Cases And Controversies

The Supreme Court heard its last argument of the term—and perhaps the last of Justice Stephen Breyer’s tenure—in a crack-cocaine sentencing case May 4. D.C. Solicitor General Loren Alikhan, who filed a brief supporting the defense, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the dispute in Terry v. United States over whether low-level crack offenders can get relief under the First Step Act. Judging from the argument, it sounds like the court will say no, even though the Justice Department switched positions after the 2020 election to side with the defendant, Tarahrick Terry. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also speculate about the latest in Breyer Watch—will he retire? when?—and give some statistics on when other justices have announced their plans to step down.

The U.S. Supreme Court confronted how to update its landmark student free speech ruling to accommodate social media and its ubiquitous use among students. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District said schools can't punish on-campus speech unless it could cause a substantial disruption at the school. The question at argument April 28 in the case of a student who didn't make varsity cheer and expressed her displeasure on Snapchat was whether the 1969 standard applies to off-campus speech directed at the school on social media. Joining Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast to talk about issues around Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. are activists Charlie Mirsky, of March for Our Lives, and Maya Green, of Student Voice. They describe the importance of social media to student political activities and the kinds of speech at risk in this case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss the court's newest Second Amendment case asking if there is a right to possess a gun outs

The Supreme Court wraps up its April sitting with another full week of arguments ranging from free speech to environmental law to immigration. A student's right to express herself on social media about her high school while on her own time and away from campus, and a California requirement that charities disclose top donors are at the heart of the court's free speech cases. Both garnered amicus support from across the ideological spectrum. But environmental cases also take center stage this week, with arguments on Superfund cleanups, renewable fuel standards, and the PennEast pipeline. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action. They'll also recap the latest opinions and take a look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's $2 million book advance and some of the criticisms surrounding the deal.

The U.S. Supreme Court enters the term's last full argument sitting as the political fate of the court hangs in the balance with debates over court packing, term limits, and other reforms sweeping the nation. Starting April 19, the justices will hear arguments over CARES Act relief for Indian tribes, immigration, gun convictions, appellate procedure, and patents. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action to come and recap the latest high court happenings.

Groups representing the spectrum of political ideologies have teamed up to challenge a California law that requires tax-exempt charities to disclose major donors. The state says this information is already required by the federal government and that it's needed to police the misuse of dollars donated by California residents. The charities and their "friends of the court" don't see it that way. The libertarian Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur joins Cases and Controversies to explain why progressive groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have joined forces against the law. They say it will chill charitable donations and open up donors to harassment. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also explain the court's ruling in the Google v. Oracle blockbuster copyright case, Justice Clarence Thomas' thoughts on big tech, and the latest on the Stephen Breyer retirement watch.

The Supreme Court heard argument in the NCAA’s highly-anticipated antitrust appeal over student-athlete compensation on March 31. The court had tough questions for WilmerHale’s Seth Waxman, who represented the NCAA and attempted to defend the unique amateurism status of college sports against allegations of exploitation. On the other hand, the justices worried about the limits of a ruling for the students. Tillman Breckenridge, who filed an amicus brief supporting the students on behalf of African American Antitrust Lawyers, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap recent high court action, including a new grant in a case that both is and isn’t about abortion, as well as three unanimous decisions on water rights, media consolidation, and robocalls.

A day after the NCAA wraps up basketball's Elite Eight, the Supreme Court team of nine will consider whether collegiate athletes can receive compensation. The justices will hear argument March 31 in an antitrust case where the Ninth Circuit invalidated limits on education-related compensation for college athletes, but preserved the NCAA’s ban on outright pay. That argument, which will conclude the March sitting, will be preceded by two other class action cases. These include efforts to limit securities actions and the damages available to class members. Check out the pregame action with Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest "Sneak Peek" edition of the Cases and Controversies.

The Supreme Court hears argument in three cases the week of March 22, two dealing with searches and seizures, and a third dealing with property rights in the labor context. The justices will consider Fifth Amendment protections for employers trying to keep union organizers away, the scope of tribal police officers’ authority to detain and search non-Indians, and whether law enforcement can enter a home and seize property under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Supreme Court justices will hear argument in their latest Fourth Amendment case on March 24 over warrantless law enforcement action. The high court will examine whether the so-called "community caretaking" doctrine permits warrantless searches and seizures of homes. The court previously allowed such searches of vehicles. The Constitutional Accountability Center’s David Gans, who filed an amicus brief against the government, joins Cases and Controversies to explain why he thinks the answer is a resounding no. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest Supreme Court news, including the first solo dissent in an argued case by Chief Justice John Roberts, and a new grant on civil suits against police.

With more proposals at statehouses to restrict voting following the 2020 election, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could make it harder to challenge such laws in federal court. In a just-argued case challenging out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting prohibitions in Arizona, the justices will decide how to measure whether voting restrictions unconstitutionally discriminate against minorities or are simply the "ordinary burdens" of voting. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to discusses the importance of the case beyond the battleground Grand Canyon State.

The Supreme Court wraps up its February sitting with arguments exploring the independence and accountability of federal agencies and the fate of Arizona voting restrictions and their potential wider impact. Cases and Controversies dives into the separation of powers dispute involving medical device company Arthex Inc. and the patent office and another centered on challenges to Social Security Administration judicial appointments. The Arizona case looks at the limit on who can return early ballots on behalf of third parties and the state’s out-of-precinct voting policy. The outcome could provide guidance for future voting rights challenges following the court's landmark ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The 2013 decision struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss disputes the justices finally cleared from their docket. They include challenges to the 2020 presidential election and the look into Donald Trump's financial dealings.

The Supreme Court returns from its winter break to hear arguments in three cases dealing with water rights, immigration, and the Fourth Amendment. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the disputes that will be argued each day starting Feb. 22. The justices will hear arguments—still remotely due to the pandemic—about water apportionment between Florida and Georgia, the credibility of asylum seekers, and home search and seizure protections against police investigating misdemeanors.

The Supreme Court is coming back from its winter break and the first argument on its docket is a fight over water rights between Florida and Georgia. Jennifer Kay, Bloomberg Law’s Florida correspondent, says this dispute is so contentious that, if Florida and Georgia were sovereign countries instead of states within the U.S., warfare may be the only way to resolve it. The heart of the conflict is a river that runs through both states. Florida says Georgia is withdrawing far too much of the river’s water, to the point that it’s merely a trickle by the time it reaches the state line. Georgia, meanwhile, denies this and says a ruling against it would kneecap its thriving agriculture industry. We hear from the people living in these states who will be most affected by the court’s ruling. And Jennifer speaks to Cases and Controversies producer David Schultz about how we got to this point in the first place.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions, but recently its biggest decisions have been ones where the justices have refused to weigh in. From the Chief Justice's refusal to preside over a second impeachment trial to the justices' dismissal of the "emoluments" litigation, Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin explain the consequences of the court's inaction.

Lisa Montgomery was executed Jan. 13 by the lame-duck Trump administration despite her lawyers’ best efforts to save her. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, veteran public defender Kelley Henry gives an inside look at those efforts, which, for Henry, led to contracting Covid-19 while working on the case. Henry talks about the “last-minute” litigation and her frustration at the government’s and the court system’s treatment of Montgomery. She explains what it was like, as an attorney, to endure rejection from the high court—without explanation—as the majority sided with the Justice Department, like it did in every case to come before the court during the Trump administration’s unprecedented run of executions. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap the justices’ bit role in the presidential inauguration, as well as news of President Biden’s top lawyer at the court—for now, anyway.

The Supreme Court will hear just two arguments to wrap up the January sitting. But it has been busy—and divided— as it issued orders on executions and medication abortion access during the Covid-19 pandemic. The justices will hear arguments over FCC media ownership rules and climate litigation on Jan. 19 in a work week shortened by the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and presidential inauguration. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview those arguments and recap a week of divided shadow docket orders on federal executions and abortion-pill restrictions.

Supreme Court justices kick off the New Year with three arguments that they’ll hear remotely, continuing Covid-19 pandemic precautions. The court will hear disputes related to immigration, speech and religion, and the Federal Trade Commission the week of Jan. 11. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview these cases and discuss the latest rejected Republican election challenge against the backdrop of the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. They also note some pressure on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire with Democrats set to control the White House and Senate.

From impeachment to historic pandemic-driven change to losing a justice to gaining a new one—it’s been an extraordinary year for the U.S. Supreme Court. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin round up the biggest moments in their year-end podcast.

In a special Cases and Controversies episode, top Supreme Court lawyer Kannon Shanmugam talks about running a high court practice during a pandemic.  Shanmugam gives hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin an inside look at what it's been like running the practice at Paul, Weiss, a role he took on last year having no idea what Covid-19 had in store. The former Antonin Scalia clerk talks about arguing remotely at the high court, notching a staggering success-rate when it comes to cert. petitions, mentoring younger lawyers, juggling family life, and, in one of the episode's lighter moments, what it's like being compared to pop star Britney Spears—when it comes to headsets, anyway.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its arguments for 2020, but there's still work to do before ringing in the new year. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin detail Texas's last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, historic lame duck federal executions, and the court's first opinions in argued cases this term. And Goldstein and Russell's Sarah Harrington joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her latest—remote—argument in a bid to reclaim Jewish property taken during the Nazi era.