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.
Weitere Episoden von „Cases and Controversies“
Abortion Advocates Fear Outcome in Upcoming Case
20:09The 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."
Supreme Court Gun Case to Set Gun Control's Future
21:44The 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.
Texas Abortion Law Meets Supreme Court Skepticism
15:11It'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.
Abortion and Guns Make for Big Week at Supreme Court
8:13The 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.
Latest Abortion Decision the Result of Curious Vote Breakdown
15:40The 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.
Justices Ponder Smoking Centaurs and State Secrets
36:38The 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.
Marathon Bomber, Abortion Arguments Hit Supreme Court
9:14The 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.
Justices Head Back to Their Courtroom For New Term
9:37In-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.
What’s Happening in the Boston Marathon Bomber Case?
24:09When 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
Summer Abortion Bombshell, Explained
19:35The 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.