Cases And Controversies

The US Supreme Court is off to a historically slow start having released no opinions in argued cases so far. Kimberly Robinson and Madison Alder break down possible reasons for the drought, including hearing cases early in the term that might not lend themselves to quick decisions. Meanwhile, the justices released a blockbuster February calendar that includes arguments in challenges to Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and liability protections for social media platforms. The hosts also cover the evolution of ethics issues at the court, and why they’re increasing as well as Bloomberg Law’s story about a district court in rural Louisiana that’s become popular for Republican-led states challenging Biden policies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court heard marathon arguments over the role state courts play in setting federal election rules. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller says there was little appetite on the court during arguments Dec. 7 to cut state courts wholly out of the process. Muller joins Cases and Controversies hosts to discuss Moore v. Harper, the independent state legislature theory it implicates, and the concerns voiced by the justices. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices next week will hear two of the term’s most consequential cases—one in the ongoing clash between LGBTQ and religious rights and another that could change the rules of election law nationwide. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr explain the most pressing issues facing the justices in 303 Creative v. Elenis and Moore v. Harper. In the first, the justices will consider whether a Colorado web designer can refuse to make custom wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her religious beliefs. In the other, the court will consider the validity of a legal theory meant to cement the power of state legislatures over federal elections. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A Supreme Court immigration case is center stage for a familiar showdown between Republican-led states suing Democratic administrations to rein in executive policies they say go too far. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr talk with University at Austin law professor Stephen Vladeck, who’s filed a friend-of-the court brief ahead of Nov. 29 arguments in United States v. Texas. Vladeck says Texas has filed more than two dozen challenges to Biden administration policies, which he says is abusing the court system to “facilitate partisan political agendas.” This episode looks at the state’s strategic forum shopping, which Vladeck says Blue states did as well during the Trump administration. Texas told the justices that “it should come as no surprise” that states are increasingly suing to curb executive policies “as the scope of the federal government has expanded to reach nearly every aspect of daily life.” Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and

The Supreme Court could continue to pull back on places where companies can be sued in a jurisdictional case that’s gotten little notice despite its importance to business. Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down Tuesday’s high-court back and forth in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast. The court in recent terms has limited where companies can be hauled into court to cut down on forum shopping and to increase predictability for corporations. The justices at the Mallory argument seemed likely to go further with regard to laws mandating that companies not based in a particular state consent to being sued, or submit to general jurisdiction, as a condition of doing business there. Norfolk Southern Railway, the defendant in Mallory, says the Pennsylvania law it’s fighting amounts to coercion. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

High profile shadow docket disputes from Donald Trump and others keep hitting the US Supreme Court as the justices gear up to hear an array of arguments during midterm-election week. Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies. The hosts give an update on those shadow-docket disputes plus a sneak peek of the cases being argued the week of Nov. 7, involving federal agency structure, rules for suing businesses and bringing civil-rights claims, and the contentious appeal over the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Affirmative action is making headlines as a Supreme Court blockbuster, but there’s a closely watched financial reporting case and two others dealing with criminal matters on tap as well in the November sitting that actually kicks off on Halloween. Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies. The two affirmative action challenges out of Harvard and the University of North Carolina are set for argument on Monday. The justices will follow up with argument in coming days on cases dealing with the Bank Secrecy Act and technical habeas issues. The episode will also breakdown what’s been happening outside of the courtroom. This includes two emergency requests stemming from the 2020 presidential election, new comments from Justice Samuel Alito on last term’s draft opinion leak, and the next Supreme Court postage stamp. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voic

The Supreme Court is gearing up for its next argument sitting that will feature closely watched disputes about race and identity. While most attention may be on the affirmative action cases set for argument Oct. 31, the Nov. 9 hearing over the Indian Child Welfare Act is also consequential. Cherokee Nation deputy attorney general Chrissi Ross Nimmo joins the latest Cases and Controversies to preview the case and explain its importance to American Indian tribes and families. 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 just wrapped up its October argument session, hearing disputes on voting, the environment, copyright, and more. The Legal Defense Fund’s Samuel Spital joins the latest Cases and Controversies to help hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down some of those cases. Spital, LDF’s director of litigation, discusses two appeals that the civil-rights group worked on, involving voting rights and DNA testing, as well as an LDF death-penalty petition that the justices recently declined to hear over dissent. Race issues are present in all three cases, even if it’s not squarely before the court in the DNA-testing appeal of Rodney Reed, a Black man convicted by a white jury of killing a white woman with whom he said he had an affair. Texas says Reed, who maintains his innocence, waited too long to bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging his state-court denial of testing. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A dispute over a California animal-cruelty law and the potential impact on other cultural and social issues tops Week 2 of the new Supreme Court term. The case to be argued on Oct. 11, National Pork Producers v. Ross, centers on Proposition 12, a voter-approved measure requiring a certain amount of movement space for pigs bred for pork production. Because California produces little of its own commercial pork, trade groups say compliance costs will disproportionately hurt out-of-state farmers and violate a constitutional provision aimed at protecting against discrimination in commerce. Beyond pork production and sales, the outcome of the Supreme Court case could impact laws aimed at a number of hot-button issues from abortion to LGBTQ rights to religion. Over two days of arguments, the justices will also hear three other disputes, including a showdown between the Andy Warhol Foundation and a photographer whose Prince photos are at the heart of what counts as “fair use.” Do you have feedback on this episode of

The First Monday in October kicks off Supreme Court arguments in a short week featuring disputes over the future of voting rights and environmental regulation. Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action on the latest Cases and Controversies. Hearing cases Monday and Tuesday with a holiday on Wednesday, the court will also consider a clash between Delaware and a host of states over unclaimed Money Gram financial instruments, as well as an appeal from a disabled military veteran seeking benefits. The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, will hear her first cases as the court struggles with its public standing following a blockbuster term topped by the conservative majority’s decision to end the constitutional right to abortion. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With the new US Supreme Court term set to start Oct. 3, Cases and Controversies returns with a deep dive episode on a big copyright dispute over Andy Warhol images of Prince. Orrick partner Mel Bostwick joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to discuss Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which is set to be argued Oct. 12. The dispute centers on whether Warhol prints of a Prince photo changed original work’s meaning. Bostwick, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, says this is an opportunity for the justices to “put some more meat on the bones” of the test courts should use when determining whether permission is needed to reproduce copyrighted material. For more on the case, check out Bloomberg Law’s video: Andy Warhol, Prince, and Fair Use at the Supreme Court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

From shifts in the law to public reaction to its rulings, the US Supreme Court’s just-concluded term appears to be a blockbuster like no other. Since the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “I don’t think we’ve seen any term that comes close to the one we just saw,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk to Justice Hugo Black. During the term that wrapped up June 30, the court overturned the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and broadened the reach of the Second Amendment for the first time in over a decade. The justices also continued to establish a robust right to religious freedom at the expense of other priorities, and set up severe limits on the so-called administrative state. Howard Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to put in prospective how the term fits with the court’s more than 230-year history. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-3

The Supreme Court is finished with its blockbuster term but the focus is already shifting to the next one, with Ketanji Brown Jackson now sworn-in as the first Black woman justice. Jackson comes aboard following a tumultuous nine months that included her confirmation to replace the now-retired Stephen Breyer. Controversies flared over the court's independence with the conservative majority making transformative changes to abortion, guns, religion. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr joins Cases and Controversies to recap the momentous developments and preview what's ahead starting in October. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court justices finally issued their ruling in the Mississippi abortion case, with the conservative majority striking down the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest-host Lydia Wheeler explain the reasoning behind Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion. They also look at Chief Justice John Roberts’ failed bid to find middle ground and the dissent by the court’s three liberals decrying the effect on women’s rights and the court’s legitimacy. 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 made up a lot of ground fast on issuing decisions, and appears to be in good position to finish the term on its customary timeline. The justices handed down 11 opinions in recent days, and have 18 more to go by the end of the month or early July. More decisions are expected on Tuesday with blockbuster rulings on abortion, guns, and religion outstanding. On this episode of Cases and Controversies, host Kimberly Robinson highlighted a flurry of decisions on June 13 and 15. An immigration case, Arizona v. San Francisco, suggests the justices might look for off-ramps to complex issues as the term winds down. In an administrative law case, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the justices made changes to the bedrock Chevron doctrine on judicial respect for federal agency rules, without saying the word “Chevron.” And a pair cases about tribal sovereignty, Denezpi v. US and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, suggest tribes might have a friend in Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Do you have feedback on

The Supreme Court again chipped away at the ability of those alleging constitutional violations by federal law enforcement to sue, effectively immunizing Border Patrol agents from being hauled into court. Athul Acharya, of the public interest law firm Public Accountability, says the June 8 ruling in Egbert v. Boule is one of several judge-made barriers to suing government officials. There are many stages “in the gauntlet that civil rights plaintiffs have to run before they can have their claim heard on the merits,” Acharya said, noting there are jurisdictional and other technical barriers, questions about who can be sued, and then immunity doctrines. The latest ruling limiting so-called Bivens claims, isn’t a surprise. The fortified conservative-majority court has questioned the authority of judges to permit suits against federal officials in instances where Congress hasn’t. In “all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts,” Justice Clarence Thoma

Though the justices took the unusual step of not issuing orders during the first week of June, there was still plenty going on at One First Street. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and producer David Schultz discuss the latest shadow docket developments, and how the handling of emergency orders highlight a broader divide between conservative and liberal justices. And news on the court’s ongoing investigation into the draft abortion opinion leak last month suggests the atmosphere inside the building may be as divisive as the reaction to its rulings outside of it. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With all eyes on abortion and guns, the US Supreme Court still has potentially major opinions to issue in the coming weeks on other big issues such as administrative law, religion, and immigration. Goodwin partner Jaime Santos joins Cases and Controversies to remind listeners of the cases that in any other term would be the headlining cases, but which have taken a backseat in this headline-grabbing year. 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’s latest decision chipping away at campaign finance reform was a victory for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who challenged a limit on how much candidates can expect to recoup when loaning their campaigns money. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to review the May 16 decision striking down another provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Muller explains how the issue of campaign finance splits the justices along ideological lines and what future challenges might come before the conservative-majority court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.