Supreme Podcast

On this episode we review the oral arguments heard by the Court this week in Heien v. North Carolina, which consider whether the Fourth Amendment permits Police Officers to effect traffic stops based on a mistaken interpretation of the law.

On this episode we review the oral arguments in Holt v. Hobbs, a case which asks whether a prison's policy that all inmates must be clean-shaven, even those whose religion require beard growth, is valid under federal law.

On this episode we discuss nine cases of interest the Court will be considering during the 2014-15 Term.

Whether family owned for profit corporations may refuse to pay for healthcare coverage which includes coverage for certain contraceptives that may have the effect of terminating an already fertilized egg or whether such a religious accomodation would upset a compelling government interest in ensuring that woman have equal and sufficient access to healthcare.

Whether President Obama's three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate was convening every three days in pro-forma sessions, which are typically sham sessions in which no business is conducted, were valid under his Recess Appointments Power, or beyond such powers and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Whether a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in Massachusetts which extends onto public sidewalks and roadways and within which no person may enter who does not have business at the clinic violates the First Amendment.

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the contents of a cell phone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested.

This week the Court issued five opinions and granted review to three new cases. On this episode we review the following cases: Elonis v. United States - Whether conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening. CASE DOCUMENTS Lane v. Franks - Is the government categorically free under the First Amendment to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities? CASE DOCUMENTS Abramski v. United States -Whether a person's statement that they are the actual buyer of a firearm on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473 was a false statement “material to the lawfulness of the sale” under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), where petitioner purchased the firearm for his uncle and both he and his uncle were eligible to purchase a firearm. CASE DOCUMENTS Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association - Whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation. CASE DOCUMENTS Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association - Whether agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act are categorically prohibited from revising their interpretative rules unless such revisions are made through notice-and-comment rulemaking. CASE DOCUMENTS

On this episode we review the Supreme Court's decision this week in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Company, which considers a claim by POM Wonderful that Coca-Cola's Minute Maid brand misleads consumers by displaying the words “pomegranate blueberry” with far more prominence on one of its juice blend labels than other words on the label when in fact the product contains but 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice. The Court considers whether a private company can bring a Lnaham Act false advertising claim after the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) has already approved the label.

This week the Court issued three opinions and granted review to two new cases. On this episode we discuss the following cases: Alabama Redistricting Cases - Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages. ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS Bond v. United States - May the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 229, be interpreted to reach ordinary poisoning cases? CASE DOCUMENTS Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - To challenge a speech-suppressive law, must a party whose speech is arguably proscribed prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other Circuits hold? CASE DOCUMENTS Patent Cases - Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under § 271(a). And does the Federal Circuit’s acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations—so long as the ambiguity is not “insoluble” by a court—defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming? LIMELIGHT NETWORKS NAUTILUS

This week the Court issued five opinions and granted review to one new case. On this episode we review the following cases: Hall v. Florida - Whether the Florida scheme for identifying mentally retarded defendants in capital cases violates Atkins v. Virginia, wherein the Supreme Court held that executing mentally retarded individuals violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. CASE DOCUMENTS Wood v. Moss - Whether Secret Service agents engaged in unlawful viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment when during a stop in Jacksonville, Oregon, in 2004, they moved a group of anti-Bush protestors further away from the president than pro-Bush demonstrators, after the President made an impromptu decision to dine at a restaurant near the anti-Bush demonstrators. CASE DOCUMENTS

Happy July 4th! On this week, we review the most controversial decisions of the term and the media analysis and reaction to a historic term at the United States Supreme Court.

May the federal government define marriage for the purposes of federal law? Do the proponents of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California, have standing after the iniative became law to challenge its subsequent invalidation by a federal court?

Whether this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, permit the University of Texas at Austin's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.

Did Congress exceed its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments when in 2006 it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act?