In this week’s episode, we conclude our discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and how the “undue burden” test the Supreme Court developed in that case continues to govern laws protecting (and restricting) abortion today. However, we begin with the moment you’ve all been waiting for: the answer to Thomas Takes … Continue reading OA28: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 2 →
In this week’s episode, we return to the subject of abortion and pick up with a cliffhanger from way back in episode #11, where Thomas was asked how he would have handled what became the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). We talk about that landmark decision, how it changed the … Continue reading OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 →
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McCrory v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, two challenges to Republican gerrymandering efforts that resulted in the creation of majority-minority voting districts. At issue is whether lawmakers in Virginia and North Carolina were motivated primarily by racial considerations or only secondarily so. Marc Elias, the lawyer who represented the challengers in both cases, joins us to explain why the distinction is so critical.
We also consider the revolt that’s underway in the Electoral College. A small group of electors calling themselves the Hamilton Electors are seeking to be unbound from state requirements that they vote as their state voted. Legal scholar Carolyn Shapiro explains why she believes the Hamilton Electors should be taken seriously.
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 with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by First Republic Bank. At First Republic, the staff takes the time to know your business and customize solutions to help you reach your goals. Visit FirstRepublic.com today to hear what their clients say about them. 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.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McCrory v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, two challenges to Republican gerrymandering efforts that resulted in the creation of majority-minority voting districts. At issue is whether lawmakers in Virginia and North Carolina were motivated primarily by racial considerations or only secondarily so. Marc Elias, the lawyer who represented the challengers in both cases, joins us to explain why the distinction is so critical.
We also consider the revolt that’s underway in the Electoral College. A small group of electors calling themselves the Hamilton Electors are seeking to be unbound from state requirements that they vote as their state voted. Legal scholar Carolyn Shapiro explains why she believes the Hamilton Electors should be taken seriously.
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 with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by First Republic Bank. At First Republic, the staff takes the time to know your business and customize solutions to help you reach your goals. Visit FirstRepublic.com today to hear what their clients say about them. 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.
This week’s super-sized episode is literally jam-packed with five all-new segments for our listeners; six if you haven’t heard both parts of the Second Amendment Masterclass already. And make sure you stay tuned all the way to the end for our exciting new segment! First, you get an all-new introduction with new quotes, many of which were … Continue reading OA26: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 2 →
On October 31, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands, Inc. designs and manufactures clothing and accessories for use in various athletic activities, including cheerleading. Design concepts for the clothing incorporate many elements but do not consider the functionality of the final clothing. Varsity received copyright registration for the two-dimensional artwork of the designs at issue in this case, which were very similar to ones that Star Athletica, LLC was advertising. Varsity sued Star and alleged, among other claims, that Star violated the Copyright Act. Star countered that Varsity had made fraudulent representations to the Copyright Office. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Star argued that Varsity did not have valid copyrights because the designs were for “useful articles” and cannot be separated from the uniforms themselves, all of which tends to make an article ineligible for copyright. Varsity argued that the copyrights were valid and had been infringed. The district court granted summary judgment for Star and held that the designs were integral to the functionality of the uniform. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, however, and held that the uniforms Varsity designed were copyrightable. -- The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court asks what the appropriate test is to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under section 101 of the Copyright Act. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is an adjunct professor at New York Law School.
Just a few weeks into the era of President-elect Donald Trump, and already there is a lot of bruising around the edges of the Constitution. The past few weeks have brought talk of Muslim registries, jail time for flag burners, restrictions on voting and the sweet mystery of the Emoluments Clause. This week, we sit down with U.S. Senator Chris Coons to discuss how much of this talk we should take seriously, and where the true threats to Americans’ constitutional protections lie.
We also speak with Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, about the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans. In 2011, Katyal issued an official apology for the role of one of his predecessors in that case. Korematsu v United Stateshas been in the news again recently, after one Trump surrogate cited it as a “precedent” for a possible Trump Administration program that would require the registration of immigrants from a handful of predominantly Muslim countries.
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 with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by First Republic Bank. At First Republic, they take the time to know your business and customize solutions to help you reach your goals. Visit FirstRepublic.com today to hear what their clients say about them.
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.
Just a few weeks into the era of President-elect Donald Trump, and already there is a lot of bruising around the edges of the Constitution. The past few weeks have brought talk of Muslim registries, jail time for flag burners, restrictions on voting and the sweet mystery of the Emoluments Clause. This week, we sit down with U.S. Senator Chris Coons to discuss how much of this talk we should take seriously, and where the true threats to Americans’ constitutional protections lie.
We also speak with Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, about the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans. In 2011, Katyal issued an official apology for the role of one of his predecessors in that case. Korematsu v United Stateshas been in the news again recently, after one Trump surrogate cited it as a “precedent” for a possible Trump Administration program that would require the registration of immigrants from a handful of predominantly Muslim countries.
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 with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by First Republic Bank. At First Republic, they take the time to know your business and customize solutions to help you reach your goals. Visit FirstRepublic.com today to hear what their clients say about them.
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.
In this week’s episode, we discuss the recent efforts by Jill Stein and the Green Party to raise funds for Presidential recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Should you rush out and open your wallets to help raise funds for the Green Party? “Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with a discussion on court structure. If … Continue reading OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.) →
In part two of this two-part episode, we continue to address every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or … Continue reading OA24: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 2 →
