Supreme Podcast

On this episode, we review the court's opinion in Wearry v. Cain, which considers whether the Louisiana courts erred in failing to find that the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated its obligation under Brady v. Maryland and that the failure prejudiced the defense.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, which considers the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where they perform abortions (known as the “admitting privileges requirement”) and requires all abortion clinics to comply with standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (known as the “ASC requirement”), which would require among other added expenses major construction upgrades to many facilities. Petitioners argue that the Texas law, if constitutional, would lead to the closing of a majority of the abortion clinics in Texas.

On this episode, we review the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, heard in oral argument this week. In Williams the Court is asked to determine whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal.

On this episode we review the Court's oral arguments in Utah v. Strieff, in which the Court is asked whether evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful.

On this episode we review the oral arguments this week in Taylor v. United States, which considers whether, in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, the Government is relieved of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the interstate commerce element by relying exclusively on evidence that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer is an inherent economic enterprise that satisfies, as a matter of law, the interstate commerce element of the offense.

On this episode, we review the Court's decision to grant review to the case of United States v. Texas, which asks the Court to decide whether the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to broaden its interpretation of which aliens are entitled to deferred deportation without considering the costs of such a decision on the states and the people under notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

On this episode we remember one of the most influential and controversial justices to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court.

On this episode we review the Court's opinion in James v. City of Boise, which considered whether the Idaho Supreme Court correctly concluded that two prior Supreme Court decisions do not bind state courts because as it argued the Supreme Court “does not have authority to limit the discretion of state courts where such limitation is not contained in the statute."

On this episode we review the Court's opinion in FERC v. Electric Power Supply, which considers whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may offer incentives for energy users to reduce power consumption during peak demand periods.

On this episode, we review the Court's opinion this week in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which consider whether a prior Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. Alabama (2012), should apply retroactively to juvenile defendants that were sentenced to life without parole prior to the Court's decision. Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Heffernan v. Paterson, N.J., which considers whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's misperception of that employee political affiliation. Jeffrey J. Heffernan was demoted when he was seen carrying a political opponent's lawn sign. In fact, Mr. Heffernan was simply picking up the sign for his sick mother, who had her lawn sign stolen the previous day.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, which asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 directed to “the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518," violates the separation of powers. At stake is nearly $2 billion of bonds of the Central Bank of Iran that plaintiffs are seeking to attach to pay judgments for hundreds of Americans killed in multiple Iran‐sponsored terrorist attacks.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Puerto Rico v. Valle, a case which seeks to answer whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.

On this episode we present the full oral arguments in one of the Court's most controversial cases of the term - Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which considers whether to overrule a prior Supreme Court decision approving of laws that require all employees represented by a union to pay the union "fair share service fees" for the cost of collective bargaining activities. Several California teachers argue that their First Amendment rights have been violated because they disagree with the Union.

On this episode we offer a brief summary of one of the Court's most controversial cases of the year - Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which considers whether to overrule a prior Supreme Court decision approving of laws that require all employees represented by a union to pay the union "fair share service fees" for the cost of collective bargaining activities. Several California teachers argue that their First Amendment rights have been violated because they disagree with positions taken by the Union.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks:Whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013).

On this episode, we review five of the Court’s most controversial cases this Term thus far. Mullenix v. Luna - The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that Mullenix violated the clearly established rule that a police officer may not “ ‘use deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others.’” Was the Fifth Circuit correct in its statment of the law?Williams v. Pennsylvania - Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the

On this episode, we review the Court’s much-anticipated decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, wherein the Court considered whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

On this episode, we review the the Court's grant of review for the second time to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Court's 2013 decision in the Fisher case.

On this episode, we review the the Court's decision in Glossip v. Gross.In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), the Court held that Kentucky’s three- drug execution protocol was constitutional based on the uncontested fact that “proper administration of the first drug”—which was a “fast-acting barbiturate” that created “a deep, comalike unconsciousness”—will ensure that the prisoner will not experience the known pain of suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. The Baze plurality established a stay standard to prevent unwarranted last-minute litigation challenging lethal-injection protocols that were substantially similar to the one reviewed in Baze; a stay would not be granted absent a showing of a “demonstrated risk of severe pain” that was “substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives.” In this case, Oklahoma intends to execute Petitioners using a three-drug protocol with the same second and third drugs addressed in Baze.