-ed in the New York Times.
- I wrote a lot on Facebook about the ACLU lawsuit and the injunction handed down by the court on Saturday, so you can check that out if you want the relevant documents.
Opening Arguments - OA38: FLSA and Exempt Employees, Part 2
- The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees).
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begins at 42 USC § 2000e and can be found here.
- This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor.
- Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule.
- And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration.
- Please laugh at -- but DO NOT FILE! -- this suggested "brief" by the weirdos at The Lawful Path who think you can get out of a traffic ticket by filing this nonsense. (You can't.)
- And here's another absolutely bonkers list of random string-cites that purports to show that you have an absolute right to travel guaranteed by the Constitution. (You don't.)
Opening Arguments - OA37: FLSA and Exempt Employees, Part 1
- The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees).
- The DOL Fact Sheet #15 referred to listener Victoria McNair is here.
- This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor.
- Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule.
- And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration.
- Finally, here's the New York Times story about President Obama commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Immunity in High Places
Can a group of wrongfully-detained noncitizens sue high-ranking Bush Administration officials for violating their rights in the days following 9/11? That’s the central question in Ziglar v Abbasi, which was argued this week at the Supreme Court. On today’s episode, we hear from Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented the former detainees.
We also consider Lee v. Tam, another big case argued at the high court on Wednesday. It centers on a trademark claim by the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants. That claim was denied on the grounds that the name was disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” Simon Tam joins us to tell the story of his band’s name, and to make the case that the government isn’t equipped to be deciding who is and isn’t using language disparagingly.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.
And by Blue Apron. Blue Apron’s meal kits are delivered right to your door, and make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA36: The Emoluments Clause (w/Seth Barrett Tillman) Part 2
- This is the text of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which the Supreme Court articulated -- some say, invented! -- the doctrine of judicial review.
- Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page.
- In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause.
- This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President.
- In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President.
- Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency.
- Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here.
- Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here.
- Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here.
- Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here.
