Summary: What's New at the United States Supreme Court? Each week we bring you up to date coverage of the most recent cases and decisions before SCOTUS, discussing the Supreme Court's most recent grants and denials of certiorari, orders, opinions, oral arguments and constitutional jurisprudence. We also present in-depth special reports on the justices, important constitutional rights and the most controversial legal issues of our time (e.g. Abortion, Affirmative Action, Gay Rights, Women's Rights, Privacy, Campaign Finance, Same-Sex Marriage, Patent Law, Criminal Law and First Amendment Law). An essential podcast for any law school student or layperson interested in learning more about the Supreme Court and the United States Constitution.
On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in three consolidated cases, known as Birchfield v. North Dakota, in which the Court considers whether in the absence of a warrant, a State may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.
On this episode we review the Court's opinion this week in California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, which considers whether the Constitution permits a Nevada Court to apply a rule of Nevada law that awards damages against California that are greater than it could award against its own state in similar circumstances.
On this episode, we review the Court's decision this week in Caetano v. Massachusetts, wherein a women in Massachusetts was convicted of violating a Massachusetts' statute outlawing the possession of stun guns, which she carried for purposes of self-defense after separating from her abusive former partner. The Court considered whether a stun gun an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether Massachusetts' blanket prohibition on the possession of stun guns infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?
On this episode, we offer a short summary of the life and career of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.
On this episode, we review the Court's opinion in V.L. v. E.L., which considered the question of whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits a court to deny recognition to an adoption judgment previously issued by a court from a sister state, based on the forum court’s determination that the issuing court erred in applying its own state’s adoption law?
On this episode, we review the court's opinion in Wearry v. Cain, which considers whether the Louisiana courts erred in failing to find that the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated its obligation under Brady v. Maryland and that the failure prejudiced the defense.
On this episode, we review the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, which considers the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where they perform abortions (known as the “admitting privileges requirement”) and requires all abortion clinics to comply with standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (known as the “ASC requirement”), which would require among other added expenses major construction upgrades to many facilities. Petitioners argue that the Texas law, if constitutional, would lead to the closing of a majority of the abortion clinics in Texas.
On this episode, we review the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, heard in oral argument this week. In Williams the Court is asked to determine whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal.
On this episode we review the Court's oral arguments in Utah v. Strieff, in which the Court is asked whether evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful.
On this episode we review the oral arguments this week in Taylor v. United States, which considers whether, in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, the Government is relieved of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the interstate commerce element by relying exclusively on evidence that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer is an inherent economic enterprise that satisfies, as a matter of law, the interstate commerce element of the offense.
On this episode, we review the Court's decision to grant review to the case of United States v. Texas, which asks the Court to decide whether the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to broaden its interpretation of which aliens are entitled to deferred deportation without considering the costs of such a decision on the states and the people under notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
On this episode we remember one of the most influential and controversial justices to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court.
On this episode we review the Court's opinion in James v. City of Boise, which considered whether the Idaho Supreme Court correctly concluded that two prior Supreme Court decisions do not bind state courts because as it argued the Supreme Court “does not have authority to limit the discretion of state courts where such limitation is not contained in the statute."
On this episode we review the Court's opinion in FERC v. Electric Power Supply, which considers whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may offer incentives for energy users to reduce power consumption during peak demand periods.
On this episode, we review the Court's opinion this week in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which consider whether a prior Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. Alabama (2012), should apply retroactively to juvenile defendants that were sentenced to life without parole prior to the Court's decision. Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."