Cases And Controversies

· Court clips EPA authority over clean water · Chides local government on home seizure Although Supreme Court justices were unanimous in backing landowners in a Big EPA case, their reasoning in the latest check on administrative authority shows there is still deep division. Styled as a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA on how to determine whether the agency can regulate certain bodies of water read more like a dissent. Joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh accused the five other conservatives of creating a test that is “overly narrow and inconsistent with the Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands.” The progressive-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center’s Miriam Becker-Cohen joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss that case and the other May 25 rulings. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Guest: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Constitutional Accountability Center Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Jackson spoke significantly more than any other justice Was joined by other liberals as most talkative Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark on US Supreme Court arguments like no other new justice in memory. Her historic confirmation as the first Black woman justice was followed by seven months of oral arguments in which she spoke almost twice as much as any other of her colleagues, according to Empirical SCOTUS’ Adam Feldman. Jackson so far has defied the norm of junior justices taking a back seat during their first few terms. Latham & Watkins’ Roman Martinez joins the podcast to look at Jackson’s first term as well as what the future might hold. Co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also breakdown the court’s most recent opinions, including a highly anticipated copyright case and a sigh of relief for social media companies. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Guest: Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The Supreme Court kicked off opinion season with five rulings, leaving 39 more to get out before the term wraps up in June. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down decisions covering immigration, public corruption, and state morality laws.  Supreme Court veteran Daniel Geyser, of Haynes and Boone, also joins the podcast to look back on changes to high court arguments post-pandemic, including some sessions that now go way beyond the scheduled time. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court hasn’t released an opinion in weeks, but it did add a major case on May 1 to its docket looking at the power of administrative agencies. A dispute that started over a federal rule for companies fishing for herring off the Atlantic coast could wipe out a legal doctrine that tells courts they should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation when the law they’re administering is ambiguous. Jonathan Adler, who teaches administrative and constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the court next term could narrow the Chevron doctrine without overruling it. Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr also update listeners on the latest report on Justice Clarence Thomas and ethics. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With scheduled arguments over for the term, Supreme Court justices now turn their attention to their remaining opinions, and it’s going to be a heavy lift over the next two months. The court has worked at a historically slow pace with just 15 opinions out and 75% of their cases remaining. Those include potential blockbusters on affirmative action, voting rules, and LGBT rights. Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells bookended the argument schedule, appearing on the first and last days of the term. Now with his 50th argument in the books, Katyal joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experiences before the court, and to offer his view on what’s ahead this spring. Katyal said there are a number of potential reasons for the slow pace of opinion production, but that it’s likely not due to internal friction. “I haven’t detected any greater animosity among the justices,” he said. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr update listeners on activities off the bench, including Justice Samuel Alito’s view of who’s behind

The Supreme Court enters its final week of scheduled arguments, rounding out the calendar to date with a property case that plaintiffs say amounts to home equity theft by local governments. Pacific Legal Foundation’s David Deerson joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss his 94-year-old client’s challenge to a practice in a handful of states that has previously led to local governments taking homes to satisfy tax debt equivalents to a fast food burrito. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also update listeners on the abortion pill litigation, congressional pressure over Supreme Court ethics, and a high-profile death penalty case.

Another Texas abortion case headed the justices’ way and a bombshell report on Clarence Thomas and his luxury vacations upended a usual quiet spring break from Supreme Court arguments and opinions. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson explains the fast-moving district and appellate rulings over the abortion drug mifepristone, a case that’s now on the high court’s doorstep. She also explains the latest controversy over Supreme Court ethics controversy drawing scrutiny in the Senate. And finally, Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic joins the podcast to discuss her latest book, “Nine Black Robes,” and how the “Trump effect” has put the spotlight on One First Street. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

An Evangelical Christian postal carrier in Pennsylvania, who says he was forced out of the job for refusing to work on Sundays, wants the US Supreme Court to do more to accommodate workers’ religious practices. Cases and Controversies explores the issues around faith in Groff v. DeJoy, which is set for argument April 18. The justices are being asked to overturn a ruling that said employers aren’t required to bear more than a “de minimus” cost in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on someone’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It’s a decision some of the court’s conservatives have been eager to revisit. Joshua Matz filed a brief on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Lambda Legal in support of the US Postal Service. He joins the podcast to discuss why the court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison should be revised. Do you have feedback on

The US Supreme Court is set to hear a free speech case that tests when statements are considered true threats not protected by the First Amendment. The justices are being asked in Counterman v. Colorado if the government has to show at trial that the speaker knew or intended the statement to be threatening in nature to secure a conviction, or if it’s enough to show an objective “reasonable person” would view that statement as a threat of violence. At the center of the dispute scheduled to be argued on April 19 is Billy Counterman, who was charged with stalking a Colorado musician after he sent her Facebook messages over the course of two years that frightened her. Counterman claims his messages were protected speech because they weren’t true threats. Elena Cordonean of Southwestern Law School joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss why the court should adopt a dual standard that considers the context of the speech and the speaker’s intent. Special thanks to Southwestern professor Norman Garland Do you have

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal that could force prosecutors to reconsider their tactics in criminal cases. This includes what evidence to introduce and how to try multiple defendants. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson & Greg Stohr will break down the questions posed in Samia v. United States which is set for argument March 29. The murder-for-hire case focuses on the Sixth Amendment requirement that criminal defendants be allowed to “confront” witnesses against them at trial. The justices will consider what steps the government must take to protect the identity of co-defendants identified in another’s confession to avoid colliding with the Confrontation Clause. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Questions involving their family ties and associations with other powerful people are nothing new for US Supreme Court justices. But now those relationships are generating more attention and criticism, and are partly fueling calls for them to adopt an ethics code. While the Supreme Court says it follows ethics rules written for lower court judges, its reluctance over the years to embrace a standard for themselves isn’t sitting well with some in the legal community, transparency advocates, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Bloomberg Law reporter Lydia Wheeler joins Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson to discuss their story on a “new era” of scrutiny over high court ethics, and pressure for the justices to formalize their own code of conduct. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Jack Daniel’s brand is at the heart of the US Supreme Court’s latest intellectual property dispute that pits free speech protections against trademark concerns. Debevoise & Plimpton’s Megan K. Bannigan joins “Cases and Controversies” in search of a middle ground for the justices ahead of arguments March 22. The Tennessee whiskey company says pet toy maker VIP Products is tarnishing its brand with potty-themed dog toys called “Bad Spaniels.” “Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone,” the company said in its brief. “But Jack Daniel’s likes its customers even more, and doesn’t want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.” Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Guest: Megan K. Bannigan, Debevoise & Plimpton Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau faces a challenge to its existence in a case the US Supreme Court will take up next term. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency’s funding mechanism violates separation of powers principles because it’s paid for by the Federal Reserve, not through legislative appropriations. The Biden administration warns the ruling calls into question “every action” the CFPB has taken since its creation by Congress in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and could “inflict immense” legal and practical harm on consumers. Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute joins Cases and Controversies to explain the case and discuss the court’s recent attempts to bolster presidential power over administrative agencies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Genevieve Bonadies Torres, an associate director with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast to discuss the amicus brief she filed in a pair of cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Dept. of Education v. Brown, set for argument on Feb. 28. The loan relief plan, which is on hold due to litigation, “will eliminate or markedly reduce” payments for millions of lower-income borrowers, many of whom experienced economic hardship during the pandemic, her brief said. Without intervention, the potential consequences of default could prevent people from paying for basic needs or even threaten their employment. Those risks are “particularly heightened for borrowers of color,” Torres said. The court challenges focus on a rule known as the major questions doctrine, which directs courts to be skeptical of attempts to use narrow, often ambiguous laws to authorize sweeping, or major programs. The doctrine has recently been bolstered by the court’s new conservative 6-3 majority. But

Deadly terror attacks behind a pair of cases set for argument at the Supreme Court could change the legal landscape for social media and other online companies. Families of victims in the violence abroad say in separate cases that tech giants are partly liable for abetting extremists for content posted on their platforms. The claim in Gonzalez v. Google to be heard Feb. 21 contends the company’s YouTube site provided support for the Islamic State by allowing the posting of its videos and recommending those posts to users via algorithms. In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh to be argued the next day, the question is whether the social media site violated anti-terrorism laws by failing to enforce policies against pro-terrorist content. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss the broad liability protections for internet companies, particularly under Seciton 230 of the Communications Decency Act at play in the Google case. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give u

A potential blockbuster ruling on the way states determine their voting rules could be hijacked by the North Carolina Supreme Court after the 2022 elections flipped control of the state court to Republicans. The justices heard arguments in Moore v. Harper in December, and are likely on their way to hammering out a decision. But on Feb. 2 the newly constituted North Carolina Supreme Court issued a rare rehearing order in the case, potentially depriving the justices of the opportunity to clarify the law nationwide. UCLA election expert Rick Hasen explains why it seems likely that the Republican majority will flex its muscle and reverse course, and what it could mean if the justices must wait to decide the issue in the context of a highly contested presidential election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Although no suspect’s been identified so far in last year’s leak of a draft opinion in the Supreme Court’s blockbuster abortion case, investigators have revealed details about the inner workings of a court draped in mystique. A report on the probe released Thursday highlights technology gaps and weak security procedures. The system in this case is built “fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information,” investigators said. Cases and Controversies discusses steps that the court plans to take to try to prevent future leaks as well as their potential implications for this term and beyond. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US government’s criminal prosecution of a Turkish-owned bank stumped Supreme Court justices who were torn at argument between potentiality harmful implications for foreign affairs and executive branch authority in that area. University of Chicago law professor Curtis Bradley joins Bloomberg Law’s “Cases and Controversies” podcast to discuss outcomes available to the court, including one that could entangle courts for years in efforts to keep the US out of what Bradley called foreign relations hot water. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr also discuss a recent case granted by the justices that could further strengthen religious rights—this time in the workplace context. The case is one of eight that the justices added to their docket for the remainder of the term. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A lack of opinions and an increasingly smaller caseload stand in contrast to the hot-button issues that the Supreme Court has agreed to tackle this term. Empirical SCOTUS founder Adam Feldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the possible reasons behind why the court hasn’t issued a single opinion since arguments kicked off in October, and how lower caseloads have set a new ceiling on the high court’s docket. “While the Roberts Court will be remembered for its ideological splits and key decisions in the areas of individual rights and liberties, it will also be remembered for its slow decision making process and curtailed number of decisions each term,” Feldman wrote on his website. “This term follows the same trajectory.” Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The scope of attorney client privilege headlines a lower-profile first sitting of the new year for the Supreme Court, which returns to the bench for arguments Jan. 9. But things won’t stay quiet for long. The February argument calendar features a fast-tracked GOP-led challenge to Biden administration attempts to end pandemic-era immigration restrictions. Supreme Court correspondents Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down the roster of cases and other happenings at the court in 2023’s first episode of Cases and Controversies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.