Cases and Controversies

In-person arguments will resume at the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 4 after the courthouse was shuttered for the past year and a half due to Covid-19. Attendance in the courtroom is limited to staff, arguing attorneys, and a handful of journalists, so the court will continue to livestream the proceedings to the public. For this episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin run down the five cases the justices will hear during their first week, including a battle between states over water rights and the federal government's attempt to block "state secrets" from being handed over to litigants.

When Supreme Court justices return to the courtroom for the new term in October, they’ll consider the government’s quest to reinstate Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentences. The court will hear arguments on Oct. 13 about pretrial publicity and mitigating evidence, as the justices decide whether to reverse an appeals court ruling that vacated Tsarnaev’s sentences for the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds more. Attorney General Merrick Garland imposed an execution moratorium this past summer, raising the question of how that will play into the case, if at all. To help break down the issues, “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are joined by Goodwin’s William Jay, who filed an amicus brief supporting the government on behalf of the National Fraternal Order of Police. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin Guest: William Jay Producer: David Schultz Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

The Supreme Court is typically thought to be out most of the summer. But it issued a momentous opinion on abortion rights that came from the court's so-called "shadow docket." For this special episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson discuss where this opinion came from and why it came outside of the court's normal operating procedures. They also talk about how the justices came down in this case and what this ruling means for the liberal justices' prospects moving forward.

The Supreme Court handed down the final two opinions of the term in argued cases, in contentious disputes involving voting rights and charity-donor disclosure. Progressives largely bemoaned both rulings, which fell 6-3 along ideological lines in the conservative-majority court. But the ACLU’s David Cole explained that, in his view, only the voting-rights ruling was wrong. Cole, the group’s national director who argued and won a school-speech case this term on behalf of a cursing cheerleader, joined Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to review the 2020-21 term. He expressed optimism at the court’s rulings that crossed ideological lines in a handful of cases, though it remains to be seen whether that continues next term, which starts in October. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court enters what is likely the final week of its term with a handful of cases remaining, including a closely watched one on Arizona ballot restrictions. All eyes, too, will be on Justice Stephen Breyer sometime after the last opinion is delivered to see if he retires, as progressives are pressuring him to do. Cases and Controversies dives into what's ahead and what the court did this past week in siding with student free speech and NCAA athletes in two big decisions. In Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of high-school cheerleader Brandi Levy, saying her school went too far when it suspended her for her Snapchat rant after failing to make the varsity team. And the court unanimously ruled in favor of college athletes in NCAA v. Alston, saying schools can't conspire to deny students education-related compensation in the name of preserving "amateurism." Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin provide the details on decisions and look at what's coming up.

After weeks of low-profile rulings in technical cases, the justices dropped two of the most anticipated cases of the term on the same day this week. The court handed progressives a 7-2 win by once again upholding Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, while pleasing conservatives with a unanimous win for a religious group in the latest clash between LGBT rights and religious freedom. And although there appears to be broad agreement among the justices, the vote count masks significant disagreement among the nine. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the rulings, implications for future cases, and even a few conspiracy theories. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging the military’s male-only draft, but a statement accompanying the denial from an interesting lineup of justices suggests the issue could come back to the court if Congress doesn’t act. Hogan Lovells partner Cate Stetson, who co-counseling with the ACLU brought the challenge, joins the latest Cases and Controversies to break down the issue and look at where it’s headed. She also talks with hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin about the justices’ seemingly-unusual alignments and how they show the court’s complexity. And the hosts recap the latest battle between Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh in a case that limited the scope of a repeat-offender gun law.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit on immigration and criminal justice, adding to the San Francisco-based appeals court’s string of high court losses. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those cases along with a third on a computer-hacking law that featured unusual alignments in the majority and dissent. Federal Indian law expert Mary Kathryn Nagle joins the podcast to explain the Ninth Circuit criminal case, United States v. Cooley, where the court affirmed tribal sovereignty and authority over non-Indians driving through reservations.

The Supreme Court issued three more opinions before the Memorial Day holiday, leaving the justices with 26 to go before wrapping things up for the term at the end of June. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the court's latest decisions and action on the "shadow docket." They're joined by MacArthur Justice Center's Easha Anand to talk about the court's decision to once again decline to hear a case involving police accountability.

The right to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade is in the crosshairs after the Supreme Court said it would take up a Mississippi case next term dealing with the issue. The high court’s grant kicked off a busy week that also saw several opinions, including a contentious criminal ruling over the right to unanimous jury verdicts that may foreshadow precedent fights to come. It was also one in which Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh got into a very heated judicial exchange. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down all of that and more on this week’s episode as the justices continue to issue the final rulings of the term. They’re joined by Skadden’s Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy, who won a unanimous ruling in another criminal case this week that bolstered search and seizure protections for homes.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court confronted how to update its landmark student free speech ruling to accommodate social media and its ubiquitous use among students. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District said schools can't punish on-campus speech unless it could cause a substantial disruption at the school. The question at argument April 28 in the case of a student who didn't make varsity cheer and expressed her displeasure on Snapchat was whether the 1969 standard applies to off-campus speech directed at the school on social media. Joining Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast to talk about issues around Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. are activists Charlie Mirsky, of March for Our Lives, and Maya Green, of Student Voice. They describe the importance of social media to student political activities and the kinds of speech at risk in this case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss the court's newest Second Amendment case asking if there is a right to possess a gun outside of the home for self protection. It's a question left open by the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and one that's baffled the lower courts. Finally, the podcast will dip into the court's latest 6-3 vote in an immigration case that didn't break down along the usual ideological lines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court will hear its final arguments of 2020, starting with a pair of cases seeking to reclaim Nazi-looted art. In those cases—Germany v. Philipp and Hungary v. Simon—the justices will consider whether Holocaust survivors and their families can sue former Axis countries in the U.S. or whether they must press their claims oversees. It's déjà vu for the remainder of the week, as the justices will consider issues—and in one instance, a case—that they've recently tackled in previous terms. In Facebook v. Duguid, the court will once again consider what counts as a prohibited "robocall" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The arbitration case Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. comes back to the court for a second time. This time the justices will consider when an arbitrator—not a court—gets to decide whether claims should go to arbitration or should they go to the judiciary in the first instance. Finally, the court considers another separation of powers challenge to a federal agency—this time the Federal Housing Finance Agency—in Collins v. Mnuchin.

Despite decades of work to educate more Black lawyers, the percentage of Black associates and partners in firms across the U.S. remain very low, and well below those of other professional careers. Big Law firms across the board are ramping up social justice efforts as the nation engages in a renewed dialogue on race and equality. But some have accused firms of using minorities as “diversity props” to impress clients and misrepresent their inclusiveness to potential employees. So what are law firms doing to fix their lack of diversity? Hosts Adam Allington and Lisa Helem, along with reporters Ayanna Alexander, Ruiqi Chen, and Meghan Tribe, interviewed lawyers across the industry, from corporate general counsels to top Am Law 200 lawyers to current law students, each sharing their experience navigating the legal space as a person of color. We try to answer what law firms are doing to recruit more diverse classes of lawyers, and how they are addressing barriers to entry for Black lawyers.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on a range of issues the week of Nov. 30, starting with a dispute over President Donald Trump’s attempt to keep non-citizens off the Census. The week will end with the latest appeal over non-unanimous jury verdicts. In between, the justices will hear an array of arguments over the scope of an anti-hacking law, the ability to sue the IRS to prevent enforcement, and corporate immunity from suits involving overseas atrocities. Bloomberg Law breaks down these cases in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast.

The Supreme Court still has high-profile cases involving President Donald Trump on its docket as his tenure comes to a close, including disputes involving the Mueller Report and the Census. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about how that Mueller case could be wiped from the docket. They also discuss the latest Census case, Trump v. New York, which deals with the administration’s attempt not to count non-citizens. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s Mahogane Reed joins the hosts to break down the case and explain LDF’s support for New York’s position. Kimberly and Jordan also discuss the latest religion cases at the court involving challenges to Covid-prompted gathering restrictions, and how the justices may choose to avoid issuing sweeping rulings in both this and the Census case.

The justices wrapped up their remote November sitting with one of the most anticipated cases before the justices this term—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact. The case, California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate. GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the fate of the Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—on Nov. 10. It's a short argument week that also includes disputes over immigration and barriers to suing law enforcement. All ears will be on Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her second phone argument week as the justices remotely hear a Republican challenge to the healthcare law that dominated discussion during her confirmation hearings. On Nov. 9, the court will hear arguments on time rules surrounding immigration removal proceedings and whether federal law blocks a man’s suit against federal task force officers who beat him up.

In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed on one of the next cases to be heard remotely by phone, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This will be one of the first cases new Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett will hear. Also this week, the court will likely continue fielding emergency requests ahead of and after Election Day to sort out mail-in ballot and other disputes in the states over voting security and pandemic safety.

The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear a heated dispute pitting religious rights against LGBTQ rights the day after the election, in what could be an early test for Amy Coney Barrett. William Haun with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin on this deep dive episode to break down Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Haun’s group represents Sharonell Fulton, Toni Lynn Simms-Busch, and Catholic Social Services, which says the city is wrongly barring them from working in its foster care system because CSS won’t place children with same-sex couples. The hosts also catch up on Barrett’s almost certain confirmation, as well as the contentious voting cases that continue to divide the justices on their “shadow docket,” and some new appeals they agreed to hear argued later this term.

The Supreme Court’s first argument session of the October 2020 term is in the books and two of the lawyers who argued in it join the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to share their virtual experiences. Ramzi Kassem of CUNY law school and Sean Marotta of Hogan Lovells recount everything ranging from missing Justice Ginsburg to technical issues to what to eat for breakfast ahead of a pandemic-era remote argument. And Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down the latest in the high court confirmation process for Amy Coney Barrett, which appears secure for Republicans before the Nov. 3 elections are decided.

The Supreme Court continues to hear remote arguments in the second week of the term as confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett are set to begin. Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings kick off Monday, a federal holiday. But in the second and final week of the October argument session, the justices will hear disputes in cases involving military justice, bankruptcy, Fourth Amendment civil suits against law enforcement, and immigration.

The Supreme Court term kicks off Monday after a shorter-than-usual summer break with only eight justices set to hear 10 cases this month. As in May, all arguments for the sitting will be conducted by phone due to social distancing demands of the coronavirus. A live audio feed will be provided by C-Span and other news outlets. This will be the first term in nearly three decades that the court will be without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18, and the second time in the past three terms the court starts work with a prospective colleague in the confirmation process.

President Donald Trump nominated Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Sept. 26 to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18. It's a move that could reshape the high court and the law for generations. On this special episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law’s Kimberly Robinson, Jordan Rubin, and Madison Alder break down the nomination and what to expect in the weeks ahead. Republicans are pushing to seat Barrett before a winner is declared in the Nov. 3 election, raising questions of what Democrats can do to stop them, and, perhaps more importantly, what Democrats will do next if Republicans are successful.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has raised the Supreme Court’s profile as a confirmation fight over her successor and the presidential campaign converge. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin look at the future of the court, both in the near- and long-term, in this term preview episode featuring two guests. Weil’s Zack Tripp, a former Ginsburg clerk, joins the show to recount his experience at her memorial and share some of his memories clerking for the Notorious RBG. Then, the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Anastasia Boden talks about what Ginsburg meant to her and helps the hosts break down where the high court is headed.

Goodwin Liu, a California Supreme Court Justice, and former law clerk to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, remembers the late Supreme Court Justice on this special episode of Cases & Controversies. Liu talks about Ginsburg’s voracious editing style, and her most memorable opinions.

President Donald Trump announced 20 more potential Supreme Court justices for his "short" list, putting new attention on the high court as the 2020 election approaches. In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the list, which includes notable names in Republican political circles, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. The hosts also bring on the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro, who has a new book coming out on the contentious Supreme Court confirmation process.

Challenges to election laws have poured into the Supreme Court and more are likely as the 2020 election season really heats up after Labor Day. Election law expert Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices will approach these questions and what it may mean for voters. And check out this Bloomberg Law video on election safety with Hasen.

The Supreme Court keeps generating news despite it being in the thick of what should be a summer vacation. Some of that news involves yet more divided shadow docket orders related to Covid-19. On this episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk with Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch. He’s one of the lawyers representing Calvary Chapel against the state of Nevada in one of the latest emergency cases that resulted in a 5-4 ruling. The church argues the state is unlawfully letting casinos operate at greater capacity than houses of worship during the pandemic. The hosts also run through the gamut of high court news, including some Supreme scoops, another Covid-related emergency order, Justice Ginsburg being back in the hospital, and Justice Stephen Breyer becoming an epic meme.

After a wild term, the Supreme Court is finally starting to settle down a bit, so the hosts of “Cases and Controversies” are going to the movies! On the latest episode, they interview ACLU attorneys starring in the forthcoming documentary “The Fight,” out July 31, which tracks several high-profile legal battles against the Trump administration over the last few years. The guests talk about their cases, their favorite film moments, and their thoughts on the just-completed high court term. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest health scare and the justices’ divergent—and unexplained—orders in the aftermath of the Trump financial subpoena litigation.

If you were excited about the new five-justice conservative majority, this just-completed term of the Supreme Court might have left you disappointed. But law professor Stephen Vladeck says that's not the full picture. A look at the so-called "shadow docket"—the work the court does without oral argument—suggests it was a much better term for conservatives and the Trump administration than it might seem. On the latest episode of Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin lift the veil on some of these consequential yet enigmatic actions. This includes green-lighting President Trump's border wall and refusing to revisit the doctrine of qualified immunity.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term after issuing decisions in July for the first time in more than two decades. Chief Justice John Roberts continued to dominate the direction of the court he leads, authoring landmark opinions on presidential power in the cases over subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records. He was also in the majority for two big cases handing victories to religious employers seeking to avoid compliance with discrimination laws and provide contraception coverage to their employees. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies break down the final week of the term, which also included a consequential ruling about American Indian land in Oklahoma. They also discuss Supreme Court retirement and health care news—but not the kind court watchers were bracing for.