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 leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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 voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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 Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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 703-341-3690.

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

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 Thomas wrote in the 6-3 Boule ruling that split the court along ideological lines. Acharya explains that another barrier to suits against law enforcement—qualified immunity—is subject to the same criticism. The doctrine, which often shields officers from being sued for all but the most obvious constitutional violations, has come under fire recently by groups on the right and the left. But qualified immunity is still considered by courts to be “good law,” despite being a judge-made rule. It’s an open question “why atextual doctrines like qualified immunity are OK” with the justices, while Bivens claims aren’t, Acharya said. Cases dealing with qualified immunity are constantly pending before the justices. Cope v. Cogdill, alleging that jail officials failed to prevent a detainee’s suicide, has been considered at their private conferences 10 times. But the justices haven’t seemed eager to address the doctrine in that case or any other. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

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.

The Supreme Court’s public approval ratings have taken a hit since a leaked draft opinion signaled that the conservative majority is poised to strike down the Roe v Wade abortion precedent. Gabe Roth of the watchdog group Fix the Court joins host Kimberly Robinson of Cases and Controversies to discuss what the court could do to boost public confidence, and whether Congress has legal authority to rein in what he calls the “most powerful, least accountable” branch of government. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The possibility of American life without federal abortion rights puts a spotlight on state prosecutors. “These elected prosecutors are going to become the last line of defense,” Miriam Krinsky said of a potential post-Roe world. Krinsky, head of reform group Fair and Just Prosecution, discussed the issue on the latest Cases and Controversies episode with Bloomberg Law’s Jordan Rubin. “This is simply a draft,” Krinsky emphasized, referring to Justice Samuel Alito’s proposed opinion circulated within the court earlier this year and published this week by Politico. But if the draft becomes law and states turn their attention toward criminalizing people involved in abortions, then prosecutors will have the discretion not to pursue charges, Krinsky said. She and other former prosecutors and law enforcement leaders filed an amicus brief supporting the clinic in the Mississippi appeal whose opinion was leaked, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. “The notion of limited criminal-justice resources being used for these kinds of investigations and arrests and prosecutions, this should horrify any prosecutor or law enforcement leader that this is what we want to be spending our time on,” Krinsky said on the podcast. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

We got a window into the inner workings of the usually secretive Supreme Court with a leaked draft opinion in a landmark abortion case. As surprising, even shocking, as this leak was, it could be the beginning of a new era at the court in which the justices' private deliberations are no longer sacrosanct and leaks become more common. On this special breaking news edition of Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about what this might mean for the future of the court and about how the leaked opinion itself could affect women seeking abortions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Biden administration from the start has sought to unwind a Trump-era policy known as “Remain in Mexico.” It requires would-be immigrants to stay outside the U.S. while their cases are reviewed. That issue reached the Supreme Court on April 26, as the justices wrestled with what presidents must do to change course from their predecessors. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest host Lydia Wheeler go live on Twitter to try to break down this “messy” case with professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s final scheduled arguments of the term—Justice Stephen Breyer’s last ever—features the dispute over whether President Joe Biden can end Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy. During the April 25-27 session, the court also will hear appeals over public-school prayer at football games, habeas corpus, method-of-execution litigation, and a follow-on case to the landmark 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision on criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action and give an update on efforts by law firms to increase attorney diversity at the lectern. 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 are taking the bench for their last batch of oral arguments after Justice Clarence Thomas was photographed at the court with Georgia Republican Senate candidate and former football star Herschel Walker. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the April sitting’s first week of arguments, including one on the famed Miranda warnings. All eyes also are on Thomas, who’s been called on to recuse from 2020 election-related cases over his wife’s texts to the White House, and was seen posing with GOP Senate hopeful and former football star Herschel Walker at a private event at the court. 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 set to hear its next big religion case with a First Amendment dispute over prayer at school football games. The justices will consider the limits on such prayer at argument April 25 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. A lawyer for Bremerton, Bradley Girard of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies to discuss the case with host Jordan Rubin. Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder also joins to talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson’s historic high-court confirmation and what’s next for Joe Biden’s judicial appointments in the lower courts. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Death-row inmates may have an easier time getting religious accommodations at executions after the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ attempt to block a pastor from laying hands on and praying aloud for an inmate in the chamber. Ramirez v. Collier was an unusual case in a number of ways, including because the inmate won. John Ramirez’s lawyer Seth Kretzer joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experience arguing the novel dispute on an expedited timeline. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s likely confirmation next week, as well as the most recent developments in the world of Justice Clarence Thomas. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

On the eve of confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court disclosed that Justice Clarence Thomas had been hospitalized two days earlier with an infection. Following the close of those hearings on Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, had encouraged the White House to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election in text message to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Cases and Controversies details the controversy swirling around the longest-serving justice as well as developments in the Jackson hearings and what happens next. 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’s confirmation hearings kick off March 21 as her potential future colleagues continue to hear oral arguments. Former Senate Judiciary counsel Nick Xenakis joins Cases and Controversies to give an inside look at the process and what to expect in Jackson’s hearings. The hosts also give a sneak peek of the arguments that will be heard while Senate Judiciary Committee members question the nominee, including two arbitration disputes. 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 will consider a dispute over congressional powers to authorize discrimination suits against states brought by service members injured abroad. Cases and Controversies discusses former Texas State Trooper Le Roy Torres' suit against the state Department of Public Safety for employment accommodations. He says he suffered lung damage due to exposure to burn pits while deployed in Iraq as an Army reservist. His attorney, Brian Lawler, explains how Texas and a handful of states say the federal government can't authorize such suits against states, even though they can be brought against local governments. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It's been a week since President Biden announced he would be nominating Kejanji Brown Jackson to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been few if any signs that Democrats will have trouble confirming her. Cases and Controversies recaps the latest on the Jackson nomination and looks into what, if anything, Republicans can do to stop it. Guest host David Schultz also examines this week's oral argument in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the justices appeared less hostile than expected to the executive branch's attempts to tackle climate change. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

We finally have an answer: President Biden has picked federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his pick to replace the outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. We have instant reaction from hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson along with a preview of next week's arguments. The Supreme Court kicks off the argument week with a potential blockbuster over the executive branch's ability to tackle climate change. Although consequential on its own, the challenge to EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases could reverberate across administrative law by demanding more from Congress when it wants agencies to regulate "major questions." Cases discussed in this episode West Virginia v. EPA -- 8:59 Ruan v. US -- 10:58 Marietta Memorial Hospital v. Davita -- 12:24 Egbert v. Boule -- 13:04 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 are set for a short week of arguments while the country awaits Joe Biden’s decision on his choice to replace Justice Stephen Breyer. An announcement is expected by month’s end. With the Presidents Day holiday on Monday, the justices are hearing two cases on Tuesday over tribal gaming and double jeopardy for American Indians. A procedural argument follows Wednesday over the Trump-era public-charge rule that blocked green cards for noncitizens needing public benefits. Cases and Controversies gives a sneak peek as the justices return from their mid-winter break.

The Supreme Court appears ready to continue reining in the so-called administrative state in an EPA climate case set for argument this month. On the latest Cases and Controversies podcast, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the next chance for the 6-3 conservative majority to flex its muscles in this blockbuster term. The hosts are joined by Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler to explain the upcoming challenge to EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and how it fits with high court rulings striking down the Biden administration’s attempts to deal with the pandemic. Cases discussed in this episode: Merrill v. Milligan--0:39 West Virginia v. EPA--6:43 Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement announcement gives President Joe Biden the chance to put the first Black woman on the high court and prevent Democrats from losing another seat to Republicans. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down Breyer’s impending departure, his legacy, his potential replacements, and what that replacement means—and doesn’t mean—for the future of the court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Stephen Breyer is known for letting his flamboyant intellect shine on the bench. And, according to those who clerked for him, Breyer's personality outside of the courtroom was no different. It was reported earlier today that this will be the 27-year veteran of the Supreme Court's final term. To learn more about who Breyer is, we spoke with some of the attorneys who clerked for the Justice over the years. Breyer was described as someone with an insatiable, extroverted mind, who thrived on conversation—sometimes to a fault. Andrew Crespo, a former clerk and current Harvard Law School professor, said going to lunch with the Justice required finding a restaurant with lots of space "so that, when we're sitting down and he's telling us all these stories about the Court, that we weren't accidentally sitting next to a reporter." In this special episode of our Cases & Controversies podcast, former Breyer clerks share stories from their time at the Court and about the man they describe as a "happy warrior," who remained optimistic despite a tenure spent, for the most part, in the Court's ideological minority. In this episode we hear from: Danielle Gray, global chief legal officer for Walgreens Boots Alliance Pratik Shah, a partner at the firm Akin Gump Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center Andrew Crespo, a professor at Harvard Law School 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 had a short but busy week, issuing orders on the Texas abortion law and Donald Trump’s attempt to keep records from the Jan. 6 commission, while hearing arguments and also issuing rare public statements on mask-wearing at the high court. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the “Maskgate” controversy that stemmed from an NPR report on Justice Gorsuch's alleged refusal to wear a mask during oral arguments. They also talk to Josh McDaniel, director of Harvard Law’s religious freedom clinic. The clinic filed a brief supporting the prisoner seeking resentencing in Concepcion v. United States, argued Jan. 19. Topics discussed in this episode: Masks & the justices--00:40 In re Whole Woman's Health--9:41 Trump v. Thompson--16:20 Concepcion v. U.S.--19:30 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 issued its anticipated rulings on the Biden administration’s vaccine rules affecting millions of Americans, as the justices continue to hear cases in the first oral-argument sessions of 2022. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the vaccine opinions and give a sneak peek of upcoming arguments on Jan. 18 and 19. Those hearings include disputes over religion in Boston, Nazi-looted art in Spain, campaign finance in the Ted Cruz campaign, and criminal sentencing under the Trump-signed First Step Act of 2018. 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 starts 2022 with an ultra-rare Friday argument session over President Joe Biden’s vaccine policies as the country continues to struggle with Covid-19. The justices will hear back-to-back arguments Friday over the employer and healthcare-worker mandates, an unusual step for the sort of emergency litigation that the court generally decides with briefs alone. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action and also preview the arguments coming up the week of Jan. 10, featuring disputes over Medicaid payments, immigrant detention, and whether tax courts can forgive late legal filings.

The Supreme Court opened up its doors once again, returning to in-person arguments in October 2021. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the biggest moments from this consequential year—from reproductive rights, to the justices’ roadshows, to a covid diagnosis.

The Supreme Court effectively kept the Texas abortion ban in place, with a decision coming later this term in the Mississippi case that could decide the future of abortion rights nationwide. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the Texas S.B. 8 decision on Friday and, with guest Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, recap the Dec. 1 argument in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They also talk about the school-funding case, Carson v. Makin, argued Dec. 8, and what to watch at the court with arguments done for the year.

Fresh off the contentious argument over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and the future of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court turns toward its final hearings of 2021. They include cases on religious-school funding, immigration, ERISA, and criminal procedure, including an ineffective assistance of counsel case that could lead to an innocent person being executed. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap Dec. 1’s abortion argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before previewing the cases that’ll be argued the week of Dec. 6. Have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is in the spotlight again Dec. 1, this time hearing a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. Joining Cases and Controversies to discuss what's at stake in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is Kathryn Kolbert, who argued the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the viability line being challenged in the Mississippi case. She said the climate leading up to that 1992 ruling was similar to today's in that she fully expected that there would be at least five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. And while the outcome in Casey was a "compromised opinion" that ended up preserving the heart of Roe, Kolbert said she's not expecting the current court to rule the same way. "This court is much more ideological" that the court at the time of Casey, she said, noting that several Republican-appointed justices ultimately came down on the side abortion advocates. Kolbert is also joined by Julie F. Kay, who says that while abortion has been on the minds of court watchers lately—namely in the procedural challenge to Texas's six-week abortion ban—Dobbs is the case to watch. "I think of the Texas case as the toddler that bursts into the room and has a tantrum and gets everybody's attention," Kay said. "When in reality, it’s the Mississippi case that's the biggest threat to abortion rights."

The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to New York's strict concealed-carry law that's primed to set a precedent which could shape the future of guns in the U.S. Gun-rights supporters want the court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to bless more permissive public carry. Gun control advocates worry about the implications of doing so. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin have spent months reporting on Bruen. And in this special edition, they explore the Nov. 3 argument and the signals the justices sent. This episode takes listeners into the courtroom and breaks down essential points. Attorneys, scholars, and others working on the case talk about what's at stake if the challengers prevail, as expected. First, a primer. Previous 5-4 rulings said the Second Amendment grants an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, regardless of militia service. The amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Bruen raises the question of the scope of the right outside the home. At the argument, the justices probed the limits of their eventual ruling expected by July. "Can they say you cannot carry your gun at any place where alcohol is served?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the challengers' lawyer, Paul Clement. "What about a football stadium?" Roberts pressed. While gun-rights advocates see fewer restrictions as vindicating the Second Amendment, gun control advocates worry about the consequences of more guns on the street. "If we were to now flood our cities with even more guns, I'm afraid that shooting rate will go up, that murder rate will go up, and we don't know what will happen to the everyday fights that take place in densely populated cities like New York if people are armed," said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP. The group filed a brief at the Supreme Court supporting the New York restrictions.

It's another big week of arguments at the Supreme Court as the justices will hear cases involving national security and religious rights of death-row inmates. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin take a look in the latest sneak peek episode at the five cases on the court's docket next week. They also recap the blockbuster Nov. 1 arguments over the Texas abortion law, known as S.B. 8., in which numerous justices seemed skeptical that the should evade judicial review. Coming up next week, the podcast will take a deep dive into the Second Amendment. The hosts will explore the dispute heard Nov. 3. over a concealed carry restriction in New York and discuss concerns raised by the justices. They'll also look at how the case could impact gun restrictions across the country.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments over controversial abortion and gun laws in a jam-packed week at the high court. The court will scrutinize Texas’ abortion law, S.B. 8, that effectively bans the procedure, in back-to-back arguments on Nov. 1 that will feature Elizabeth Prelogar’s first appearance for the federal government since being confirmed solicitor general Oct. 28. Two days later, the justices will hear the biggest Second Amendment case in a decade in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court will probe the state’s strict concealed-carry regime and, more broadly, how the gun right identified in prior precedents applies outside the home. In between those arguments, on Nov. 2, the court will hear First Amendment and arbitration cases.

The Texas abortion law will be front and center at the Supreme Court Nov. 1 after the justices agreed to hear argument on an expedited basis over whether the Justice Department can sue despite the law's unusual enforcement mechanism. The justices on Friday agreed to hear two challenges to the Texas measure in short order, while allowing the abortion-blocking law to stay in place in the meantime over Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. Curiously, while the justices agreed to grant cert on this issue, they did not vote to place the law on hold until they issue an opinion in this case. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin go behind the headlines and the vote count to analyze what the court will consider when advocates step up to the lectern, and what it all might mean for abortion rights. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s first oral argument sitting of the new term is in the books as the nine-case docket included disputes over state secrets and the Boston Marathon bombing. The MacArthur Justice Center’s Amir Ali joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast to talk about what it was like to argue in the high court’s new hybrid, in-person format. Ali represented the petitioner in Thompson v. Clark, a case about federal civil rights lawsuits that led Justice Samuel Alito to pose a hypothetical question about a half man/half horse with a nicotine addiction. Seriously.

The Supreme Court will hear heavy arguments in a short week including disputes over the Boston Marathon bombing and abortion litigation. On top of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death-penalty case stemming from the 2013 bombing, the justices will also consider whether Kentucky’s Republican attorney general can defend the state’s abortion law after the Democratic governor declined. The high court will also hear a case about the rules for suing police, plus a dispute over civil-service pensions under the Social Security Act. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek at those upcoming arguments on Oct. 12 and 13.