Cover image of SCOTUScast
(60)
News
Politics

SCOTUScast

Updated 5 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 Jul 27, 2020

All 303 episodes from oldest to newest

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

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., a case involving a dispute over whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.
By a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the case, holding that The exception for calls to collect government debt from a federal ban on robocalls to cellphones violates the First Amendment, but the exception is severable from the rest of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Justice Thomas joined the court’s opinion as to parts I and II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas joined as to part II.
To discuss the case, we have Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Jul 20 2020

19mins

Play

McGirt v. Oklahoma - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 9, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Jimcy McGirt sought post-conviction relief of three major sexual assault convictions, arguing his crimes occurred in Indian Country and thus were subject to the Indian Major Crimes Act. If that law applies, Mr. McGirt’s crimes should have been prosecuted in federal, rather than state court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McGirt, holding that land in northeastern Oklahoma--reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century-- remains a reservation in accordance with a federal statute that gives the federal government jurisdiction to try certain major crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. Therefore, Oklahoma state courts did not have jurisdiction to convict Mr. McGirt.
To discuss this case and its implications, we have Andy Lester, partner at Spencer Fane LLP.

Jul 20 2020

13mins

Play

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey Berru. In a 7-2 ruling, the court held that that a “ministerial exemption” derived from the First Amendment prevents civil courts from adjudicating schoolteacher Morrisey-Berru’s age discrimination claim. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, held that the process of identifying religious ministers within a specific faith group must be largely left up to that particular faith group, resulting in the reversal of the Ninth Circuits determination that Morrissey-Berru was not a minister.

Joining us to discuss this case and its implications is Daniel Blomberg, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Jul 16 2020

18mins

Play

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, upholding in a 7-2 ruling a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. To discuss this case and its implications, we have Eric Kniffin, Partner at Lewis Roca Rothberger Christie LLP.

Jul 16 2020

16mins

Play
Loading