Cover image of SCOTUScast
(60)
News
Politics

SCOTUScast

Updated 6 days ago

News
Politics
Read more

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast

Read more

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast

iTunes Ratings

60 Ratings
Average Ratings
44
8
2
1
5

Excellent

By ARKloster - Jun 10 2017
Read more
Broad, bipartisan views of SCOTUS cases

Excellent, dispassionate summaries & analyses

By Nate_1982 - Oct 13 2012
Read more
Required listening for anyone who wants to follow the Supreme Court.

iTunes Ratings

60 Ratings
Average Ratings
44
8
2
1
5

Excellent

By ARKloster - Jun 10 2017
Read more
Broad, bipartisan views of SCOTUS cases

Excellent, dispassionate summaries & analyses

By Nate_1982 - Oct 13 2012
Read more
Required listening for anyone who wants to follow the Supreme Court.
Cover image of SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast

Latest release on Oct 21, 2020

All 307 episodes from oldest to newest

United States v. Collins - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 13, 2020, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding United States v. Collins (consolidated with United States v. Briggs). The question before the court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Arthur Rizer and Richard Sala join us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Rizer is the Director of the Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties program and Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute. Sala is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.

Oct 21 2020

19mins

Play

Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. on October 7, 2020. Two questions were before the court: the first was whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; the second was whether, as a jury found, Google's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use. Google reused roughly 11,000 lines of “declaring” code written by Oracle, but rewrote or purchased all other code that provided android’s functionality. Oral arguments addressed whether the 11,000 lines of “declaring” code are protected by copyright, and if so, whether Google’s use of them was “fair.”
Michael Risch joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Risch is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and author of an amicus brief in support of Google.

Oct 19 2020

12mins

Play

Tanzin v. Tanvir - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Tanzin v. Tanvir, a case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, commonly referred to as RFRA. The issue in this case is whether RFRA permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Stephanie Taub joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments.

Oct 16 2020

25mins

Play

Carney v. Adams - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Carney v. Adams, a First Amendment case involving a longstanding Delaware state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts. The leftover seats are reserved for the “other major party”, in effect barring members of minor parties and politically unaffiliated persons from joining the state’s three highest courts.
Michael Dimino joins us to discuss this case's oral arguments.

Oct 16 2020

21mins

Play

United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 30, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, which found that “Booking.com” is not a generic term, and is thus eligible for trademark protection. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the Court, writing that a website styled “generic.com” does not qualify it for federal trademark protection if the term has meaning to consumers; however, because “Booking.com” does not necessarily signify to consumers an online hotel reservation service, it is therefore not a generic term, and qualifies for protection. Justice Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, and Justice Breyer dissented.

Joining us today to discuss this case and its implications is Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University’s School of Law

Jul 27 2020

20mins

Play

CO Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. WA - Post-Decision SCOTUscast

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.

Jul 23 2020

19mins

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: CO Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. WA

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.

Jul 23 2020

19mins

Play

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 25, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court issued the opinion, penned by Justice Alito, in the case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.
The court reversed and remanded the case to the courts below, holding that, As applied in this case, U. S. C. § 1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by a noncitizen detained for expedited removal—does not violate the suspension or due process clauses.
Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg Joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
To discuss the case, we have O.H. Skinner, Arizona Solicitor General.

Jul 21 2020

17mins

Play

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
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

Jul 20 2020

34mins

Play

United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. By a vote of 7-2, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was reversed, and the case remanded.
Per Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court: "We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to decide whether the United States Forest Service has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U. S. C. §181 et seq., to grant rights-of-way through lands within national forests traversed by the Appalachian Trail. 588 U. S. ___ (2019). We hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does grant the Forest Service that authority and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit."
Justice Thomas's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in full, and by Justice Ginsburg as to all but Part III-B-2. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kagan.
To discuss the case, we have Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Jul 20 2020

44mins

Play
Loading