SCOTUStalk

Lyle Denniston, a 60-year veteran of the Supreme Court press corps, returns to SCOTUStalk to assess how the court’s ideological balance has shifted this term, whether Clarence Thomas will keep talking during oral arguments next term, and whether Stephen Breyer will retire. As is always the case, you can’t listen to Lyle and not learn something. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had a serious leak on its hands. Judge John Owens of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit joins SCOTUStalk to tell the tale of Ashton Embry, the Supreme Court clerk who was at the center of the scandal. He also shares stories from his time clerking for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, opens up about how the 9th Circuit is coping in the COVID era, and reveals his thoughts on cameras in the courtroom. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It has been a busy month for the Supreme Court, with no slowing down in sight. SCOTUSblog’s media editor, Katie Barlow, turns the mic around on host Amy Howe to get the latest. The pair discuss the court’s recent oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a dispute pitting property rights against union organizing, and a hot-button 4th Amendment issue in Caniglia v. Strom. They also talk about the court’s major 4th Amendment decision in Torres v. Madrid and preview what’s coming up, including the perfectly timed NCAA v. Alston. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Amy Howe chats with a high-octane group of fiction writers who have all dabbled in Supreme Court suspense storytelling. Brad Meltzer is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of The Tenth Justice. Anthony Franze is a member of Arnold & Porter’s appellate and Supreme Court practice and also the critically acclaimed author of several novels set at the court, including The Last Justice. Joseph Finder is the New York Times bestselling author of Guilty Minds. Some days the news feels like we are in a fiction novel, but these guys take it to a whole new level. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Joe Biden has pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs. In the meantime, he hopes to fill the rest of the federal judiciary with as many nominees as he can (some of whom could soon become SCOTUS short-listers). Amy Howe speaks with The Washington Post’s Ann Marimow about judicial vacancies and what to expect in the coming months. Marimow recently co-authored an in-depth article on the topic. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Robert Barnes, the 15-year veteran Supreme Court reporter for The Washington Post, joins Amy Howe to take stock of the court’s term so far and look at what’s ahead. The two recap the January argument session — including Justice Elena Kagan’s now-famous Taylor Swift reference — and they try to answer the question everyone has been asking: What will Justice Stephen Breyer do? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President-elect Joe Biden has not yet announced a nominee for solicitor general, the top lawyer who represents the government before the Supreme Court. SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe and SCOTUSblog’s media editor, Katie Barlow, discuss potential picks. The next solicitor general could be a Washington insider, or it could be someone unexpected -- like Elena Kagan, who had never argued a case before the Supreme Court when President Barack Obama chose her as solicitor general in 2009. The two also discuss who may be on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination if a justice were to retire in the coming year. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court changed dramatically last year, and more changes could be in store in 2021. SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein joins SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe to talk about what happened in 2020 and what’s next for the court. They discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s early impact, the benefits and drawbacks of remote oral arguments, and how the court has handled President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election. They also look ahead to what a Biden administration could do on day one to change the trajectory of some important upcoming cases, including disputes over border-wall funding and the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” immigration policy — both currently set for oral argument in the next two months. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since 2011, there has been “an explosion” of amicus briefs at the Supreme Court, according to Arnold & Porter’s Anthony Franze and R. Reeves Anderson, who study the issue and recently wrote an article examining the decade-long trend. Franze and Anderson join SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe for a look at how amicus briefs have evolved. They examine what type of amicus brief is likely to influence the court, how the justices interact with the briefs and, most importantly, how to correctly pronounce “amicus.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Beth Brinkmann, the co-chair of the appellate and Supreme Court litigation group at Covington & Burling, has argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court and is one of the most experienced advocates practicing today. In the latest episode in our “SCOTUS spotlight” series on oral advocacy, SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe sits down with Brinkmann to talk about what it takes to develop that level of expertise. Brinkmann recounts her first oral argument before the court while working in the solicitor general’s office -- and later, helping change that office’s hiring practices to allow more women to work there. She offers advice for lawyers appearing before the court and tells a memorable story about giving birth, winning a case and losing her mentor, Justice Harry Blackmun, all within 48 hours. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”? John Elwood, head of Arnold & Porter’s appellate and Supreme Court Practice, sits down with SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe to explain the often opaque work that happens outside of the court’s regular roster of argued cases. For much more on the shadow docket and its increasing importance, check out SCOTUSblog’s recent symposium on how this group of cases has shaped issues such as voting procedures, coronavirus responses, capital punishment and more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court will hear argument Tuesday in one of the term’s biggest blockbusters: California v. Texas, the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. A group of Republican-governed states say the law’s individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional – and they are asking the court to strike down the entire law along with the mandate. Lydia Wheeler, a senior legal reporter for Bloomberg Law, sits down with SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe to preview the case and discuss how the three newbies on the bench – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – may approach the constitutionality of the mandate and the legal doctrine known as severability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are we headed for another Bush v. Gore? What would that case even look like in 2020? What is happening with all of the coronavirus-related litigation coming up to the Supreme Court right now?With less than a week to go before the 2020 election, SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe talks to election law expert and Ohio State University constitutional law professor Edward Foley about these questions and more. To follow all the latest developments on important election disputes that may reach (or have already reached) the Supreme Court, visit our Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of SCOTUSblog and Election Law at Ohio State. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Amid an ongoing pandemic, the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a looming confirmation battle, the eight justices of the Supreme Court began a new term last Monday. SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe sits down with SCOTUSblog media editor Katie Barlow to discuss the first week of the term, including an apparent procedural tweak to telephonic oral arguments and which justice is now handling emergency appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Ginsburg had been the "circuit justice" for the 2nd Circuit). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Who is Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what’s next for her confirmation battle? Amy Howe answers these questions and more on this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk. Amy sits down with SCOTUSblog media editor Katie Barlow to discuss the significance of President Donald Trump’s third nomination to the court, what the truncated confirmation timeline will be like, and what hot-button issues she would face as the court’s newest justice. The full transcript is below.  [00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.AH: [00:00:13] On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that he was nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What does Barrett's nomination mean for the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to begin its new term on Monday, October 5th? Joining me to suss this out is Katie Barlow, SCOTUSblog's media editor. Katie, thanks for joining me. Let's go ahead and dive in.Katie Barlow: [00:00:37] Now that we know who President Trump's nominee is, then we can start to dig into her background and some of the opinions that she's written. It's easy to get into the weeds, but let's zoom out to ten thousand feet for a second and just talk about what is the significance of this nomination and what could it mean?AH: [00:00:58] So if Amy Coney Barrett turns out to be a justice in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked and whose jurisprudence she says she emulates, it really could be a seismic shift on the court. Many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the sort of hot button social issues of the day have been five, four decisions. And many of the decisions in which the justices have reached what many would consider to be a liberal result have been because the either the chief justice or before him, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the court's four more liberal justices. And now that group of four more liberal justices is down would be down to three, because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last week, was one of the most reliably liberal justices on the court. And so, you'd have three liberal justices and a really solid majority of six conservative justices.[00:02:01] And so it wouldn't really so much matter anymore if one of the conservative justices peeled off to vote for with the liberal justices because there would still be a very solid majority of five conservative justices. And so this could affect all kinds of issues like abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, you name it.KB: [00:02:21] All right. So, having taken that wider lens view, now let's zoom back in. And who is Amy Coney Barrett? What do we know about her? Who is she?[00:02:32] So we know quite a lot. She is a forty-eight-year-old judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which is based in Chicago. She grew up in Louisiana, went to law school at Notre Dame, where she was a top student before coming to Washington, first a clerk on the D.C. Circuit and then to clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Scalia. She stayed in Washington for a couple of years to practice law, starting at a law firm called Miller Cassidy, which was a boutique law firm and really was one of the hardest jobs to get in Washington as a young law student at the time. So ,she stayed there for a couple of years and then she went back to Notre Dame to teach as a law professor there for 15 years before becoming a federal judge in 2017. While she was at Notre Dame, she won teaching awards. She had very broad support from the faculty and her students when she was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Court of Appeals in 2017.KB: [00:03:30] We heard at the nomination ceremony yesterday how excited the conservatives were.[00:03:35] I mean, there was an uproar of applause. Why are they so excited about her nomination?AH: [00:03:41] So she has said that she is in terms of her judicial philosophy and originalist and textualist. And so an originalist is someone who interprets the Constitution according to what the words meant to the people who drafted them when it was drafted back in the 1780s. And a textualist. When you're interpreting the law, you look at the words on the page. You don't go looking at what Congress might have intended to do when it passed the law. And really, almost anyone whom the president nominated probably would have said that. But, Amy Coney Barrett really became a heroine to social conservatives at her 2017 confirmation hearing. There were a lot of questions about the extent to which her Catholic faith might influence her judging. And there was a famous moment in which Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said to her, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” And it really sort of went viral, I think, among social conservatives. There were mugs and T-shirts printed with that. It probably had the opposite effect from w

The members of the 2016-17 clerk class for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg started their clerkship amid great uncertainty and a grieving court. In the second in a two-part series of interviews with former Ginsburg clerks, SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe talked with all four of the justice’s clerks from that term: Subash Iyer, Hajin Kim, Beth Neitzel and Parker Rider-Longmaid. Between the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a contentious election, and two nominations for one seat, they describe the year as “a slow-motion train wreck.” But amid the chaos, they remember Ginsburg’s commitment to doing the work, notable cases that advanced justice, and the few special times they made her laugh. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

SCOTUStalk Host Amy Howe spoke this week with two groups of former law clerks for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the first of these interviews, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Lori Alvino McGill, and Amanda Tyler share their memories of meeting Ginsburg for the time and working for a boss who herself was such a hard worker.Full Transcript:[00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.AH: [00:00:13] Welcome to SCOTUStalk. I'm Amy Howe. Thanks for joining us. Members of the public generally knew her as the Notorious RBG or as a tiny but mighty figure in the courtroom. For her law clerks, though, Ginsburg was a warm and thoughtful role model and mentor. We're so lucky to have three of her law clerks with us to talk about the time they spent working with Ginsburg as well as their relationships with her after they finished their clerkships. Kelsi Brown Corkran is the head of the Supreme Court practice at Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe. Lori Alvino McGill is an appellate lawyer who clerked for Justice Ginsburg during the October term, 2005. And Amanda Tyler is the Shannon Cecil Turner professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.Let's start at the beginning. Talk about how you came to be a clerk for Justice Ginsburg. What was the interview process like? You're all relatively young lawyers going to talk to Justice Ginsburg, who was not much of a small talker. What was the interview like?Kelsi Brown Corkran: Yeah, so I was actually a little bit older. I was pregnant with my son when I clerked for Judge Tatel on the D.C. Circuit.So I waited until after my kids were born before I applied to clerk on the court. It's pretty well documented that when Justice Ginsburg was recommended to clerk for Justice Frankfurter by the dean of Harvard Law School, that he was initially willing to consider a female clerk, but when he found out that she was a mother, that was just too much. He could not have a mother in chambers. And so she missed out on the opportunity to do a clerkship on the Supreme Court. And so that interview was just incredible in so many ways. I mean, to see her in person, I still am not over that. And it was almost a decade ago, and I ended up working with her for a year. But I can still remember walking into chambers and seeing her there in real life. But we ended up talking about my kids. I brought them up at some point and she smiled and asked how old they were. And then a few minutes later offered me the clerkship. And it was it was very special to me. I think it was a joy to her to be able to give that opportunity to so many of the clerks that she lost out on. And I was just one of many clerks who came to chambers, both male and female, who already had kids. So, it was a particular piece of it that was special to me.AH: [00:02:51] Lori, how about you?LAM: Well it’s hard to follow that story. But I have a couple of sharp memories from my interview process. The first was when I was extended the interview. I was working on the DC Circuit for Douglas Ginsburg. No relation, but they were friends.[00:03:12] But they come from a very different ideological background, I would say.[00:03:17] So the first thing I remember is DHC coming into my little part of chambers and letting me know that Justice Ginsburg had called him about me, and I was elated. Of course, I was really excited. And he said, but so here's the thing. I think she's going to call you and extend an interview. And I think if she interviews you, she's going to hire you. And he looks very serious. And I'm like, well, that sounds great. And he said, well, you understand, if she extends an offer to you, you have to accept that.[00:03:50] Yeah.[00:03:53] And then he looks at me like, what, Lori? I just want to make sure that there's not some other justice who would prefer to clerk for me. I looked at him like, wow, you had no idea there was one of us here in chambers. And so I was a sleeper liberal with nothing to indicate as such on my resume. But so he was surprised, as surprised that I was excited as I was surprised that she was interested in the interview. The process was stressful, as you'd imagine. I was busy on the D.C. Circuit. I was also studying for the bar exam, and I remember studying a lot for the interview. And I got there and I could not have been prepared for the first question that she asked me, which was, Lori, we've had a lot of trouble with our panel. And I have to tell you, I just secured it was beautiful new grand piano for the West Conference Room. The reason we have a new piano is the old piano would not stay in tune. Would you mind going downstairs and playing the piano after we're done here and letting me know if it sounds OK? So, you know, on my resumé, I had indicated I was a pianist, but I was not prepared to play the piano for a justice of the Supreme Court.[00:05:09]

As soon as the public learned of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday evening, mourners began gathering outside the Supreme Court. Leaving flowers, candles and messages in chalk written near the courthouse steps, thousands of people have paid their respects to a woman who inspired a generation and, late in life, attained an iconic status in American culture. Over the weekend, SCOTUSblog’s deputy manager, Katie Bart, interviewed members of the public who gathered in remembrance and mourning. Their words make up the latest episode of SCOTUStalk.Full Transcript:[00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.Katie Bart: [00:00:13] Welcome to SCOTUStalk. I'm Katie Bart. Thanks for joining us. On Friday, September 18th, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away from complications related to pancreatic cancer. She served on the Supreme Court for 27 years. The Supreme Court released statements from the eight justices and two retired justices on Saturday. Chief Justice John Roberts called her a “tireless and resolute champion of justice.” Justice Thomas said that she was a “superb justice who exacted the best from each of them, whether in agreement or disagreement.” Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said that to them, as to countless others, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a hero. Justice David Souter, who retired from the bench in 2009, said that he “loved her to pieces.” Almost immediately after news of her passing, thousands of people were drawn to the steps of the Supreme Court to mourn and celebrate her life. Here's Tiffany Thompson on why she visited the court and what Ruth Bader Ginsburg meant to her.Tiffany Thompson: [00:01:15] We have suffered an extraordinary loss and we need to, I think, come together in a way that we haven't had a chance to come together. That's sort of how I feel. She gave us hope. She gave us an extraordinary power that we didn't know that we had. She gave us an opportunity to be free in a way that we didn't know how to. We never had a chance to do that before.KB: [00:01:42] Here's Jill Marie Bussey on why she visited the court.Jill Marie Bussey: [00:01:46] I couldn't help but be here. I felt called to come to the court. I'm a woman lawyer. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a tremendous role model in my life and so many women in my field. When she was appointed to the Supreme Court, I remember that day vividly. I was in college at that time and I remember them doing the background on the news and learning about how she learned from Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall's approach to challenging the law. And not just inspired me because I had already heard of Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall, but I didn't know that she took a page from their book and applied it to trying to achieve equality for women. And I then realized that I was able to play high school sports because of her, like there was so much. I just remember that all coming to me when I was in college and I knew I wanted to go to law school at that time. But it was her inspiration that made me think of how I could apply a law degree for good. And now I'm an immigrant attorney, immigrant advocate, and I've seen her. I've come here to the court and seen cases before her in the court, and I'm just very grateful for her service. And it's a tremendous loss. But her legacy will live on.KB: [00:03:14] Here's Dawn Popp, who drove in from Elkridge, Maryland, on why she visited the court.Dawn Popp: [00:03:19] I just felt such a tremendous sense of loss when I heard yesterday. I was just so devastated. And as soon as I heard that something was happening today, I knew I had to be here. I'm a lawyer. And I mean, I think every female lawyer in this country is inspired by her. I mean, she's a role model and she's someone that I have looked up to for as long as I can remember. She's just such an incredible trailblazer in terms of her career before being on the court. And then her decisions on the court have been just so groundbreaking in terms of women's rights. I mean, I just I every female attorney I know idolizes her. It's just it feels like a huge, very personal loss. Her whole career. I feel like I have been I've been following her. And I always I mean, her dissents are just works of art. And, you know, in addition, in addition to sort of the law that that she has been part of making, you know, just as a writer and as a thinker, I'm just you know, she's the kind of lawyer that that I aspire to be.KB: [00:04:33] Here's Emma on why she visited the court and why RPG inspires her.Emma: [00:04:39] Sure, she was pretty much a legend to so many young women, including myself. And it's just a lot of people, like my friends included, like we're all kind of like, you know, women like us and we try to like, you know, empower others. I'm 16. And the thing is, none of us really, really know her

Ever since Bush v. Gore, the case that effectively decided the 2000 presidential race, the Supreme Court increasingly has been asked to intervene in fraught disputes over election procedures. Add in a pandemic, and the 2020 election season promises to be unprecedented. This week on SCOTUStalk, SCOTUSblog’s social media editor, Katie Barlow, joins Amy Howe to break down the court’s influence on the election. They survey major election-related rulings the justices have already handed down this summer and preview what role the court might play in the run-up to Election Day – and, potentially, the weeks afterward. Katie and Amy also discuss the launch of an exciting new project between SCOTUSblog and Election Law at Ohio State: the 2020 Election Litigation Tracker. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Deanne Maynard, co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s appellate and Supreme Court practice, has argued 14 cases before the Supreme Court since her first oral argument in 2004. On this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe interviews Maynard on how she prepares to argue before the justices, how she pivots away from hostile questions, and why hypotheticals can be the toughest questions of all. Howe also takes Maynard back to her first oral argument — accompanied by live audio — and what went through her mind when Justice John Paul Stevens asked Maynard a question before she even made it up to the lectern. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog and partner at Goldstein & Russell, P.C., has argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court since his first oral argument in 1999. On this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe interviews Goldstein on what it’s like to advocate before the nine and how that experience has changed over the past 20 years. Goldstein offers a few tips for success along with audio-accompanied stories about taking heavy fire from a hot bench, joking with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and joining a case at the last minute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Affordable Care Act will come before the Supreme Court this fall for the seventh time in eight years. Julie Rovner, the chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Health News and veteran health policy reporter, joins Amy Howe in the latest episode of SCOTUStalk to break down the case, California v. Texas. They talk about the history of ACA challenges and why this time is different. Amy and Julie also pick apart some potential clues from this past term about a key issue in the case: the severability doctrine. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court’s 2019-20 term was one for the records books. The court offered live audio of oral arguments in May for the first time in history, and it released opinions well into July for the first time in more than two decades. Who better to delve into the good, the bad and the ugly of the term than 60-year Supreme Court reporting veteran Lyle Denniston? In the latest episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe and Lyle discuss the court’s new dynamic ideological center, Justice Clarence Thomas as one of the court’s most interesting members, and whether Chief Justice John Roberts actually drifted to the left as some have suggested. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When the Supreme Court building closed due to the coronavirus, some of the remaining arguments for the term were rescheduled for a special May session via telephone. For the first time, live audio of oral arguments was made available to the public. SCOTUSblog's co-founders, Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, talk about the toilet flush heard around the world, the unusually active participation of Justice Clarence Thomas and whether the court should adopt any of the changes made for this session when it returns to the physical bench. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since October, SCOTUSblog has been outside the Supreme Court collecting data and stories from people who traveled to see oral arguments in person during the 2019-2020 term. On December 11, 2019, two of our staff attempted to obtain seats via the public line to watch an argument. They recorded their experience in hopes that it would aid others who want to be part of the audience in the courtroom. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe sits down with Marcia Coyle, who covers the Supreme Court for the National Law Journal, to discuss the oral arguments in two cases heard by the court last week -- the first about a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and the second involving the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Thursday, February 20, Casetext and SCOTUSblog hosted the second webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court. Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell covered President Donald Trump’s tax returns, religious school funding, the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and faithless electors in the 2020 presidential race. The webinar was co-sponsored by the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On January 28, Casetext and SCOTUSblog conducted the first webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court. Casetext chief operating officer and general counsel Laura Safdie moderated the panel, featuring SCOTUSblog founder and Goldstein & Russell partner Tom Goldstein and Goldstein & Russell partner Sarah Harrington. The webinar covered high-profile cases involving Title VII and LGBT discrimination, the DACA program, the Second Amendment and the future of an abortion law in Louisiana.The second part of this series will be live on Thursday, February 20, at 12 noon EST. Register now. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe sits down with Kevin Russell to discuss the oral arguments in the LGBT employment discrimination cases heard by the court last week. The pair talk about Pam Karlan's opening argument in Bostock v. Clayton County, the two-minute rule, Justice Kagan's interpretation of "because of sex" and Justice Gorsuch's concern about the "massive social upheaval that would be entailed" by deciding that sex discrimination under Title VII covers transgender people. Kevin Russell is a partner at Goldstein & Russell and has argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., is counsel on an amicus brief in support of respondent Stephens in Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week Amy Howe and John Elwood joined Jeffrey Rosen on the National Constitution Center's podcast "We the People" to preview the Supreme Court term that began this morning. The three discuss cases involving LGBT employment discrimination, DACA, public funding for private religious schools, gun rights and abortion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court joins Tony Mauro, who recently retired after nearly four decades covering the Supreme Court. Howe asks Mauro about what he saw on the Supreme Court beat – from the justices deciding an election to contentious confirmation hearings – and what he was hoping to see – from better recruitment of minority law clerks to cameras in the court. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court continues her series interviewing Supreme Court advocates. In this episode, William M. Jay discusses his career arguing 17 cases before the court. Jay is a partner at Goodwin and previously served for five years as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week at SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court begins a four-part series interviewing Supreme Court advocates. In this episode, Paul Smith discusses his notable career arguing 21 cases before the court. Smith is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Vice President of the Campaign Legal Center. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On June 28, SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington participated in a webinar discussing the major cases at the Supreme Court this term. The discussion, moderated by Laura Safdie from Casetext, covered Department of Commerce v. New York, holding that a question about citizenship cannot be added to 2020 census until the Commerce Department provides an adequate explanation for doing so,  Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, holding that partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions that cannot be reviewed by federal courts, and other cases. Video of the webinar is available at this link. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court reviews Monday’s Supreme Court orders and opinions. The justices released their decisions in four argued cases: Iancu v. Brunetti, United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and The Dutra Group v. Batterton. The justices also granted review in eight cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument. The Supreme Court will release decisions in more of its eight remaining cases on Wednesday, June 26. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court reviews Monday’s Supreme Court orders and opinions. The justices released their decisions in four argued cases: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Gamble v. United States and Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill. The justices also granted, vacated and remanded Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The Supreme Court will release decisions in more of its 20 remaining cases on Thursday, June 20. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court and Tom Goldstein take a look at what’s ahead at the Supreme Court for the final weeks of June. The justices have 24 argued cases still to decide, including a number of the more high-profile cases from this year’s docket: Gundy v. United States, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, Department of Commerce v. New York, and partisan-gerrymandering cases Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly covers the latest Supreme Court news before speaking with Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times about abortion and recent legislation aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly covers the latest Supreme Court news before speaking with John Elwood about the essentials concerning petitions for certiorari. Elwood is a partner at Vinson & Elkins and the author of “Relist Watch.”(In the episode, Elwood suggested there were eight previously rescheduled cases. He later clarified with us that there were five: Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Tennessee Department of Revenue, Hunter v. United States, JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive, Williams v. United States and Shular v. United States.) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell join Amy Howe of Howe on the Court to discuss the Supreme Court's announcement that it will weigh in next term on whether federal employment discrimination laws protect LGBT employees in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly reviews the latest SCOTUS news before providing deeper coverage with Kimberly Robinson of last week’s oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, a high-profile challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly reviews the latest SCOTUS news before providing deeper coverage with Mark Walsh of last week’s oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti, a First Amendment challenge to the ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court talks with Professor Stephen Wermiel of American University Washington College of Law about Supreme Court retirements, both in the possible future and from the recent past. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court talks with Evan and Oscie Thomas about Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Evan is the author of “First: Sandra Day O’Connor,” a biography released last week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Sarah Harrington, a partner at Goldstein & Russell who formerly served as an assistant to the solicitor general, joins Amy Howe of Howe on the Court to talk about life in the Office of the Solicitor General. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tom Goldstein joins Amy Howe of Howe on the Court to unpack the Supreme Court’s recent order in June Medical Services v. Gee, in which a divided court blocked a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from going into effect pending appeal. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NPR's Nina Totenberg joins Amy Howe, of Howe on the Court, for a look back at Wednesday's oral argument in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the challenge to the constitutionality of a 40-foot-tall, 93-year-old cross that stands on a traffic median in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.