Supreme Court Mulls Test for Reasonable Force in Police Killings

President Donald Trump’s executive orders have sparked a flurry of legal challenges that tee-up constitutional questions about the breadth of executive power the US Supreme Court may be forced to settle. Daniel Cotter, a partner at Dickinson Wright who writes a column on the Supreme Court for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, joins Cases and Controversies to talk about which disputes could get Supreme Court review. Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about new cases the justices tacked on to the term, including one over a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma, and discuss why those challenges may not actually increase the court’s workload. Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler Guest: Daniel Cotter, of Dickinson Wright PLLC Produce: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Supreme Court justices seemed to agree courts should look at the totality of circumstances when analyzing whether a police officer's use of deadly force was reasonable. During arguments Wednesday, the US Supreme Court appeared ready to rule the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had used the wrong test when it considered the claims of a mother who argues a Texas police officer unjustly shot and killed her son during a traffic stop in 2016. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler discuss the arguments in that dispute over the officer’s use of deadly force and the likelihood of a future Supreme Court case over President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The order, which deems denies automatic citizenship to children born of immigrants in the US, was temporarily blocked by a federal judge on Thursday. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Several justices on the Supreme Court seemed eager this week to debate the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires porn sites to verify the age of users to keep kids from viewing obscene content online. But the court was only asked in the case argued Wednesday to answer whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the correct standard when assessing whether the law violated the free speech rights of adults. “I don't know if there is going to be sufficient alignment on how to get to the answers here,” said Mark Brennan, who works with a variety of companies in the online space as a partner at Hogan Lovells. Brennan joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss Wednesday’s argument. They also break down the court’s decisions earlier this week in disputes over fancy dog food and federal overtime rules. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The much-anticipated argument of the future of TikTok in the US will be heard by the Supreme Court on Friday. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler preview the case with Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Xiangnong (George) Wang. The Biden administration says the law, which effectively bans the social media site in the US unless sold by its Chinese owner, is necessary for national security. But the social media site and its users say its censorship. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

After an eventful 2024, the justices are now on winter break until Jan. 10. "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr review all the biggest news stories from the justices in 2024, from Justice Samuel Alito's flag controversy to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dream-come-true Broadway debut. They also look ahead to the cases to be heard in 2025, which include an expedited appeal over the social media platform TikTok to another case that could cut back the power of administrative agencies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared primed to limit the scope of environmental impact reviews, but it's unclear if they need a new test to do so. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the Dec. 10 arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, an environmental case about how deep agencies must go in looking at the potential effects of new projects. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices on both sides of the US Supreme Court’s ideological line seemed concerned about a future ruling on gender-affirming care for minors reaching far beyond Tennessee and transgender kids. Whether an appeals court erred in how it scrutinized the constitutionality of state laws that purport to discriminate against people based on their sex was a central part of Dec. 4 arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners through the arguments in the Biden administration’s fight against Tennessee’s ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors and what the justices’ questions, or lack thereof, signal for the outcome of the case. Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A case testing the federal government's ability to regulate potentially harmful tobacco products will kick off arguments at the US Supreme Court in December. The Biden Administration is fighting to keep off the market new liquids for e-cigarettes sold under flavors like "Blackberry Lemonade" and "Killer Kustard Blueberry" that can attract kids in its appeal of a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision to set aside the Food and Drug Administration's orders denying their approval. Typically, the court doesn't agree to hear a case "to pat the lower court on the head and say, 'Really good job,'" said Carter Phillips, a partner at Sidley Austin who's argued 90 cases before the justices. But, he said, "this is a court that is much more skeptical of agency decision-making than the court has ever been, at least in the time that I've been practicing before it." Phillips joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about the case and why his client, the nonprofit Global Action to End Smoking Inc., is supporting neither side in this dispute,. Guest: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court struggled with where to draw the appropriate lines in bread-and-butter cases involving Nvidia Corp., criminal law, and immigration deadlines. In the securities case, the court looked for what Chief Justice John Roberts called a "sweet spot" in the Nvidia investor suit alleging the chipmaker at the heart of the AI boom misled the public about its dependence on crypto-mining revenue. In the criminal case, the justices described the argument that an attempted murder-for-hire scheme isn't a crime of violence as "absurd." But they found similar irrationality in the government's argument on the other side. And finally, the justices similarly struggled over whether to give immigrants who voluntarily agree to leave the country more flexibility to appeal their deportation. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the justices' concerns in the latest episode. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler. Producer: Mo Barrow. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court struggled with how to ensure investors get accurate information without exposing companies to massive liability, in the multi-billion-dollar investor suit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta. The case centers on the fallout from Cambridge Analytica's unauthorized misuse of users data. Investors claim the tech giant mislead investors when warning that data misuse was a hypothetical risk at a time when Meta already knew that that political consulting firm had accessed information on 30 million users. "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the Nov. 6 arguments. They explain how the justices searched for the proper line to draw and ultimately questioned whether they should be the ones to do so. Why "does the judiciary have to walk the plank on this?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler. Producer: Mo Barrow. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.