On this episode, Dahlia asks why the Supreme Court has been almost absent as a campaign issue, despite the fact that the next president could have the opportunity to reshape the Court’s bench. She is joined by UC-Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.
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 today here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.
On this episode, Dahlia asks why the Supreme Court has been almost absent as a campaign issue, despite the fact that the next president could have the opportunity to reshape the Court’s bench. She is joined by UC-Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.
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 today here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.
In Heffernan v City of Paterson, the Supreme Court must decide whether a government worker can be punished for a political belief his employers attribute to him – rightly or wrongly. This week, Dahlia speaks with lawyers on both sides of the topsy-turvy case.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Subscribe to our podcast here. You can find past episodes of our show here.
Amicus is sponsored by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a 100-day period. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by visiting Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS.
In Heffernan v City of Paterson, the Supreme Court must decide whether a government worker can be punished for a political belief his employers attribute to him – rightly or wrongly. This week, Dahlia speaks with lawyers on both sides of the topsy-turvy case.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Subscribe to our podcast here. You can find past episodes of our show here.
Amicus is sponsored by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a 100-day period. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by visiting Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS.
On January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Under California law and existing Supreme Court precedent, unions can become the exclusive bargaining representative for the public school employees of their district and establish an “agency shop” arrangement requiring public school employees either to join the union or pay a fee to support the union’s collective bargaining activities. Although the First Amendment prohibits unions from compelling non-members to support activities unrelated to collective bargaining, in California non-members must affirmatively “opt out” to avoid paying for these unrelated or “nonchargeable” expenses. -- Here a group of public school employees sued the California Teachers Association and various other entities, arguing that the agency shop arrangement itself--as well as the opt-out requirement--violated the First Amendment. The district court denied their claim and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed based on existing precedent and the 1997 Supreme Court decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. -- The two questions now before the Supreme Court are: (1) Whether the Abood precedent should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. -- To discuss the case, we have Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and Professor Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court decided DIRECTV v. Imburgia. This case involves a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV by various California customers. Among other things, the agreement between DIRECTV and its customers contained a waiver of any right by either party to undertake class arbitration, unless “the law of your state” made such waivers unenforceable. At that time class arbitration waivers were unenforceable under California law, but in a subsequent case the United States Supreme Court held that this California rule was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Concluding that the parties had intended to apply the rule as it existed prior to the Supreme Court decision, California trial and appellate courts refused to enforce the arbitration provision. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the FAA permitted this outcome; namely, the application of state law that had since been preempted by the FAA. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeals and remanded the case. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that the arbitration provision must be enforced because the California appellate court’s interpretation was preempted by the FAA. -- Justice Breyer’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, who is Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.
