Cases and Controversies

The Biden administration and others are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender kids despite its refusal to resolve related disputes over youth sports and student bathroom use. The ACLU’s Li Nowlin-Sohl joins Cases and Controversies to discuss bans out of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Idaho pending before the court, and the chances that the justices will finally weigh in. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Headlines touting the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado presidential ballot obscured division among the justices over the Constitution’s insurrection clause. UC Davis School of Law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat joins Cases and Controversies to explain what the justices did and didn’t agree on March 4 regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that means for the November election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It was a big week at the Supreme Court with arguments over social media and guns, and a grant on Donald Trump’s bid for immunity from prosecution over alleged election interference. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler detail arguments in Garland v. Cargill, the challenge to the federal government’s ban on so-called bump stocks, and Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, challenging state laws that target social media companies. They also explain the court’s decision to weigh into the criminal prosecution of Trump in Washington in the 2020 election case. 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 will hear arguments Monday in fights over laws in Florida and Texas that seek to stop social media platforms from censoring conservative speech online. At issue are provisions that require platforms to keep up certain kinds of content and inform users when posts are removed. The justices are being asked to decide if those requirements are constitutional under the First Amendment’s right to editorial judgment. Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices are likely to approach a case that could impact public discourse online for decades to come. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices have a number of things to sort out before deciding whether to take up or reject the question of whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for election interference. Should the justices give Trump another crack at the DC Circuit on his immunity claim? And how should they decide special counsel Jack Smith’s request to treat Trump’s appeal as a petition for a full review? Georgetown University Law Center professor Erica Hashimoto joins “Cases and Controversies” to unwrap the history, timing, and consequential decisions to come. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court arguments in Colorado’s bid to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot tested a number of legal principles and scenarios. The justices dove into the potential impact on their deliberations of a case from the 1860s as well as whether state governments have powers to effectively decide a presidential election. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down all the technical arguments from the Feb. 8 special session and where individual justices may be heading before voting takes place on March 5. 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 will hold a special session Feb. 8 to consider whether Colorado can keep Donald Trump off the primary ballot. Notre Dame Law School professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to explain the legal issues at play and the potential impacts of a court ruling that fails to give a definitive answer before the presidential election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices will soon hear argument on Donald Trump’s appeal to stay on the Colorado primary ballot, but another question for the court is whether the former president will attend the proceedings. Trump has done so in other court hearings of late around the country, creating unprecedented security challenges. While the Supreme Court is used to heightened security for the justices, hosting Trump for such a blockbuster case would heighten the stakes. The court won’t say what security measures are planned for Feb. 8 whether Trump shows or not. Bloomberg Law’s judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss those possibilities and how Trump’s other appearances have played out. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The conservative-led Supreme Court seems primed to nix a bedrock principle governing the relationship between administrative agencies and federal courts. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the 3 1/2-hour argument on Jan. 17 in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. From the justices different understandings of the Chevron doctrine to uncertainties over a potential replacement for deference, the latest episode gets into all the details. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Big challenges to federal agency regulatory powers at the Supreme Court could end up as a footnote to what’s shaping up to be a momentous term. Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson discuss how the court set up a historic sitting in agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s fight to stay on the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado and a second abortion case. It was already a significant term with two challenges to the so-called administrative state, which many thought would garner the most attention. Those cases will be argued next week and Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how a ruling against the government could give judges the ability to strike down regulations they disagree with and shift power from agencies. 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 January sitting starts Monday and most of the focus will center on administrative law cases. But important arguments on government gamesmanship and property rights are also on tap. Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute joins Cases and Controversies to break down upcoming arguments. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Arguing at the Supreme Court is no walk in the park. The justices ask tough questions and give hypotheticals that can trip up even the most prepared advocate. As the year comes to a close, Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr look back at the most memorable moments from Supreme Court arguments so far this term since the court follows its own calendar. There were some uncomfortable, even awkward, exchanges during the free speech fight over a “Trump too small” trademark, the challenge to the $6 billion bankruptcy settlement involving opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, and the spat over the SEC’s use of in-house judges in fraud cases. 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 added two high profile disputes to its docket and suggested it will fast-track a third involving former President, adding to an already consequential term. Hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr discuss the new cases on access to the abortion drug mifepristone, a challenge to Jan. 6 prosecutions, and immunity for former President Donald Trump on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor solidified her legacy as the first female jurist to sit on the Supreme Court. One of her former clerks, Tamarra Matthews Johnson, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her former boss as a justice and as a role model for women. She touches on O’Connor’s career hurdles and how her political experience came through in her time on the high court bench. Johnson recalls O’Connor as an active member who tried to think of things from multiple points of view—that she saw herself as someone who understood that the law meant something to people in their daily lives. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court appeared likely to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring certain enforcement actions in federal court, rather than resolve them in-house. The only question appeared to be whether the justices' ruling will ensnare other federal agencies. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss how the court might limit its ruling. 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 inaugural code of conduct, issued under pressure from transparency advocates and Congress, does little to quell concern over how the justices conduct themselves on ethics, critics say. The Brennan Center’s Jennifer Ahearn joins Cases and Controversies to talk about how the lack of an enforcement method, special recusal rules, and general tone are unlikely to result in many changes—both in how the court operates and how it’s perceived. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A lopsided Supreme Court appeared ready to side with the Biden administration in a Second Amendment challenge to a federal gun ban for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The real issue for the justices is how to apply their new test, established in the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that requires courts to look for historical support for gun restrictions. Duke Center for Firearms Law Executive Director Andrew Willinger joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the old test, the new one, and possibilities for the future. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices searched for the proper line to balance free speech protections for public officials and their constituents online, in the first of several disputes involving social media this term. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's David Greene joins Cases and Controveries to explain the competing First Amendment issues at play in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and how the cases fit in with other upcoming social media disputes. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett made news this week when she became the latest justice to back a high court ethics code, but her tale of rocking out to the turn-of-the-century hit "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the stately halls of the highest court in the land stole the show. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr catch up on all the justices' latest activities. They also highlight the biggest cases being argued during the court's November sitting, from guns, to social media, to the "Trump Too Small" trademark dispute. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn. But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers. Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Whether funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unlawful or not could rest with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, one court watcher says. Brennan Center for Justice President and CEO Michael Waldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss a challenge to the Obama-era agency that was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to regulate mortgages, auto loans and credit cards. He says it’s unclear how the court ultimately will rule following argument Oct. 3 over the agency’s funding structure, but notes that Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Barrett, especially, merit watching. 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 kicks off its 2023 term on Monday with guns, abortion, and affirmative action potentially coming back—whether the justices are ready for them or not. Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court’s recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said. The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Death penalty cases are often adjudicated for years, if not decades, before they reach the Supreme Court. But once they do, the justices must make life-or-death decisions in a relatively quick amount of time. Death penalty cases at the Supreme Court often come through the court's emergency, or "shadow" docket. In recent years, the court's conservatives have handed down rulings that closed off several avenues for capital defendants to get a rehearing of their case, or to even to challenge their method of execution. On this special episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take a look at what the court's rulings mean for how the death penalty works in America, and what happens at the court when an 11th hour request comes in. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

From Antonin Scalia’s sudden death, to four new justices, a leaked opinion draft, the overturning of abortion rights, and the pandemic-era introduction of live audio for oral arguments—a lot has happened at the Supreme Court in the past decade and Cases and Controversies has been there for all of it. The Bloomberg Law podcast started in very lo-fi way in a virtual closet has grown over the years as a staple of Supreme Court coverage with studio space with really good microphones, its own producer in David Schultz, and up to three hosts offering behind-the-scene takes, and insight and analysis of court happenings and all of the turbulence that’s gone along with it. Created by Tom Taylor, Bloomberg Law’s former high court correspondent and now its newsroom’s chief of staff, Cases and Controversies marks 10 years this term with a special edition. Taylor and current co-hosts Kimberly Robinson, Greg Stohr, and Lydia Wheeler offer their observations on heightened public interest in the court, what’s changed for the justices and how the court operates, and what may be in store in coming years. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Rejection of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan suggests Supreme Court conservatives are going to be more comfortable with second-guessing federal agency determinations even when they fall within a federal statute. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what he's calling the "supersized" Major Questions Doctrine, the high court-made principle that's risen in recent terms and was the reasoning behind the 6-3 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners beyond the headlines of the biggest opinions of the term. They also look ahead to the one starting in October which Winkler says is shaping up as another with blockbuster potential on guns and the SEC to start with. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Conservative justices asserted themselves in a big way in the final days of the Supreme Court term. The six Republican-appointed justices joined together in striking down affirmative action, rejecting Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, and supporting religious liberty in a setback for LGBTQ rights. While the end of this term for argued cases wasn’t as explosive as a year ago when the court handed conservatives landmark victories on abortion and guns, the final flurry of decisions still packed plenty of drama, especially tension in written opinions and readings from the bench. In the newest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners behind the scenes to break down the biggest decisions, notable moments, and update listeners on some newly granted cases for next term. 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 heads into the final week of the term for argued cases with a flurry of opinions on tap, including what could be a blockbuster on affirmative action in higher education and the fate of Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan. Ten 10 cases remain with work expected to be wrapped up by June 30. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr take listeners down the homestretch and behind the scenes of what court watchers might expect and whether surprises are in store. They also break down the opinions most recently handed down. That includes Friday’s decision clearing the way for the Biden administration to shift immigration enforcement priorities to focus on people who recently crossed the border or are a threat to public safety. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In upholding a landmark measure meant to keep adopted American-Indian children with tribal families, the Supreme Court again declined to embrace a colorblind view of federal law. The conservative argument that race should almost never be a factor in setting and interpreting federal law hasn’t fared well this term. But that could change with decisions pending in challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. In a 7-2 ruling on Thursday in Haaland v. Brackeen that kept in place the decades-old Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices dismissed race-related claims on technical grounds. And the color-blind arguments were explicitly rejected in the justices’ surprise ruling June 8 in Allen v. Milligan. The 7-2 court there said claims under the Voting Rights Act didn’t have to be “race-neutral.” But Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler explain why the outcome could be different the affirmative action cases, which the court is expected to hand down before the end of June. 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 declined to make it harder to bring racial challenges to voting rules, shocking court watchers who expected the majority conservative court to make major changes to the law. Goodwin's William Jay joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the reasons why Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh refused to go along with their conservative colleagues, and what, if anything, it might signal about the upcoming affirmative action cases. Along with co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler, Jay also discusses two IP cases in front of the justices—one a trademark dispute decided by the justices Thursday and the other a case to be heard next term involving a phrase that alludes to the size of former President Trump's hands. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to draw notice on the Supreme Court, this time writing the first solo dissent from a first-term justice since Clarence Thomas in 1991. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss Jackson’s dissent in the labor case, and how she’s handled herself since joining the court in October. They’ll also analyze some of the 27 cases still outstanding with the term nearing an end, and how a few of the big ones might play out. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

· 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 last year’s draft abortion opinion leak, and the flurry of letters between Congress and the chief justice over high court ethics. 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 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 this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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 feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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 Torres’ seeks to refocus attention of the court on impacts of the Biden plan on minority borrowers. Those implications, and the questions they might prompt from the court’s liberal justices, could “play a role in the background” by pushing the Supreme Court’s middle to take a sort of off-ramp to deciding the legality of the program, she said. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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 us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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.