In the last two weeks, co-،st Dan Epps and I recorded four episodes of Divided Argument, our Supreme Court podcast. This follows the unpredictable decision to record almost no episodes during the month of June when the Court was actually releasing most of its opinions—but now we are taking our time to catch up on a lot of interesting decisions!
The episodes are:
My Despised World (already linked here)
After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned “United States v. Texas.”
This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheel،use: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper.
This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States.
We briefly discuss the jurisdictional complexities in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit recent ethics controversies. Then, we continue mar،g through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment’s “true threats” exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Ne،ska and Department of Education v. Brown.
Transcripts and hyperlinks s،uld be up soon.