<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="https://feeds.megaphone.fm/LAW5714619546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <title>Law360's The Term - News &amp; Analysis on the Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2021 Portfolio Media, Inc.</copyright>
    <description>The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.</description>
    
    <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:subtitle>The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
    <itunes:summary>The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.</itunes:summary>
    <content:encoded>
      <![CDATA[<p>The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.</p>]]>
    </content:encoded>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Law360's The Term</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>steven.trader@law360.com</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
    <itunes:image href="https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/ab9cb174-22e0-11ec-8055-6f0dc236def7/image/TERM_FINAL.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&amp;max-w=3000&amp;max-h=3000&amp;fit=crop&amp;auto=format,compress"/>
    <itunes:category text="News">
    </itunes:category>
    <item>
      <title>S4 FINALE: United Or Divided? A Podcast Roundtable On The High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Another U.S. Supreme Court season is in the books, and while the final week of opinions featured some supermajority holdings along party lines on divisive issues like affirmative action and gay rights, we also saw a number of decisions with unexpected lineups on issues like voting rights and religious freedom. This week, the hosts of both Pro Say and The Term team up to discuss the surprising unanimity we saw in many of the justices’ opinions, the impact we should expect following some of the blockbuster opinions handed down in the final week, and finally what, if anything, we can take away from the ethics conversation that dominated the headlines throughout the term. </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 20:22:51 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>United Or Divided? Interpreting The Supreme Court Term</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>38</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Another U.S. Supreme Court season is in the books, and while the final week of opinions featured some supermajority holdings along party lines on divisive issues like affirmative action and gay rights, we also saw a number of decisions with unexpected lineups on issues like voting rights and religious freedom. This week, the hosts of both Pro Say and The Term team up to discuss the surprising unanimity we saw in many of the justices’ opinions, the impact we should expect following some of the blockbuster opinions handed down in the final week, and finally what, if anything, we can take away from the ethics conversation that dominated the headlines throughout the term. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Another U.S. Supreme Court season is in the books, and while the final week of opinions featured some supermajority holdings along party lines on divisive issues like affirmative action and gay rights, we also saw a number of decisions with unexpected lineups on issues like voting rights and religious freedom. This week, the hosts of both Pro Say and The Term team up to discuss the surprising unanimity we saw in many of the justices’ opinions, the impact we should expect following some of the blockbuster opinions handed down in the final week, and finally what, if anything, we can take away from the ethics conversation that dominated the headlines throughout the term. </p><p><br></p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2751</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[3a14b8f0-1c38-11ee-8a59-7b92000b9001]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4342200107.mp3?updated=1688675284" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E37: The Court Closes With LGBTQ Rights And Biden Debt Plan</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term on Friday with a pair of monumental opinions. First, the court ruled that a Christian website designer in Colorado can refuse services for same-sex weddings on account of her protected free speech rights, and in a second case struck down President Joe Biden’s ambitious student loan forgiveness plan. We welcome Holland &amp; Hart partner Christopher Jackson as a guest to give us the highlights from the blockbuster 303 Creative v. Elenis decision before digging further into why the justices said the Biden Administration lacked the authority to forgive more than $400 billion in federal loans.  </description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2023 22:41:14 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Court Closes With LGBTQ Rights And Biden Debt Plan</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>37</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term on Friday with a pair of monumental opinions. First, the court ruled that a Christian website designer in Colorado can refuse services for same-sex weddings on account of her protected free speech rights, and in a second case struck down President Joe Biden’s ambitious student loan forgiveness plan. We welcome Holland &amp; Hart partner Christopher Jackson as a guest to give us the highlights from the blockbuster 303 Creative v. Elenis decision before digging further into why the justices said the Biden Administration lacked the authority to forgive more than $400 billion in federal loans.  </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term on Friday with a pair of monumental opinions. First, the court ruled that a Christian website designer in Colorado can refuse services for same-sex weddings on account of her protected free speech rights, and in a second case struck down President Joe Biden’s ambitious student loan forgiveness plan. We welcome Holland &amp; Hart partner Christopher Jackson as a guest to give us the highlights from the blockbuster 303 Creative v. Elenis decision before digging further into why the justices said the Biden Administration lacked the authority to forgive more than $400 billion in federal loans.  </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1394</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[b6cb94f6-1795-11ee-a5d1-e37aacd5fc62]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8537265366.mp3?updated=1688165178" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E36: The Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action</title>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dismantled affirmative action in a 6-3 majority opinion which held that race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani joins us to discuss the monumental ruling and its sweeping implications for academia and a potentially broad swath of the workforce. Also this week, we welcome Columbia law professor and voting rights expert Richard Briffault to discuss Tuesday’s blockbuster election law opinion.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2023 21:07:22 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dismantled affirmative action in a 6-3 majority opinion which held that race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani joins us to discuss the monumental ruling and its sweeping implications for academia and a potentially broad swath of the workforce. Also this week, we welcome Columbia law professor and voting rights expert Richard Briffault to discuss Tuesday’s blockbuster election law opinion.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dismantled affirmative action in a 6-3 majority opinion which held that race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani joins us to discuss the monumental ruling and its sweeping implications for academia and a potentially broad swath of the workforce. Also this week, we welcome Columbia law professor and voting rights expert Richard Briffault to discuss Tuesday’s blockbuster election law opinion.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1749</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[2fb8ba3c-16c0-11ee-b13f-4769ebd4efa1]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4071954556.mp3?updated=1688073155" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E35: The Court Delivers Its Immigration Blockbusters</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a pair of important immigration questions Friday morning, deciding in one opinion to uphold a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage illegal immigration, and in another opinion reviving the Biden Administration’s selective deportation policy over challenges from the state of Texas and others. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 senior immigration reporter Britain Eakin who spent the day getting reactions from the immigration law community about what these opinions mean moving forward. Also this week, two big administrative law rulings related to habeas challenges and arbitration proceedings, as well as denied water rights for Navajo Nation.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 2023 00:49:48 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Court Delivers Its Immigration Blockbusters</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a pair of important immigration questions Friday morning, deciding in one opinion to uphold a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage illegal immigration, and in another opinion reviving the Biden Administration’s selective deportation policy over challenges from the state of Texas and others. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 senior immigration reporter Britain Eakin who spent the day getting reactions from the immigration law community about what these opinions mean moving forward. Also this week, two big administrative law rulings related to habeas challenges and arbitration proceedings, as well as denied water rights for Navajo Nation.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a pair of important immigration questions Friday morning, deciding in one opinion to uphold a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage illegal immigration, and in another opinion reviving the Biden Administration’s selective deportation policy over challenges from the state of Texas and others. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 senior immigration reporter Britain Eakin who spent the day getting reactions from the immigration law community about what these opinions mean moving forward. Also this week, two big administrative law rulings related to habeas challenges and arbitration proceedings, as well as denied water rights for Navajo Nation.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1222</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[67c27270-1228-11ee-a503-8f1374855c0b]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1150387346.mp3?updated=1687568091" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E34: A Victory For Native American Sovereignty </title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 federal law designed to stop the state and federal practice of removing Native American children from their communities, survived the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday after a 7-2 majority held that the law does not illegally tread on state authority in regulating child custody programs. The justices stopped short of deciding the question of whether the law discriminated against non-native parents, but the opinion was hailed nonetheless as a major victory for Native American rights. On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 reporter Caleb Symons who has been closely tracking this case to explain the majority opinion and the implications it has for Native American sovereignty.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2023 20:58:38 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>A Victory For Native American Sovereignty </itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 federal law designed to stop the state and federal practice of removing Native American children from their communities, survived the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday after a 7-2 majority held that the law does not illegally tread on state authority in regulating child custody programs. The justices stopped short of deciding the question of whether the law discriminated against non-native parents, but the opinion was hailed nonetheless as a major victory for Native American rights. On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 reporter Caleb Symons who has been closely tracking this case to explain the majority opinion and the implications it has for Native American sovereignty.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 federal law designed to stop the state and federal practice of removing Native American children from their communities, survived the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday after a 7-2 majority held that the law does not illegally tread on state authority in regulating child custody programs. The justices stopped short of deciding the question of whether the law discriminated against non-native parents, but the opinion was hailed nonetheless as a major victory for Native American rights. On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 reporter Caleb Symons who has been closely tracking this case to explain the majority opinion and the implications it has for Native American sovereignty.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>815</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[34660e1e-0c88-11ee-913a-334a0d348f0f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3440723626.mp3?updated=1686949429" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E33: The Voting Rights Act Survives. What’s Next?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>In one of the blockbuster voting rights cases of the Supreme Court term, a five-justice majority on Thursday concluded that an Alabama congressional map drawn following the 2020 census diluted Black voter representation in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 
Alabama’s electoral map packed a large number of Black voters into a single district, and the state argued it could not be redrawn to add a second majority-Black district without making race the primary consideration, which it said violated the Constitution. But the majority rejected that argument and instead affirmed a lower court’s finding that Alabama could have done so. 
On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Jenner &amp; Block partner Sam Hirsch, an expert in voting rights and redistricting litigation, to explain the stakes of the case and implications of the opinion moving forward. We also discuss a major trademark ruling in favor of Jack Daniels, and the latest financial disclosures from the justices.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 19:33:13 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Voting Rights Act Survives. What’s Next?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In one of the blockbuster voting rights cases of the Supreme Court term, a five-justice majority on Thursday concluded that an Alabama congressional map drawn following the 2020 census diluted Black voter representation in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 
Alabama’s electoral map packed a large number of Black voters into a single district, and the state argued it could not be redrawn to add a second majority-Black district without making race the primary consideration, which it said violated the Constitution. But the majority rejected that argument and instead affirmed a lower court’s finding that Alabama could have done so. 
On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Jenner &amp; Block partner Sam Hirsch, an expert in voting rights and redistricting litigation, to explain the stakes of the case and implications of the opinion moving forward. We also discuss a major trademark ruling in favor of Jack Daniels, and the latest financial disclosures from the justices.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>In one of the blockbuster voting rights cases of the Supreme Court term, a five-justice majority on Thursday concluded that an Alabama congressional map drawn following the 2020 census diluted Black voter representation in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. </p><p>Alabama’s electoral map packed a large number of Black voters into a single district, and the state argued it could not be redrawn to add a second majority-Black district without making race the primary consideration, which it said violated the Constitution. But the majority rejected that argument and instead affirmed a lower court’s finding that Alabama could have done so. </p><p>On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Jenner &amp; Block partner Sam Hirsch, an expert in voting rights and redistricting litigation, to explain the stakes of the case and implications of the opinion moving forward. We also discuss a major trademark ruling in favor of Jack Daniels, and the latest financial disclosures from the justices.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1401</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[f2fb90f8-06f5-11ee-a17e-5308575bf9f4]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5920993088.mp3?updated=1686339498" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E32: Union Strikes Out At High Court In Cement Case</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>In one of the blockbuster employment cases of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday gave companies the green light to sue over strikes that are structured to cause intentional damage to their property, dealing a blow to unions who argued that exposing strike actions to litigation could chill worker collective action. We talk you through the details and implications of this 8-1 opinion on this week’s episode of The Term. </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2023 21:34:21 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Union Strikes Out At High Court In Cement Case</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In one of the blockbuster employment cases of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday gave companies the green light to sue over strikes that are structured to cause intentional damage to their property, dealing a blow to unions who argued that exposing strike actions to litigation could chill worker collective action. We talk you through the details and implications of this 8-1 opinion on this week’s episode of The Term. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>In one of the blockbuster employment cases of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday gave companies the green light to sue over strikes that are structured to cause intentional damage to their property, dealing a blow to unions who argued that exposing strike actions to litigation could chill worker collective action. We talk you through the details and implications of this 8-1 opinion on this week’s episode of The Term. </p><p><br></p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>728</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[75b1d98c-00c3-11ee-91c7-13e0d98db386]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4903437493.mp3?updated=1685655564" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E31: Justices Dry Up Water Regulation</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday set out to clarify what constitutes “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act and, in the process, settled on a more narrow reading that will limit the federal government’s authority to regulate wetlands. On this week’s episode of The Term, Law360 environmental senior reporter Juan Carlos Rodriguez drops by to explain the opinion as well as the important consequences it will have for permitting and enforcement. Also this week, a 94-year-old woman whose condo was seized by the government wins an important case involving the takings clause. </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2023 22:15:29 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justices Dry Up Water Regulation</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday set out to clarify what constitutes “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act and, in the process, settled on a more narrow reading that will limit the federal government’s authority to regulate wetlands. On this week’s episode of The Term, Law360 environmental senior reporter Juan Carlos Rodriguez drops by to explain the opinion as well as the important consequences it will have for permitting and enforcement. Also this week, a 94-year-old woman whose condo was seized by the government wins an important case involving the takings clause. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday set out to clarify what constitutes “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act and, in the process, settled on a more narrow reading that will limit the federal government’s authority to regulate wetlands. On this week’s episode of The Term, Law360 environmental senior reporter Juan Carlos Rodriguez drops by to explain the opinion as well as the important consequences it will have for permitting and enforcement. Also this week, a 94-year-old woman whose condo was seized by the government wins an important case involving the takings clause. </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>929</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[0edeb280-fb40-11ed-b988-77c6a1501aec]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9023832209.mp3?updated=1685053235" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E30: The Internet Survives The Supreme Court, For Now</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The case that many court watchers speculated could break the internet by curtailing protections for social media companies sued over content on their platforms landed with a thud on Thursday, as the Supreme Court remanded the case back without weighing in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On this week’s episode of The Term we talk through how the justices reached that conclusion, plus a blockbuster copyright decision that Andy Warhol’s portraits of music icon Prince do not fall under the fair use doctrine.  </description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2023 00:18:46 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Internet Survives The Supreme Court, For Now</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The case that many court watchers speculated could break the internet by curtailing protections for social media companies sued over content on their platforms landed with a thud on Thursday, as the Supreme Court remanded the case back without weighing in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On this week’s episode of The Term we talk through how the justices reached that conclusion, plus a blockbuster copyright decision that Andy Warhol’s portraits of music icon Prince do not fall under the fair use doctrine.  </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The case that many court watchers speculated could break the internet by curtailing protections for social media companies sued over content on their platforms landed with a thud on Thursday, as the Supreme Court remanded the case back without weighing in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On this week’s episode of The Term we talk through how the justices reached that conclusion, plus a blockbuster copyright decision that Andy Warhol’s portraits of music icon Prince do not fall under the fair use doctrine.  </p><p><br></p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1355</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[317c2e82-f5da-11ed-af39-7b88fd394f38]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2728868745.mp3?updated=1684455836" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E29: Huzzah, Here Come The High Court Opinions</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court finally chipped away at its mountain of outstanding opinions, releasing five decisions on Thursday. Among those, one upheld a California law banning in-state sales of pork products that come from animals kept in confined spaces, and another favored a trans asylum seeker who sought an appellate court review of their immigration proceedings. We talk through the justices’ latest round of writing and where they landed on these issues on this week’s episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2023 22:27:23 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Huzzah, Here Come The High Court Opinions</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court finally chipped away at its mountain of outstanding opinions, releasing five decisions on Thursday. Among those, one upheld a California law banning in-state sales of pork products that come from animals kept in confined spaces, and another favored a trans asylum seeker who sought an appellate court review of their immigration proceedings. We talk through the justices’ latest round of writing and where they landed on these issues on this week’s episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court finally chipped away at its mountain of outstanding opinions, releasing five decisions on Thursday. Among those, one upheld a California law banning in-state sales of pork products that come from animals kept in confined spaces, and another favored a trans asylum seeker who sought an appellate court review of their immigration proceedings. We talk through the justices’ latest round of writing and where they landed on these issues on this week’s episode of The Term.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1067</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9b32ef22-f04a-11ed-a00a-fbb08f791864]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1408370786.mp3?updated=1683844174" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E28: The Beginning Of The End Of Chevron Deference?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court took up a case this week that could be the end of the road for a nearly 40-year precedent requiring judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting statutes that are ambiguous – otherwise known as Chevron doctrine. On this week’s episode of The Term, we talk through how the issue landed at the court, and how far it might go in rethinking the precedent. Also this week, partisan politics were on full display at a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on whether Congress should mandate formal ethics rules for the justices. </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2023 21:57:10 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Beginning Of The End Of Chevron Deference?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court took up a case this week that could be the end of the road for a nearly 40-year precedent requiring judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting statutes that are ambiguous – otherwise known as Chevron doctrine. On this week’s episode of The Term, we talk through how the issue landed at the court, and how far it might go in rethinking the precedent. Also this week, partisan politics were on full display at a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on whether Congress should mandate formal ethics rules for the justices. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court took up a case this week that could be the end of the road for a nearly 40-year precedent requiring judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting statutes that are ambiguous – otherwise known as Chevron doctrine. On this week’s episode of The Term, we talk through how the issue landed at the court, and how far it might go in rethinking the precedent. Also this week, partisan politics were on full display at a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on whether Congress should mandate formal ethics rules for the justices. </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1277</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[82380392-eac1-11ed-9276-7b7c4620f632]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7345553672.mp3?updated=1683237627" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E27: Justices Tackle Critical Trial Procedure Question</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court this week grappled with an important procedural issue – when legal issues need to be reasserted after trial for appeal – that’s a must-watch for trial attorneys everywhere. On this week’s episode of The Term we talk through the case’s oral arguments, including comments from justices who served as trial judges or practiced in the courtroom themselves. Also this week, big updates on the most recent high court ethics debacle– this one involving Justice Neil Gorsuch– news of which coincided with Chief Justice John Roberts declining to appear in Congress.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:22:22 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justices Tackle Critical Trial Procedure Question</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court this week grappled with an important procedural issue – when legal issues need to be reasserted after trial for appeal – that’s a must-watch for trial attorneys everywhere. On this week’s episode of The Term we talk through the case’s oral arguments, including comments from justices who served as trial judges or practiced in the courtroom themselves. Also this week, big updates on the most recent high court ethics debacle– this one involving Justice Neil Gorsuch– news of which coincided with Chief Justice John Roberts declining to appear in Congress.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court this week grappled with an important procedural issue – when legal issues need to be reasserted after trial for appeal – that’s a must-watch for trial attorneys everywhere. On this week’s episode of The Term we talk through the case’s oral arguments, including comments from justices who served as trial judges or practiced in the courtroom themselves. Also this week, big updates on the most recent high court ethics debacle– this one involving Justice Neil Gorsuch– news of which coincided with Chief Justice John Roberts declining to appear in Congress.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1443</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[b486de10-e547-11ed-ad5b-c3843e449135]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2364723387.mp3?updated=1682634459" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E26: When Are Online Threats Protected Free Speech?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>When do menacing and unsavory statements cross the line from free speech to a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment? That’s the question the Supreme Court faced this week as they considered the case of a Colorado man convicted of stalking who says his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied the right to explain the intent behind thousands of online messages he sent to a singer. We’ll talk through the questions the justices had at oral arguments, plus dive into the justices’ unanimous opinion allowing federal courts to hear challenges to the structure of government agencies that could have huge ramifications. </description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:29:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>When Are Online Threats Protected Free Speech?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>When do menacing and unsavory statements cross the line from free speech to a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment? That’s the question the Supreme Court faced this week as they considered the case of a Colorado man convicted of stalking who says his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied the right to explain the intent behind thousands of online messages he sent to a singer. We’ll talk through the questions the justices had at oral arguments, plus dive into the justices’ unanimous opinion allowing federal courts to hear challenges to the structure of government agencies that could have huge ramifications. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>When do menacing and unsavory statements cross the line from free speech to a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment? That’s the question the Supreme Court faced this week as they considered the case of a Colorado man convicted of stalking who says his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied the right to explain the intent behind thousands of online messages he sent to a singer. We’ll talk through the questions the justices had at oral arguments, plus dive into the justices’ unanimous opinion allowing federal courts to hear challenges to the structure of government agencies that could have huge ramifications. </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1686</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9d74460c-e071-11ed-9411-d3811ae02f02]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6356969592.mp3?updated=1682102204" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Special Episode: From Wolf Of Wall Street To First Street</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>How did some of the world's biggest tech companies come to benefit from a legal supershield making it almost impossible to sue them? The strange saga of Section 230 began 30 years ago with a notorious penny stock firm later made famous by Hollywood, and has now wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This week, in a special partnership episode between The Term and our investigative podcast series Law360 Explores, we track down the story of how a law passed with little fanfare decades ago became an aegis for a fledgling internet industry, and why many critics now want to pierce its armor.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:41:24 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title> From Wolf Of Wall Street To First Street</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>How did some of the world's biggest tech companies come to benefit from a legal supershield making it almost impossible to sue them? The strange saga of Section 230 began 30 years ago with a notorious penny stock firm later made famous by Hollywood, and has now wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This week, in a special partnership episode between The Term and our investigative podcast series Law360 Explores, we track down the story of how a law passed with little fanfare decades ago became an aegis for a fledgling internet industry, and why many critics now want to pierce its armor.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>How did some of the world's biggest tech companies come to benefit from a legal supershield making it almost impossible to sue them? The strange saga of Section 230 began 30 years ago with a notorious penny stock firm later made famous by Hollywood, and has now wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.</p><p><br></p><p>This week, in a special partnership episode between The Term and our investigative podcast series Law360 Explores, we track down the story of how a law passed with little fanfare decades ago became an aegis for a fledgling internet industry, and why many critics now want to pierce its armor.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1986</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[1fecd55c-da20-11ed-b9e5-035eb872e4de]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8847961693.mp3?updated=1681497999" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E25: Another Supreme Court Ethics Scandal?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is once again under scrutiny for potential ethics violations following a bombshell report by ProPublica that he has been lavished with luxury trips by a Republican billionaire for more than 20 years. The Term podcast discusses the brewing controversy on this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:05:49 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Another Supreme Court Ethics Scandal?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is once again under scrutiny for potential ethics violations following a bombshell report by ProPublica that he has been lavished with luxury trips by a Republican billionaire for more than 20 years. The Term podcast discusses the brewing controversy on this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is once again under scrutiny for potential ethics violations following a bombshell report by ProPublica that he has been lavished with luxury trips by a Republican billionaire for more than 20 years. The Term podcast discusses the brewing controversy on this week's episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>900</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[2f504b6a-d4c5-11ed-84b3-2fa634e41636]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1114473670.mp3?updated=1680818188" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E24: Inside A Turbulent Supreme Court With Joan Biskupic</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>In a new book, veteran Supreme Court journalist Joan Biskupic takes readers into the cloistered chambers of the court from the Trump years to the Dobbs leak, revealing secret deal-making and brimming tensions between the justices at a tumultuous time for the institution. Biskupic discusses her reporting on this week's episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2023 19:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Inside A Turbulent Supreme Court With Joan Biskupic</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In a new book, veteran Supreme Court journalist Joan Biskupic takes readers into the cloistered chambers of the court from the Trump years to the Dobbs leak, revealing secret deal-making and brimming tensions between the justices at a tumultuous time for the institution. Biskupic discusses her reporting on this week's episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>In a new book, veteran Supreme Court journalist Joan Biskupic takes readers into the cloistered chambers of the court from the Trump years to the Dobbs leak, revealing secret deal-making and brimming tensions between the justices at a tumultuous time for the institution. Biskupic discusses her reporting on this week's episode of The Term.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2051</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ea45eb58-d305-11ed-b59a-df4f62e3e02a]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2527091405.mp3?updated=1680626087" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E23: Could Immigration Law Target 'Abuelita'?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>A federal law making it a crime to encourage illegal immigration appeared to set off alarm bells for some Supreme Court justices, who worried during a hearing Monday that it could be wielded against charities or even families who urge their "abuelita" to stay in the country. Law360's The Term breaks down the case on this week's episode. </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2023 22:55:05 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Could Immigration Law Target 'Abuelita'?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A federal law making it a crime to encourage illegal immigration appeared to set off alarm bells for some Supreme Court justices, who worried during a hearing Monday that it could be wielded against charities or even families who urge their "abuelita" to stay in the country. Law360's The Term breaks down the case on this week's episode. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>A federal law making it a crime to encourage illegal immigration appeared to set off alarm bells for some Supreme Court justices, who worried during a hearing Monday that it could be wielded against charities or even families who urge their "abuelita" to stay in the country. Law360's The Term breaks down the case on this week's episode. </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1338</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[595a8198-cf4b-11ed-b25c-cfccb9c0ec19]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5886846744.mp3?updated=1680217147" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E22: No. 1 Or No. 2? Justices Ask In Potty Humor Case</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The nation's most revered courtroom sounded like an elementary school classroom at times Wednesday, as the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court discussed a trademark battle over a poop-themed dog toy. On this week's episode, Law360's The Term discusses the bizarre case, which saw one justice ask whether the toy "purportedly contained some sort of dog excrement or urine."</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2023 22:41:37 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>No. 1 Or No. 2? Justices Ask In Potty Humor Case</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The nation's most revered courtroom sounded like an elementary school classroom at times Wednesday, as the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court discussed a trademark battle over a poop-themed dog toy. On this week's episode, Law360's The Term discusses the bizarre case, which saw one justice ask whether the toy "purportedly contained some sort of dog excrement or urine."</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The nation's most revered courtroom sounded like an elementary school classroom at times Wednesday, as the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court discussed a trademark battle over a poop-themed dog toy. On this week's episode, Law360's The Term discusses the bizarre case, which saw one justice ask whether the toy "purportedly contained some sort of dog excrement or urine."</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1268</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[592d4366-c9cb-11ed-8915-7b32c81d801d]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9554089094.mp3?updated=1679611373" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E21: How Tom Goldstein Changed The Game</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Tom Goldstein is retiring from his U.S. Supreme Court practice after 25 years and more than 40 arguments — but perhaps bigger than his legal imprint is how his unusual methods changed the Supreme Court bar forever. On this week's episode of The Term, we talk with Tom about the criticism he faced early in his career as an advocate, why he started the invaluable SCOTUSblog and what he has planned next for shaking up the legal industry.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 22:03:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>How Tom Goldstein Changed The Game</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Tom Goldstein is retiring from his U.S. Supreme Court practice after 25 years and more than 40 arguments — but perhaps bigger than his legal imprint is how his unusual methods changed the Supreme Court bar forever. On this week's episode of The Term, we talk with Tom about the criticism he faced early in his career as an advocate, why he started the invaluable SCOTUSblog and what he has planned next for shaking up the legal industry.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Tom Goldstein is retiring from his <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> practice after 25 years and more than 40 arguments — but perhaps bigger than his legal imprint is how his unusual methods changed the Supreme Court bar forever. On this week's episode of The Term, we talk with Tom about the criticism he faced early in his career as an advocate, why he started the invaluable SCOTUSblog and what he has planned next for shaking up the legal industry.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1752</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[0a955b3a-c444-11ed-9ca9-c357a710bdb2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5571101973.mp3?updated=1679004516" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E20: What We Learned, And Didn't, From The Student Debt Hearings</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court's conservative justices seemed to agree that the Biden administration has exceeded its authority with its massive student debt relief plan, but it's still unclear whether they believe six Republican states and two individuals have standing to challenge it in court. Law360's The Term recaps more than three hours of arguments on this week's episode, plus a new case threatening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. </description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2023 00:28:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>What We Learned, And Didn't, From The Student Debt Hearings</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court's conservative justices seemed to agree that the Biden administration has exceeded its authority with its massive student debt relief plan, but it's still unclear whether they believe six Republican states and two individuals have standing to challenge it in court. Law360's The Term recaps more than three hours of arguments on this week's episode, plus a new case threatening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court's conservative justices seemed to agree that the Biden administration has exceeded its authority with its massive student debt relief plan, but it's still unclear whether they believe six Republican states and two individuals have standing to challenge it in court. Law360's The Term recaps more than three hours of arguments on this week's episode, plus a new case threatening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2144</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[924dfeba-b959-11ed-9029-e3ef2ca3dd7e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2616963112.mp3?updated=1677803287" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E19: BigTech Seems Likely To Keep Immunity, For Now...</title>
      <description>The Supreme Court seemed largely interested this week in preserving the broad immunity that tech companies have enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for decades, fearful of crashing the billion-dollar internet economy that has prospered in large part because of that legal shield. Law360's The Term breaks down BigTech's big week on First Street in this episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2023 19:35:04 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>BigTech Seems Likely To Keep Immunity, For Now...</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court seemed largely interested this week in preserving the broad immunity that tech companies have enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for decades, fearful of crashing the billion-dollar internet economy that has prospered in large part because of that legal shield. Law360's The Term breaks down BigTech's big week on First Street in this episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court seemed largely interested this week in preserving the broad immunity that tech companies have enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for decades, fearful of crashing the billion-dollar internet economy that has prospered in large part because of that legal shield. Law360's The Term breaks down BigTech's big week on First Street in this episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2098</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[be833bf6-b479-11ed-808b-cbf8782ae777]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3827574284.mp3?updated=1677267349" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E18: Supreme Court Lawyers Adapt To Changed Bench</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court has replaced nearly half of its members in the last five years. This week, The Term discusses how lawyers who practice there have adjusted to the changing dynamics on the nation’s top bench.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Supreme Court Lawyers Adapt To Changed Bench</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court has replaced nearly half of its members in the last five years. This week, The Term discusses how lawyers who practice there have adjusted to the changing dynamics on the nation’s top bench.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court has replaced nearly half of its members in the last five years. This week, The Term discusses how lawyers who practice there have adjusted to the changing dynamics on the nation’s top bench.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1195</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[865d99ec-ae5c-11ed-a94a-2f90a89d90d8]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8346961394.mp3?updated=1676596528" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E17: How Justice Harlan Became A Civil Rights Hero</title>
      <description>When the Supreme Court revoked newly awarded civil rights for freed Black Americans after the Civil War, it was the scion of a Southern slave-holding family that stood up in protest: Justice John Marshall Harlan. Author Peter Canellos joins The Term this week to discuss why Justice Harlan, largely vindicated by history, is still overlooked for his contribution to American law.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:37:21 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>How Justice Harlan Became A Civil Rights Hero</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>When the Supreme Court revoked newly awarded civil rights for freed Black Americans after the Civil War, it was the scion of a Southern slave-holding family that stood up in protest: Justice John Marshall Harlan. Author Peter Canellos joins The Term this week to discuss why Justice Harlan, largely vindicated by history, is still overlooked for his contribution to American law.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>When the Supreme Court revoked newly awarded civil rights for freed Black Americans after the Civil War, it was the scion of a Southern slave-holding family that stood up in protest: Justice John Marshall Harlan. Author Peter Canellos joins The Term this week to discuss why Justice Harlan, largely vindicated by history, is still overlooked for his contribution to American law.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1935</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[242cd7fa-a8b8-11ed-9b40-c34d3d7819d4]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2856109255.mp3?updated=1675978469" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E16: The Jane Roberts Recruiting Story, Explained</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>A whistleblower has come forward with new details about the lucrative recruitment work that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts does for large law firms, including some with prolific Supreme Court practices. On this week's episode of The Term we discuss the story with help and insight from special guest Karen Vladeck, an expert in the world of legal recruiting.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2023 00:24:55 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Jane Roberts Recruiting Story, Explained</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A whistleblower has come forward with new details about the lucrative recruitment work that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts does for large law firms, including some with prolific Supreme Court practices. On this week's episode of The Term we discuss the story with help and insight from special guest Karen Vladeck, an expert in the world of legal recruiting.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>A whistleblower has come forward with new details about the lucrative recruitment work that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts does for large law firms, including some with prolific Supreme Court practices. On this week's episode of The Term we discuss the story with help and insight from special guest Karen Vladeck, an expert in the world of legal recruiting.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2085</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[b066572e-a358-11ed-9aad-a391be916169]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7697190511.mp3?updated=1675383983" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E15: Why Did Justices Duck Attorney-Client Privilege?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>At long last, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first two decisions of the Supreme Court this week, but one of them was a curious one-line dismissal of a case argued just weeks ago. Law360's The Term examines the possible reasons the justices decide to punt in a closely-watched case about the scope of attorney-client privilege.  </description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2023 00:05:29 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Why Did Justices Duck Attorney-Client Privilege?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>At long last, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first two decisions of the Supreme Court this week, but one of them was a curious one-line dismissal of a case argued just weeks ago. Law360's The Term examines the possible reasons the justices decide to punt in a closely-watched case about the scope of attorney-client privilege.  </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>At long last, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first two decisions of the Supreme Court this week, but one of them was a curious one-line dismissal of a case argued just weeks ago. Law360's The Term examines the possible reasons the justices decide to punt in a closely-watched case about the scope of attorney-client privilege.  </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1475</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[bd37e8d8-9dd5-11ed-8933-d7957f21dbca]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1637595609.mp3?updated=1674777984" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E14: Leaker Unknown After 8 Months, 126 Interviews</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Law360's The Term podcast reacts to the news that U.S. Supreme Court investigators have been unable to unmask the identity of the Dobbs leaker after eight months of investigation on this week's episode. Plus, a breakdown of this week's thorny immigration case and a dispute over whether foreign state-owned enterprises can be indicted </description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:59:05 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Leaker Unknown After 8 Months, 126 Interviews</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Law360's The Term podcast reacts to the news that U.S. Supreme Court investigators have been unable to unmask the identity of the Dobbs leaker after eight months of investigation on this week's episode. Plus, a breakdown of this week's thorny immigration case and a dispute over whether foreign state-owned enterprises can be indicted </itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Law360's The Term podcast reacts to the news that <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> investigators have been unable to unmask the identity of the Dobbs leaker after eight months of investigation on this week's episode. Plus, a breakdown of this week's thorny immigration case and a dispute over whether foreign state-owned enterprises can be indicted </p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2135</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[7227f8c6-9865-11ed-aedf-cfb5592415dd]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5357392059.mp3?updated=1674179999" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E13: Where Have All The Opinions Gone?</title>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court has heard just over 30 cases in the first three months of the term, but has yet to decide a single one. Law360's The Term podcast discusses the historically slow start to the term, as well as two cases of particular interest to the legal and labor worlds.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:34:34 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Where Have All The Opinions Gone?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court has heard just over 30 cases in the first three months of the term, but has yet to decide a single one. Law360's The Term podcast discusses the historically slow start to the term, as well as two cases of particular interest to the legal and labor worlds.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> has heard just over 30 cases in the first three months of the term, but has yet to decide a single one. Law360's The Term podcast discusses the historically slow start to the term, as well as two cases of particular interest to the legal and labor worlds.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1960</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[f4c6ea8e-92d0-11ed-be93-33b953f39b98]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4636201351.mp3?updated=1673566467" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E12: Do The Justices Need Time Management Training?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court has recessed for winter break without issuing a single merits opinion in the slowest beginning of a term in years. Meanwhile, arguments are longer than they've been in decades. In its year-end episode, Law360's The Term asks: Do the justices need better time management skills?</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2022 08:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Do The Justices Need Time Management Training?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court has recessed for winter break without issuing a single merits opinion in the slowest beginning of a term in years. Meanwhile, arguments are longer than they've been in decades. In its year-end episode, Law360's The Term asks: Do the justices need better time management skills?</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> has recessed for winter break without issuing a single merits opinion in the slowest beginning of a term in years. Meanwhile, arguments are longer than they've been in decades. In its year-end episode, Law360's The Term asks: Do the justices need better time management skills?</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2880</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[1dc5ba7a-7cea-11ed-9b3a-1f5582fc79ed]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2622344293.mp3?updated=1671158348" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E11: Justices Wary Of Novel Election Theory</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>If Republican lawmakers thought the conservative justices would fully embrace a novel theory stripping state courts of power to review federal election rules, Wednesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court was a tough wake-up call. Law360's The Term breaks down Moore v. Harper on this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2022 00:22:35 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justices Wary Of Novel Election Theory</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>If Republican lawmakers thought the conservative justices would fully embrace a novel theory stripping state courts of power to review federal election rules, Wednesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court was a tough wake-up call. Law360's The Term breaks down Moore v. Harper on this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>If Republican lawmakers thought the conservative justices would fully embrace a novel theory stripping state courts of power to review federal election rules, Wednesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court was a tough wake-up call. Law360's The Term breaks down Moore v. Harper on this week's episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1568</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[0f280524-7757-11ed-bfb8-4b5df5ef73d5]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6817311199.mp3?updated=1670545432" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E10: Free Speech Or Discrimination?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments Monday in this term's clash between LGBTQ rights and religious business owners, with the justices struggling to draw lines between free speech and discrimination. Law360's The Term recaps the hearing in a special recap episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:10:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Free Speech Or Discrimination?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments Monday in this term's clash between LGBTQ rights and religious business owners, with the justices struggling to draw lines between free speech and discrimination. Law360's The Term recaps the hearing in a special recap episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments Monday in this term's clash between LGBTQ rights and religious business owners, with the justices struggling to draw lines between free speech and discrimination. Law360's The Term recaps the hearing in a special recap episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>933</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[6c1dd594-74f8-11ed-95cc-1f9433bcc2ae]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7216925283.mp3?updated=1670285768" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E9: Immigration, Corruption And Alito Ethics Intrigue</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court heard tense cases over public corruption prosecutions and new deportation guidelines for ICE agents this week, but there was news outside the courtroom as well when the court's in-house lawyer rejected allegations that Justice Samuel Alito divulged the outcome of a 2014 case at a dinner party. Law360's The Term discusses the latest in this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2022 23:25:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Immigration, Corruption And Alito Ethics Intrigue</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court heard tense cases over public corruption prosecutions and new deportation guidelines for ICE agents this week, but there was news outside the courtroom as well when the court's in-house lawyer rejected allegations that Justice Samuel Alito divulged the outcome of a 2014 case at a dinner party. Law360's The Term discusses the latest in this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court heard tense cases over public corruption prosecutions and new deportation guidelines for ICE agents this week, but there was news outside the courtroom as well when the court's in-house lawyer rejected allegations that Justice Samuel Alito divulged the outcome of a 2014 case at a dinner party. Law360's The Term discusses the latest in this week's episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1799</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[475ea170-71ce-11ed-a853-0fbe21277454]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7654391525.mp3?updated=1669937434" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E8: Alito Given Hero's Welcome By Conservatives</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Overlooked for much of his career, Justice Samuel Alito was the toast of last week's Federalist Society gala for his landmark majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Law360's The Term discusses the justice's moment in the spotlight and the fast-moving fight over President Donald Trump's tax returns.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2022 22:25:51 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Alito Given Hero's Welcome By Conservatives</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Overlooked for much of his career, Justice Samuel Alito was the toast of last week's Federalist Society gala for his landmark majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Law360's The Term discusses the justice's moment in the spotlight and the fast-moving fight over President Donald Trump's tax returns.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Overlooked for much of his career, Justice Samuel Alito was the toast of last week's Federalist Society gala for his landmark majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Law360's The Term discusses the justice's moment in the spotlight and the fast-moving fight over President Donald Trump's tax returns.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>990</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[88a58b84-66c6-11ed-94cd-e74a05c01fea]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8213414514.mp3?updated=1668724140" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E7: Justices Debate Native Homes For Native Kids</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday as it considered the legality of a 1978 law requiring state family courts to prioritize placing Indian foster children with native households. Law360's The Term recaps the 3-hour hearing on the Indian Child Welfare Act in this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:56:20 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justices Debate Native Homes For Native Kids</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday as it considered the legality of a 1978 law requiring state family courts to prioritize placing Indian foster children with native households. Law360's The Term recaps the 3-hour hearing on the Indian Child Welfare Act in this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday as it considered the legality of a 1978 law requiring state family courts to prioritize placing Indian foster children with native households. Law360's The Term recaps the 3-hour hearing on the Indian Child Welfare Act in this week's episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1454</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[7cc14d3a-6126-11ed-813c-b7b24a24cd59]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8992286780.mp3?updated=1668108601" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E6: Trump Taxes And Courtroom Protests</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>A month after turning away former President Donald Trump's appeal in the Mar-a-Lago document case, the Supreme Court is facing another request from the last occupant of the White House: shield his tax returns from House Democrats. Law360's "The Term" breaks down the latest "shadow docket" news on this week's podcast episode, plus a rare courtroom protest over abortion that rocketed an obscure tax case to the headlines.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 22:55:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Trump Taxes And Courtroom Protests</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A month after turning away former President Donald Trump's appeal in the Mar-a-Lago document case, the Supreme Court is facing another request from the last occupant of the White House: shield his tax returns from House Democrats. Law360's "The Term" breaks down the latest "shadow docket" news on this week's podcast episode, plus a rare courtroom protest over abortion that rocketed an obscure tax case to the headlines.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>A month after turning away former President Donald Trump's appeal in the Mar-a-Lago document case, the Supreme Court is facing another request from the last occupant of the White House: shield his tax returns from House Democrats. Law360's "The Term" breaks down the latest "shadow docket" news on this week's podcast episode, plus a rare courtroom protest over abortion that rocketed an obscure tax case to the headlines.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1721</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[22e4d6ee-5bca-11ed-bd5e-eb3de48c0988]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2230117521.mp3?updated=1667516431" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E5: The Grim Fate Of Affirmative Action</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Harvard University, the University of North Carolina and various colleges around the country may soon have to reckon with a Supreme Court ruling declaring their race-conscious admissions policies to be unlawful, judging by the tone of Monday's oral arguments on the fate of affirmative action in higher education. Law360's The Term discusses what we learned from the roughly five-hour sitting on this special episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 23:10:53 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Grim Fate Of Affirmative Action</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Harvard University, the University of North Carolina and various colleges around the country may soon have to reckon with a Supreme Court ruling declaring their race-conscious admissions policies to be unlawful, judging by the tone of Monday's oral arguments on the fate of affirmative action in higher education. Law360's The Term discusses what we learned from the roughly five-hour sitting on this special episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Harvard University, the University of North Carolina and various colleges around the country may soon have to reckon with a Supreme Court ruling declaring their race-conscious admissions policies to be unlawful, judging by the tone of Monday's oral arguments on the fate of affirmative action in higher education. Law360's The Term discusses what we learned from the roughly five-hour sitting on this special episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1925</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[bfd2e1aa-5970-11ed-8088-433c01b2ec0e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2537955141.mp3?updated=1667257931" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E4: Carter Phillips On His Supreme Court Success</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The composition of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically since Carter Phillips' first argument in 1982, but his preparation for his 89th argument next month will be largely the same. The Sidley Austin partner spoke to Law360's The Term this week on the lessons learned from his prolific career, and why he isn't surprised by his former colleague Justice Samuel Alito's rising profile on the nation's top court. Plus, a look at the latest election litigation on the justices' "shadow docket."</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 22:58:37 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Carter Phillips On His Supreme Court Success</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The composition of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically since Carter Phillips' first argument in 1982, but his preparation for his 89th argument next month will be largely the same. The Sidley Austin partner spoke to Law360's The Term this week on the lessons learned from his prolific career, and why he isn't surprised by his former colleague Justice Samuel Alito's rising profile on the nation's top court. Plus, a look at the latest election litigation on the justices' "shadow docket."</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The composition of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically since Carter Phillips' first argument in 1982, but his preparation for his 89th argument next month will be largely the same. The Sidley Austin partner spoke to Law360's The Term this week on the lessons learned from his prolific career, and why he isn't surprised by his former colleague Justice Samuel Alito's rising profile on the nation's top court. Plus, a look at the latest election litigation on the justices' "shadow docket."</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1717</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[754cf190-5649-11ed-8888-1fbe1a126072]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7859444133.mp3?updated=1666911800" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E3: Justices Fear State 'War' Over Morality Laws</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>A California initiative banning pork sold from sows raised in small confined spaces set off a two-hour debate at the Supreme Court this week, with the justices concerned about an escalatory "war" of morality laws between states with different political leanings. The Term breaks down the case on this week’s episode, as well as a pop culture-infused hearing over Andy Warhol's silkscreen of the late singer Prince.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2022 22:43:56 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justices Fear State 'War' Over Morality Laws</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A California initiative banning pork sold from sows raised in small confined spaces set off a two-hour debate at the Supreme Court this week, with the justices concerned about an escalatory "war" of morality laws between states with different political leanings. The Term breaks down the case on this week’s episode, as well as a pop culture-infused hearing over Andy Warhol's silkscreen of the late singer Prince.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>A California initiative banning pork sold from sows raised in small confined spaces set off a two-hour debate at the Supreme Court this week, with the justices concerned about an escalatory "war" of morality laws between states with different political leanings. The Term breaks down the case on this week’s episode, as well as a pop culture-infused hearing over Andy Warhol's silkscreen of the late singer Prince.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1509</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[e6d47a3e-4b47-11ed-bf4e-c733dc018f22]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1185935237.mp3?updated=1665701071" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E2: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Has The Floor</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted off the blocks of her Supreme Court career this week, diving into oral arguments with a rare clarity of purpose for a new court member. Law360's The Term breaks down her enthusiastic start on this week's episode, plus some new Supreme Court cases and what they mean for BigTech.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2022 15:28:41 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Has The Floor</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>2</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted off the blocks of her Supreme Court career this week, diving into oral arguments with a rare clarity of purpose for a new court member. Law360's The Term breaks down her enthusiastic start on this week's episode, plus some new Supreme Court cases and what they mean for BigTech.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted off the blocks of her Supreme Court career this week, diving into oral arguments with a rare clarity of purpose for a new court member. Law360's The Term breaks down her enthusiastic start on this week's episode, plus some new Supreme Court cases and what they mean for BigTech.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1564</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[89bdf8e0-4654-11ed-ab61-2bfa0d6c09b0]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8013296675.mp3?updated=1665156812" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S4, E1: A New Normal For The Court?</title>
      <description>As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares for the 2022-2023 term with a slate of new blockbuster cases, fall-out from last term's Dobbs decision and its leaked draft is still reverberating. While pandemic-era restrictions at the court are loosening, the hosts discuss with veteran court reporter Amy Howe what kind of "new normal" to expect at the high court, as well as walk through some of the high-profile cases court watchers should keep an eye on this season.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:24:07 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>A New Normal For The Court?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>4</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares for the 2022-2023 term with a slate of new blockbuster cases, fall-out from last term's Dobbs decision and its leaked draft is still reverberating. While pandemic-era restrictions at the court are loosening, the hosts discuss with veteran court reporter Amy Howe what kind of "new normal" to expect at the high court, as well as walk through some of the high-profile cases court watchers should keep an eye on this season.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares for the 2022-2023 term with a slate of new blockbuster cases, fall-out from last term's Dobbs decision and its leaked draft is still reverberating. While pandemic-era restrictions at the court are loosening, the hosts discuss with veteran court reporter Amy Howe what kind of "new normal" to expect at the high court, as well as walk through some of the high-profile cases court watchers should keep an eye on this season.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2510</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[d03b1cee-40ff-11ed-83a4-ebd104313bd3]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3577385993.mp3?updated=1664573357" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3 FINALE: Lessons From A Historic Supreme Court Term</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>A Supreme Court term that by any measure was historic has concluded, and it takes a village of podcasters to untangle everything that happened. So this week, hosts from Pro Say team up with the hosts of The Term to discuss this momentous term. We take a look at the conservative supermajority’s turn toward originalism and the shifting power dynamics among the justices. We also dive into the biggest decisions of the term, from a trio of rulings about religion to a climate change fight that has big implications for administrative law, to blockbuster opinions on guns and abortion. And we end the show with a look at how the so-called “shadow docket” along with the abortion ruling leak and a break from stare decisis are causing some to question the court’s legitimacy moving forward.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2022 00:22:16 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Lessons From A Historic Supreme Court Term</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A Supreme Court term that by any measure was historic has concluded, and it takes a village of podcasters to untangle everything that happened. So this week, hosts from Pro Say team up with the hosts of The Term to discuss this momentous term. We take a look at the conservative supermajority’s turn toward originalism and the shifting power dynamics among the justices. We also dive into the biggest decisions of the term, from a trio of rulings about religion to a climate change fight that has big implications for administrative law, to blockbuster opinions on guns and abortion. And we end the show with a look at how the so-called “shadow docket” along with the abortion ruling leak and a break from stare decisis are causing some to question the court’s legitimacy moving forward.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>A Supreme Court term that by any measure was historic has concluded, and it takes a village of podcasters to untangle everything that happened. So this week, hosts from Pro Say team up with the hosts of The Term to discuss this momentous term. We take a look at the conservative supermajority’s turn toward originalism and the shifting power dynamics among the justices. We also dive into the biggest decisions of the term, from a trio of rulings about religion to a climate change fight that has big implications for administrative law, to blockbuster opinions on guns and abortion. And we end the show with a look at how the so-called “shadow docket” along with the abortion ruling leak and a break from stare decisis are causing some to question the court’s legitimacy moving forward.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>3295</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9276c1ec-f997-11ec-872b-bfb498d0abb0]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2625529836.mp3?updated=1656721551" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E36: A Stinging Blow To The EPA's Power On Climate</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Thursday's swearing in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first African American woman on the U.S. Supreme Court made history, but it was arguably the court's decision, just hours before, to curb the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to impose sweeping climate regulations that grabbed the most attention. Law360's The Term breaks down the final day before summer recess.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2022 23:58:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>A Stinging Blow To The EPA's Power On Climate</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Thursday's swearing in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first African American woman on the U.S. Supreme Court made history, but it was arguably the court's decision, just hours before, to curb the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to impose sweeping climate regulations that grabbed the most attention. Law360's The Term breaks down the final day before summer recess.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Thursday's swearing in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first African American woman on the <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> made history, but it was arguably the court's decision, just hours before, to curb the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to impose sweeping climate regulations that grabbed the most attention. Law360's The Term breaks down the final day before summer recess.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2000</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[36776a2c-f8cf-11ec-9c4c-230a8651c300]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6804808385.mp3?updated=1656633834" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Special Episode: 50 Years Of Abortion Rights, Overturned</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and upheld a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In this special episode, Law360's The Term breaks down the historic ruling and its potential impacts with constitutional scholar and professor Carolyn Shapiro.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 23:27:23 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Special Episode: 50 Years Of Abortion Rights, Overturned</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and upheld a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In this special episode, Law360's The Term breaks down the historic ruling and its potential impacts with constitutional scholar and professor Carolyn Shapiro.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and upheld a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In this special episode, Law360's The Term breaks down the historic ruling and its potential impacts with constitutional scholar and professor Carolyn Shapiro.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1225</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[e81b81d4-f413-11ec-a2de-4fdeec1dc451]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1561192170.mp3?updated=1656113493" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E35: A Constitutional Right To Public Carry</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>States that require applicants to show a heightened need to obtain a license to carry firearms are violating the Constitution, the Supreme Court said in a blockbuster gun rights decision expanding the Second Amendment to outside the home. Law360's The Term discusses the ruling and other high court action on this week's episode, including the biggest religious freedom victory of the term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:30:06 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>A Constitutional Right To Public Carry</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>States that require applicants to show a heightened need to obtain a license to carry firearms are violating the Constitution, the Supreme Court said in a blockbuster gun rights decision expanding the Second Amendment to outside the home. Law360's The Term discusses the ruling and other high court action on this week's episode, including the biggest religious freedom victory of the term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>States that require applicants to show a heightened need to obtain a license to carry firearms are violating the Constitution, the Supreme Court said in a blockbuster gun rights decision expanding the Second Amendment to outside the home. Law360's The Term discusses the ruling and other high court action on this week's episode, including the biggest religious freedom victory of the term.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1684</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[995c1af2-f343-11ec-a44d-579fb278b184]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2960821448.mp3?updated=1656023520" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E34: Just Like That, Justices Back On Track</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Handing down 11 opinions this week, the justices took a sizable bite out of its backlog and seem determined to wrap up its work on time before summer recess. From double jeopardy to immigration law, Law360's The Term explores the more noteworthy decisions buried in the week's caseload.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:01:02 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Just Like That, Justices Back On Track</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Handing down 11 opinions this week, the justices took a sizable bite out of its backlog and seem determined to wrap up its work on time before summer recess. From double jeopardy to immigration law, Law360's The Term explores the more noteworthy decisions buried in the week's caseload.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Handing down 11 opinions this week, the justices took a sizable bite out of its backlog and seem determined to wrap up its work on time before summer recess. From double jeopardy to immigration law, Law360's The Term explores the more noteworthy decisions buried in the week's caseload.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1291</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9606cf88-edcf-11ec-9263-8fd708327f3d]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1574292279.mp3?updated=1655424187" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E33: Kavanaugh Threat Casts Pall On Final Stretch</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court is entering its blockbuster final stretch with just under 30 cases to go before summer recess, but the arrest this week of a man allegedly threatening to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh has refocused attention on the personal safety of the justices. On this week’s episode of The Term we examine the latest threats surrounding the court and its members, plus highlight two rulings from the week including another worker victory in an arbitration case, and immunity for border patrol officers who face federal civil rights lawsuits.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 20:32:15 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Kavanaugh Threat Casts Pall On Final Stretch</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court is entering its blockbuster final stretch with just under 30 cases to go before summer recess, but the arrest this week of a man allegedly threatening to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh has refocused attention on the personal safety of the justices. On this week’s episode of The Term we examine the latest threats surrounding the court and its members, plus highlight two rulings from the week including another worker victory in an arbitration case, and immunity for border patrol officers who face federal civil rights lawsuits.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court is entering its blockbuster final stretch with just under 30 cases to go before summer recess, but the arrest this week of a man allegedly threatening to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh has refocused attention on the personal safety of the justices. On this week’s episode of The Term we examine the latest threats surrounding the court and its members, plus highlight two rulings from the week including another worker victory in an arbitration case, and immunity for border patrol officers who face federal civil rights lawsuits.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1302</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[6a6e0794-e832-11ec-aa8a-3be2a166d42f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9337117139.mp3?updated=1654806677" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E32: White Collar Atty To High Court Clerks—Lawyer Up</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>With a report that the Supreme Court marshal is demanding cell records and affidavits from law clerks to find the source of the leaked abortion draft opinion, a veteran white collar defense lawyer joins Law360's The Term podcast on what advice he would give these elite, yet inexperienced, young attorneys. Also this week, the high court is on a record slow pace issuing opinions this term, but handed down one shadow docket ruling blocking a controversial Texas social media law.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2022 21:50:32 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>White Collar Atty To High Court Clerks—Lawyer Up</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>With a report that the Supreme Court marshal is demanding cell records and affidavits from law clerks to find the source of the leaked abortion draft opinion, a veteran white collar defense lawyer joins Law360's The Term podcast on what advice he would give these elite, yet inexperienced, young attorneys. Also this week, the high court is on a record slow pace issuing opinions this term, but handed down one shadow docket ruling blocking a controversial Texas social media law.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>With a report that the Supreme Court marshal is demanding cell records and affidavits from law clerks to find the source of the leaked abortion draft opinion, a veteran white collar defense lawyer joins Law360's The Term podcast on what advice he would give these elite, yet inexperienced, young attorneys. Also this week, the high court is on a record slow pace issuing opinions this term, but handed down one shadow docket ruling blocking a controversial Texas social media law.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1829</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[8f95dbca-e2bd-11ec-a54e-5f00203320b2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5311145487.mp3?updated=1654206923" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E31: Supreme Court Limits Ineffective Counsel Claims</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court has long held that ineffective assistance of counsel gives rise to a Sixth Amendment claim, but what happens when the lawyers tasked with making such a claim are themselves ineffective? On this week’s episode of The Term we discuss how Monday's ruling in Shinn v. Ramirez will make it difficult to do anything about that. We’re also breaking down the rare loss for arbitration this week after the justices sided with a former Taco Bell worker whose overtime lawsuit had stalled in a lower court.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2022 18:24:01 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Supreme Court Limits Ineffective Counsel Claims</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court has long held that ineffective assistance of counsel gives rise to a Sixth Amendment claim, but what happens when the lawyers tasked with making such a claim are themselves ineffective? On this week’s episode of The Term we discuss how Monday's ruling in Shinn v. Ramirez will make it difficult to do anything about that. We’re also breaking down the rare loss for arbitration this week after the justices sided with a former Taco Bell worker whose overtime lawsuit had stalled in a lower court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court has long held that ineffective assistance of counsel gives rise to a Sixth Amendment claim, but what happens when the lawyers tasked with making such a claim are themselves ineffective? On this week’s episode of The Term we discuss how Monday's ruling in Shinn v. Ramirez will make it difficult to do anything about that. We’re also breaking down the rare loss for arbitration this week after the justices sided with a former Taco Bell worker whose overtime lawsuit had stalled in a lower court.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1704</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[f9a199e4-dd1a-11ec-87bb-0fe5498095f9]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4117960723.mp3?updated=1653589449" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E30: Self-Financing Political Campaigns Just Got Easier</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court has eliminated much of the risks associated with congressional candidates lending to their own political campaigns. This week on The Term, we’re discussing the court’s decision to strike down loan repayment restrictions passed 20 years ago to combat corruption, and why dissenting justices think it greenlights "sordid bargains" between donors and winning candidates. We’re also breaking down a second major opinion from the week with big implications for immigration proceedings, after the high court found that federal courts lack the authority to review factual determinations by immigration judges in removal proceedings.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2022 22:09:50 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Self-Financing Political Campaigns Just Got Easier</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court has eliminated much of the risks associated with congressional candidates lending to their own political campaigns. This week on The Term, we’re discussing the court’s decision to strike down loan repayment restrictions passed 20 years ago to combat corruption, and why dissenting justices think it greenlights "sordid bargains" between donors and winning candidates. We’re also breaking down a second major opinion from the week with big implications for immigration proceedings, after the high court found that federal courts lack the authority to review factual determinations by immigration judges in removal proceedings.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court has eliminated much of the risks associated with congressional candidates lending to their own political campaigns. This week on The Term, we’re discussing the court’s decision to strike down loan repayment restrictions passed 20 years ago to combat corruption, and why dissenting justices think it greenlights "sordid bargains" between donors and winning candidates. We’re also breaking down a second major opinion from the week with big implications for immigration proceedings, after the high court found that federal courts lack the authority to review factual determinations by immigration judges in removal proceedings.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1405</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[d1eefb7c-d7bf-11ec-aaea-c3218732b6c4]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3600875621.mp3?updated=1652998240" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E29: Amid Leak Protests, Justices Get Security Boosted</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>This week, Law360's The Term podcast discusses the continued fallout over last week's leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, including additional security for justices who are now facing protests of a much more personal nature—outside their homes. Plus, the hosts talk to Skadden's Shay Dvoretzky about his career as a Supreme Court lawyer.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 21:28:14 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Amid Leak Protests, Justices Get Security Boosted</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week, Law360's The Term podcast discusses the continued fallout over last week's leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, including additional security for justices who are now facing protests of a much more personal nature—outside their homes. Plus, the hosts talk to Skadden's Shay Dvoretzky about his career as a Supreme Court lawyer.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>This week, Law360's The Term podcast discusses the continued fallout over last week's leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, including additional security for justices who are now facing protests of a much more personal nature—outside their homes. Plus, the hosts talk to Skadden's Shay Dvoretzky about his career as a Supreme Court lawyer.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1422</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[d5f99cb2-d239-11ec-ac34-a71b4da31bd1]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8832242275.mp3?updated=1652391171" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E28: How Alito Wields Abortion History To End Roe</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Justice Samuel Alito based his draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade on the idea that abortion rights are not "deeply rooted" in the nation's history. On this week's episode of The Term, we welcome constitutional scholar and Stanford Law Professor Bernadette Meyler to discuss how Justice Alito's leaked bombshell opinion deals with a subject of intense historical debate.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2022 22:12:14 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>How Alito Wields Abortion History To End Roe</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Justice Samuel Alito based his draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade on the idea that abortion rights are not "deeply rooted" in the nation's history. On this week's episode of The Term, we welcome constitutional scholar and Stanford Law Professor Bernadette Meyler to discuss how Justice Alito's leaked bombshell opinion deals with a subject of intense historical debate.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Justice Samuel Alito based his draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade on the idea that abortion rights are not "deeply rooted" in the nation's history. On this week's episode of The Term, we welcome constitutional scholar and Stanford Law Professor Bernadette Meyler to discuss how Justice Alito's leaked bombshell opinion deals with a subject of intense historical debate.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1490</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[dfe18e3c-ccbd-11ec-b115-ebbd8bcf6c30]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3483284988.mp3?updated=1651788934" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E27: Oklahoma Says Supreme Court Ruling Caused Crisis</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>This week, Law360's The Term podcast discusses Oklahoma's attempt to contain the fallout from a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that classified a huge swath of the state as Indian Country. Plus, should the Biden administration have to continue a Trump policy of sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration claims are pending? And finally, a touching goodbye to Justice Stephen Breyer by Chief Justice John Roberts, as the court concluded its last oral argument of the term and the last of the senior justice's 28-year career.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 21:33:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Oklahoma Says Supreme Court Ruling Caused Crisis</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week, Law360's The Term podcast discusses Oklahoma's attempt to contain the fallout from a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that classified a huge swath of the state as Indian Country. Plus, should the Biden administration have to continue a Trump policy of sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration claims are pending? And finally, a touching goodbye to Justice Stephen Breyer by Chief Justice John Roberts, as the court concluded its last oral argument of the term and the last of the senior justice's 28-year career.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>This week, Law360's The Term podcast discusses Oklahoma's attempt to contain the fallout from a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that classified a huge swath of the state as Indian Country. Plus, should the Biden administration have to continue a Trump policy of sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration claims are pending? And finally, a touching goodbye to Justice Stephen Breyer by Chief Justice John Roberts, as the court concluded its last oral argument of the term and the last of the senior justice's 28-year career.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1681</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[996427c2-c730-11ec-b24e-e39def534baa]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2248279326.mp3?updated=1651181973" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E26: Narrative Or Fact? The Case Of The Praying Coach</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Was a Washington high school football coach simply exercising his First Amendment rights when he prayed after games at the 50-yard line? Or was he actually pressuring students into joining him as a public school employee? The Supreme Court will search for the truth this Monday in a case explored on this episode of Law360's The Term podcast.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:02:46 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Narrative Or Fact? The Case Of The Praying Coach</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Was a Washington high school football coach simply exercising his First Amendment rights when he prayed after games at the 50-yard line? Or was he actually pressuring students into joining him as a public school employee? The Supreme Court will search for the truth this Monday in a case explored on this episode of Law360's The Term podcast.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Was a Washington high school football coach simply exercising his First Amendment rights when he prayed after games at the 50-yard line? Or was he actually pressuring students into joining him as a public school employee? The Supreme Court will search for the truth this Monday in a case explored on this episode of Law360's The Term podcast.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1761</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[178a519a-c285-11ec-8989-37e5a1f4f395]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4173626814.mp3?updated=1650665036" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E25: Judge Jackson Clinches High Court Seat</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>A historic confirmation. More shadow docket drama. Plus, what Justice Amy Coney Barrett is telling Americans to do before reacting to the blockbuster opinion season coming up. On this week’s episode of The Term we’re catching up on a busy week in Supreme Court news, including the official, not-quite partisan vote to make Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson the next Supreme Court justice, and an opinion from Monday that could make it easier for plaintiffs to sue prosecutors for malicious prosecutions.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:05:08 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Judge Jackson Clinches High Court Seat</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A historic confirmation. More shadow docket drama. Plus, what Justice Amy Coney Barrett is telling Americans to do before reacting to the blockbuster opinion season coming up. On this week’s episode of The Term we’re catching up on a busy week in Supreme Court news, including the official, not-quite partisan vote to make Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson the next Supreme Court justice, and an opinion from Monday that could make it easier for plaintiffs to sue prosecutors for malicious prosecutions.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>A historic confirmation. More shadow docket drama. Plus, what Justice Amy Coney Barrett is telling Americans to do before reacting to the blockbuster opinion season coming up. On this week’s episode of The Term we’re catching up on a busy week in Supreme Court news, including the official, not-quite partisan vote to make Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson the next Supreme Court justice, and an opinion from Monday that could make it easier for plaintiffs to sue prosecutors for malicious prosecutions.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1471</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[216f1b4e-b6c5-11ec-b527-bff20fb0785a]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1952746104.mp3?updated=1649372979" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E24: Near 100, Federal Arbitration Act Timely As Ever</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>It was a banner week for the Federal Arbitration Act in the U.S. Supreme Court this week, as the justices examined the nearly 100-year-old law in multiple cases, including one with huge ramifications for the nation's most populous state of California. On this week’s episode of The Term we’re breaking down the ongoing battle between workers and employers over the FAA.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2022 23:21:13 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Near 100, Federal Arbitration Act Timely As Ever</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>It was a banner week for the Federal Arbitration Act in the U.S. Supreme Court this week, as the justices examined the nearly 100-year-old law in multiple cases, including one with huge ramifications for the nation's most populous state of California. On this week’s episode of The Term we’re breaking down the ongoing battle between workers and employers over the FAA.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>It was a banner week for the Federal Arbitration Act in the U.S. Supreme Court this week, as the justices examined the nearly 100-year-old law in multiple cases, including one with huge ramifications for the nation's most populous state of California. On this week’s episode of The Term we’re breaking down the ongoing battle between workers and employers over the FAA.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1684</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[cc1076b0-b148-11ec-a766-b3b3a285f63e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3367359179.mp3?updated=1648768977" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E23: Ketanji Brown Jackson Faces The Senate</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Four days. Emotional moments. Fierce partisanship. D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made it through the crucible of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, withstanding more than 20 hours of questioning from lawmakers. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 congressional reporter James Arkin to discuss what we learned about the potential next U.S. Supreme Court justice.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 23:24:29 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Ketanji Brown Jackson Faces The Senate</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Four days. Emotional moments. Fierce partisanship. D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made it through the crucible of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, withstanding more than 20 hours of questioning from lawmakers. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 congressional reporter James Arkin to discuss what we learned about the potential next U.S. Supreme Court justice.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Four days. Emotional moments. Fierce partisanship. D.C. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made it through the crucible of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, withstanding more than 20 hours of questioning from lawmakers. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 congressional reporter James Arkin to discuss what we learned about the potential next <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> justice.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1873</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[183eb572-abc9-11ec-b8f2-476808dcc77e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4873199250.mp3?updated=1648164373" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E22: The Push To Make The Court More Transparent</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court is famously slow to embrace change, but its experiment with live audio during the pandemic has been hailed by lawyers and court watchers as a success. This week, Law360's The Term speaks with Gabe Roth of the judicial watchdog group Fix the Court about that newfound public access, and various other ways to make one of the nation's most powerful institutions more transparent.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2022 22:56:35 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Push To Make The Court More Transparent</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court is famously slow to embrace change, but its experiment with live audio during the pandemic has been hailed by lawyers and court watchers as a success. This week, Law360's The Term speaks with Gabe Roth of the judicial watchdog group Fix the Court about that newfound public access, and various other ways to make one of the nation's most powerful institutions more transparent.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The <a href="https://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> is famously slow to embrace change, but its experiment with live audio during the pandemic has been hailed by lawyers and court watchers as a success. This week, Law360's The Term speaks with Gabe Roth of the judicial watchdog group Fix the Court about that newfound public access, and various other ways to make one of the nation's most powerful institutions more transparent.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1646</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[330b09a4-a643-11ec-a4c6-63d654e0ce45]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6243979827.mp3?updated=1647558039" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E21: Who Gets To Draw Congressional Maps?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court turned away Republican challenges to court-ordered congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but a growing number of justices are showing interest in a novel legal theory that curbs the power of state courts to draw electoral maps. Law360's The Term explores the situation in this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2022 01:55:23 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Who Gets To Draw Congressional Maps?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court turned away Republican challenges to court-ordered congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but a growing number of justices are showing interest in a novel legal theory that curbs the power of state courts to draw electoral maps. Law360's The Term explores the situation in this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court turned away Republican challenges to court-ordered congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, but a growing number of justices are showing interest in a novel legal theory that curbs the power of state courts to draw electoral maps. Law360's The Term explores the situation in this week's episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1302</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[3b5f922e-a0de-11ec-84b2-9b05d9faee4f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1243534351.mp3?updated=1646963988" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E20: Tsarnaev Had 'Fair Trial' Before Death Sentence</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>We saw an uptick in opinions from the Supreme Court this week, and we're discussing all four of the decisions that were handed down on this week's episode of The Term, including the Boston bomber's reinstated death sentence and the CIA's victory in a state secrets case.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 23:18:15 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Tsarnaev Had 'Fair Trial' Before Death Sentence</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>We saw an uptick in opinions from the Supreme Court this week, and we're discussing all four of the decisions that were handed down on this week's episode of The Term, including the Boston bomber's reinstated death sentence and the CIA's victory in a state secrets case.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>We saw an uptick in opinions from the Supreme Court this week, and we're discussing all four of the decisions that were handed down on this week's episode of The Term, including the Boston bomber's reinstated death sentence and the CIA's victory in a state secrets case.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1258</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[1049ab82-9c11-11ec-aa1a-97c2669880c3]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9105345830.mp3?updated=1646436064" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E19: Ketanji Brown Jackson In Her Own Words</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>From being Matt Damon's scene partner as an undergrad to getting swamped with 150 cases as a rookie judge, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson has publicly shared a number of stories over the years from her life and career as a self-identified "professional vagabond." On this special episode of The Term, we pore through an archive of speeches, panels and hearings to explore how D.C. Circuit Judge Jackson became the first African American woman nominated to the Supreme Court.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2022 04:03:17 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Ketanji Brown Jackson In Her Own Words</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>From being Matt Damon's scene partner as an undergrad to getting swamped with 150 cases as a rookie judge, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson has publicly shared a number of stories over the years from her life and career as a self-identified "professional vagabond." On this special episode of The Term, we pore through an archive of speeches, panels and hearings to explore how D.C. Circuit Judge Jackson became the first African American woman nominated to the Supreme Court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>From being Matt Damon's scene partner as an undergrad to getting swamped with 150 cases as a rookie judge, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson has publicly shared a number of stories over the years from her life and career as a self-identified "professional vagabond." On this special episode of The Term, we pore through an archive of speeches, panels and hearings to explore how D.C. Circuit Judge Jackson became the first African American woman nominated to the Supreme Court.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1616</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[14f97e9a-99dd-11ec-9cdd-f7ff3119a5e8]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6173321891.mp3?updated=1646194063" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E18: Agency Power At Stake In EPA Case</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court is set to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate against climate change at a highly-anticipated hearing on Monday. On this week’s episode of The Term, we explore how the case could affect the ability of federal agencies writ-large to set public policy. Also this week, we discuss the justices’ decision this week to revisit the contentious battle between LGBTQ rights and religious wedding vendors.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 19:55:47 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Agency Power At Stake In EPA Case</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court is set to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate against climate change at a highly-anticipated hearing on Monday. On this week’s episode of The Term, we explore how the case could affect the ability of federal agencies writ-large to set public policy. Also this week, we discuss the justices’ decision this week to revisit the contentious battle between LGBTQ rights and religious wedding vendors.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court is set to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate against climate change at a highly-anticipated hearing on Monday. On this week’s episode of The Term, we explore how the case could affect the ability of federal agencies writ-large to set public policy. Also this week, we discuss the justices’ decision this week to revisit the contentious battle between LGBTQ rights and religious wedding vendors.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1264</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[d335ac50-95a8-11ec-a411-1bcdc2d05529]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9486388315.mp3?updated=1645732624" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E17: 'SCOTUS Sweepstakes' Heat Up</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>As the White House continues vetting candidates for Justice Stephen Breyer's Supreme Court seat, the delicate D.C. dance of lobbying for certain individuals is well underway. On this week’s “SCOTUS Sweepstakes” episode of The Term, we take a closer look at two of the rumored "shortlisters" under consideration, plus a few “long list” candidates who have recently gained some traction.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:41:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>'SCOTUS Sweepstakes' Heat Up</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>As the White House continues vetting candidates for Justice Stephen Breyer's Supreme Court seat, the delicate D.C. dance of lobbying for certain individuals is well underway. On this week’s “SCOTUS Sweepstakes” episode of The Term, we take a closer look at two of the rumored "shortlisters" under consideration, plus a few “long list” candidates who have recently gained some traction.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>As the White House continues vetting candidates for Justice Stephen Breyer's Supreme Court seat, the delicate D.C. dance of lobbying for certain individuals is well underway. On this week’s “SCOTUS Sweepstakes” episode of The Term, we take a closer look at two of the rumored "shortlisters" under consideration, plus a few “long list” candidates who have recently gained some traction.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1670</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[13829eb8-9053-11ec-b39a-cb87bfa6e70c]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9467706321.mp3?updated=1645145211" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E16: Tensions Rise Over Alabama Voting Rights</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Frustrations boiled over at the Supreme Court this week in a Voting Rights Act decision Monday that Justice Elena Kagan called a “disservice to Black Alabamians” and a further abuse of the court’s emergency docket, prompting a heated response from Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On this week's episode of The Term, we’re breaking down the case and the brewing debate over the court’s so-called “shadow docket," plus analyzing Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s virtual remarks this week to New York University School of Law.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:53:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Tensions Rise Over Alabama Voting Rights</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Frustrations boiled over at the Supreme Court this week in a Voting Rights Act decision Monday that Justice Elena Kagan called a “disservice to Black Alabamians” and a further abuse of the court’s emergency docket, prompting a heated response from Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On this week's episode of The Term, we’re breaking down the case and the brewing debate over the court’s so-called “shadow docket," plus analyzing Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s virtual remarks this week to New York University School of Law.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Frustrations boiled over at the Supreme Court this week in a Voting Rights Act decision Monday that Justice Elena Kagan called a “disservice to Black Alabamians” and a further abuse of the court’s emergency docket, prompting a heated response from Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On this week's episode of The Term, we’re breaking down the case and the brewing debate over the court’s so-called “shadow docket," plus analyzing Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s virtual remarks this week to New York University School of Law.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>970</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[707cd072-8aca-11ec-87df-f71b1b8231a8]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5805506662.mp3?updated=1644537514" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E15: Can Harvard Save Affirmative Action?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Harvard admissions case taken up by the Supreme Court could see the court's conservative majority overrule more than 40 years of precedent by ending affirmative action in higher education. Can America's preeminent school save its race-conscious admissions process? On this week’s episode of The Term we’re breaking down the blockbuster case with Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani, plus giving some updates on a couple of other cases the justices took up including a dispute over the Clean Water Act.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2022 23:45:30 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Can Harvard Save Affirmative Action?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Harvard admissions case taken up by the Supreme Court could see the court's conservative majority overrule more than 40 years of precedent by ending affirmative action in higher education. Can America's preeminent school save its race-conscious admissions process? On this week’s episode of The Term we’re breaking down the blockbuster case with Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani, plus giving some updates on a couple of other cases the justices took up including a dispute over the Clean Water Act.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Harvard admissions case taken up by the Supreme Court could see the court's conservative majority overrule more than 40 years of precedent by ending affirmative action in higher education. Can America's preeminent school save its race-conscious admissions process? On this week’s episode of The Term we’re breaking down the blockbuster case with Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani, plus giving some updates on a couple of other cases the justices took up including a dispute over the Clean Water Act.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1342</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[0a4693d0-854b-11ec-9fdb-7347c37871e1]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2784820559.mp3?updated=1643932271" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E14: Breyer's Legacy And The Nomination To Come</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Justice Stephen Breyer on Thursday formally announced he would be retiring at the end of the Supreme Court term. On this week’s episode, The Term breaks down the legacy he will leave behind and takes a look at what lays ahead for his potential successor with two special guests.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:10:54 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Breyer's Legacy And The Nomination To Come</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Justice Stephen Breyer on Thursday formally announced he would be retiring at the end of the Supreme Court term. On this week’s episode, The Term breaks down the legacy he will leave behind and takes a look at what lays ahead for his potential successor with two special guests.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Justice Stephen Breyer on Thursday formally announced he would be retiring at the end of the Supreme Court term. On this week’s episode, The Term breaks down the legacy he will leave behind and takes a look at what lays ahead for his potential successor with two special guests.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2292</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[11359b08-7fd5-11ec-8c21-970c8477dfe2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8459564341.mp3?updated=1643331663" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E13: Three First Amendment Fights</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court this week agreed to hear the case of a high school football coach who prayed with students, weighed whether Boston could refuse to fly a Christian-themed flag, and debated Ted Cruz's challenge to campaign finance law. On this week’s episode of The Term, we’re breaking down a big week in First Amendment law.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 23:28:41 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Three First Amendment Fights</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court this week agreed to hear the case of a high school football coach who prayed with students, weighed whether Boston could refuse to fly a Christian-themed flag, and debated Ted Cruz's challenge to campaign finance law. On this week’s episode of The Term, we’re breaking down a big week in First Amendment law.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court this week agreed to hear the case of a high school football coach who prayed with students, weighed whether Boston could refuse to fly a Christian-themed flag, and debated Ted Cruz's challenge to campaign finance law. On this week’s episode of The Term, we’re breaking down a big week in First Amendment law.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1654</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9d5c098e-701a-11ec-a52a-efe17739e3bc]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1694227137.mp3?updated=1642721362" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E12: Justices Scrutinize Biden Admin's Vaccine Rules</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court heard two emergency appeals Friday on whether to allow the Biden administration to impose vaccination or testing requirements on huge swaths of the American workforce. On this week’s episode of The Term, senior employment reporter Vin Gurrieri joins us to discuss the more than 3 hours of oral arguments, how the justices seemed to be leaning, and when we can expect a ruling on this urgent hot button issue.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 23:37:31 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Justices Scrutinize Biden Admin's Vaccine Rules</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court heard two emergency appeals Friday on whether to allow the Biden administration to impose vaccination or testing requirements on huge swaths of the American workforce. On this week’s episode of The Term, senior employment reporter Vin Gurrieri joins us to discuss the more than 3 hours of oral arguments, how the justices seemed to be leaning, and when we can expect a ruling on this urgent hot button issue.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court heard two emergency appeals Friday on whether to allow the Biden administration to impose vaccination or testing requirements on huge swaths of the American workforce. On this week’s episode of The Term, senior employment reporter Vin Gurrieri joins us to discuss the more than 3 hours of oral arguments, how the justices seemed to be leaning, and when we can expect a ruling on this urgent hot button issue.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1495</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[d2d69706-700f-11ec-8da5-77aa7a778eb3]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2414749236.mp3?updated=1641598612" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E11: How’s It Going At The Supreme Court So Far?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>With the year drawing to a close and the justices on break for the holiday, we’re taking the opportunity to look at how the first three months of the Supreme Court term have gone so far. On this week’s episode we welcome guest host and Law360 Pulse reporter Jack Karp, who has been tracking Supreme Court data throughout the term and will give a breakdown of the numbers: Which justices have spoken the most and the least, and just how bad is the gender disparity between advocates? Finally, we end with a look ahead to some of the cases on our radar for 2022.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 00:05:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>How’s It Going At The Supreme Court So Far?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>With the year drawing to a close and the justices on break for the holiday, we’re taking the opportunity to look at how the first three months of the Supreme Court term have gone so far. On this week’s episode we welcome guest host and Law360 Pulse reporter Jack Karp, who has been tracking Supreme Court data throughout the term and will give a breakdown of the numbers: Which justices have spoken the most and the least, and just how bad is the gender disparity between advocates? Finally, we end with a look ahead to some of the cases on our radar for 2022.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>With the year drawing to a close and the justices on break for the holiday, we’re taking the opportunity to look at how the first three months of the Supreme Court term have gone so far. On this week’s episode we welcome guest host and Law360 Pulse reporter Jack Karp, who has been tracking Supreme Court data throughout the term and will give a breakdown of the numbers: Which justices have spoken the most and the least, and just how bad is the gender disparity between advocates? Finally, we end with a look ahead to some of the cases on our radar for 2022.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1444</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ca9b34e4-3cab-11ec-8cb1-63547a90f11b]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2665481385.mp3?updated=1639699303" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E10: A First Amendment Fight Over Maine’s School Subsidies</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>Discrimination or church-state separation? That was the question the Supreme Court justices debated this week in a blockbuster First Amendment case over a Maine private school subsidy program that excludes "sectarian" schools. Law360's The Term dives into the arguments on this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 23:59:44 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>A First Amendment Fight Over Maine’s School Subsidies</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Discrimination or church-state separation? That was the question the Supreme Court justices debated this week in a blockbuster First Amendment case over a Maine private school subsidy program that excludes "sectarian" schools. Law360's The Term dives into the arguments on this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Discrimination or church-state separation? That was the question the Supreme Court justices debated this week in a blockbuster First Amendment case over a Maine private school subsidy program that excludes "sectarian" schools. Law360's The Term dives into the arguments on this week's episode.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1540</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ca7adeec-3cab-11ec-8cb1-1f46aebf4611]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7353022217.mp3?updated=1639094586" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E9: Key Moments From Hearing On Fate Of Roe</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, but how far will the justices go in scaling back abortion rights? Law360's The Term analyzes the key moments from Wednesday's hearing that could decide the fate of Roe v. Wade.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:28:41 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Key Moments From Hearing On Fate Of Roe</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, but how far will the justices go in scaling back abortion rights? Law360's The Term analyzes the key moments from Wednesday's hearing that could decide the fate of Roe v. Wade.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court appears likely to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, but how far will the justices go in scaling back abortion rights? Law360's The Term analyzes the key moments from Wednesday's hearing that could decide the fate of Roe v. Wade.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2127</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ca5a4d1c-3cab-11ec-8cb1-737cf4bcf59e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5566158555.mp3?updated=1638412004" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E8: Michael Dreeben On Arguing 106 Supreme Court Cases</title>
      <description>Arguing before the Supreme Court is considered a privilege to most lawyers—a privilege longtime former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben has had over 100 times. This week on The Term podcast, Dreeben discusses his most memorable moments at the lectern and how he sharpened his advocacy skills.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 23:56:46 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Michael Dreeben On Arguing 106 Supreme Court Cases</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Arguing before the Supreme Court is considered a privilege to most lawyers—a privilege longtime former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben has had over 100 times. This week on The Term podcast, Dreeben discusses his most memorable moments at the lectern and how he sharpened his advocacy skills.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>Arguing before the Supreme Court is considered a privilege to most lawyers—a privilege longtime former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben has had over 100 times. This week on The Term podcast, Dreeben discusses his most memorable moments at the lectern and how he sharpened his advocacy skills.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1716</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ca39da00-3cab-11ec-8cb1-3fcc09199139]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2380137930.mp3?updated=1637279940" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E7: Can The U.S. Gov't Deny Benefits To Puerto Ricans?</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether residents of Puerto Rico should be eligible for federal disability benefits in a case that examines the island's unique status in the eyes of the United States government. On this week's episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 senior reporter Carolina Bolado, who has been tracking this case for years. She talks us through what the justices were asking on Tuesday, and what the case could mean not just for Puerto Rico but for U.S. territories everywhere.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>Can The U.S. Gov't Deny Benefits To Puerto Ricans?</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether residents of Puerto Rico should be eligible for federal disability benefits in a case that examines the island's unique status in the eyes of the United States government. On this week's episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 senior reporter Carolina Bolado, who has been tracking this case for years. She talks us through what the justices were asking on Tuesday, and what the case could mean not just for Puerto Rico but for U.S. territories everywhere.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether residents of Puerto Rico should be eligible for federal disability benefits in a case that examines the island's unique status in the eyes of the United States government. On this week's episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 senior reporter Carolina Bolado, who has been tracking this case for years. She talks us through what the justices were asking on Tuesday, and what the case could mean not just for Puerto Rico but for U.S. territories everywhere.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1852</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ca19898a-3cab-11ec-8cb1-8f8db182f0cc]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5010272767.mp3?updated=1636600744" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E6: The Right To 'Bear Arms' In Public</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court's conservative majority seems likely to strike down New York's century-old restrictions on carrying firearms in public, but it's unclear what limits the court will set to keep guns out of "sensitive" places. Law360's The Term examines this week's blockbuster oral arguments in New York Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, plus a summary of the arguments that took place Monday in a pair of explosive cases over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2021 02:20:31 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Right To 'Bear Arms' In Public</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court's conservative majority seems likely to strike down New York's century-old restrictions on carrying firearms in public, but it's unclear what limits the court will set to keep guns out of "sensitive" places. Law360's The Term examines this week's blockbuster oral arguments in New York Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, plus a summary of the arguments that took place Monday in a pair of explosive cases over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court's conservative majority seems likely to strike down New York's century-old restrictions on carrying firearms in public, but it's unclear what limits the court will set to keep guns out of "sensitive" places. Law360's The Term examines this week's blockbuster oral arguments in New York Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, plus a summary of the arguments that took place Monday in a pair of explosive cases over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1664</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[c9f77278-3cab-11ec-8cb1-a376198134c1]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4689203340.mp3?updated=1636079049" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E5: The Abortion Hearings No One Saw Coming</title>
      <link>https://www.law360.com/theterm</link>
      <description>It was finally the Second Amendment's turn to steal the show at the Supreme Court next week—until the justices caught court watchers by surprise by adding a pair of explosive cases over Texas' 6-week abortion ban to Monday's docket. On this week’s episode of The Term, we discuss what’s behind the last minute maneuvers and break down everything you need to know before the high court hears the landmark abortion rights cases next week.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:20:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:title>The Abortion Hearings No One Saw Coming</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:season>3</itunes:season>
      <itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>It was finally the Second Amendment's turn to steal the show at the Supreme Court next week—until the justices caught court watchers by surprise by adding a pair of explosive cases over Texas' 6-week abortion ban to Monday's docket. On this week’s episode of The Term, we discuss what’s behind the last minute maneuvers and break down everything you need to know before the high court hears the landmark abortion rights cases next week.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[<p>It was finally the Second Amendment's turn to steal the show at the Supreme Court next week—until the justices caught court watchers by surprise by adding a pair of explosive cases over Texas' 6-week abortion ban to Monday's docket. On this week’s episode of The Term, we discuss what’s behind the last minute maneuvers and break down everything you need to know before the high court hears the landmark abortion rights cases next week.</p>]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>865</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[7ad7daec-3699-11ec-8ab2-2f02238320b7]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7750341820.mp3?updated=1635466883" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E4: Why Qualified Immunity Seems Here To Stay</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/397488f3-5c28-4d14-91d6-3937383d7f31/397488f3-5c28-4d14-91d6-3937383d7f31.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court stayed busy this week despite oral arguments, issuing a pair of rulings on Monday that granted qualified immunity to law enforcement officers involved in alleged violations of civil rights. On this week’s episode, we welcome guest Jay Schweikert, an attorney and research fellow with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, to discuss what the rulings mean for the future of the controversial doctrine. Also this week, an update on the latest round of briefs filed at the high court over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban and a deeper dive into why President Joe Biden’s bipartisan commission is at loggerheads over a draft report condemning court-packing proposals.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court stayed busy this week despite oral arguments, issuing a pair of rulings on Monday that granted qualified immunity to law enforcement officers involved in alleged violations of civil rights. On this week’s episode, we welcome guest Jay Schweikert, an attorney and research fellow with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, to discuss what the rulings mean for the future of the controversial doctrine. Also this week, an update on the latest round of briefs filed at the high court over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban and a deeper dive into why President Joe Biden’s bipartisan commission is at loggerheads over a draft report condemning court-packing proposals.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court stayed busy this week despite oral arguments, issuing a pair of rulings on Monday that granted qualified immunity to law enforcement officers involved in alleged violations of civil rights. On this week’s episode, we welcome guest Jay Schweikert, an attorney and research fellow with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, to discuss what the rulings mean for the future of the controversial doctrine. Also this week, an update on the latest round of briefs filed at the high court over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban and a deeper dive into why President Joe Biden’s bipartisan commission is at loggerheads over a draft report condemning court-packing proposals.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1577</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[397488f3-5c28-4d14-91d6-3937383d7f31]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5853921529.mp3?updated=1634861201" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E3: Reinstating The Boston Bomber's Death Sentence</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/d7b0f754-4f2a-48b1-b6c7-2d9903443370/d7b0f754-4f2a-48b1-b6c7-2d9903443370.mp3</link>
      <description>Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to death in 2015 for his role in the deadly Boston Bombings that killed three people and injured nearly 300 others, but last year his sentence was overturned by a First Circuit that found he didn’t receive a fair trial. The case reached the Supreme Court on Wednesday, where the justices grappled with arguments about mitigating evidence and appeared to lean in favor of reinstating his punishment. Law360’s senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani has followed this case for years and joins The Term podcast this week to discuss it.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to death in 2015 for his role in the deadly Boston Bombings that killed three people and injured nearly 300 others, but last year his sentence was overturned by a First Circuit that found he didn’t receive a fair trial. The case reached the Supreme Court on Wednesday, where the justices grappled with arguments about mitigating evidence and appeared to lean in favor of reinstating his punishment. Law360’s senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani has followed this case for years and joins The Term podcast this week to discuss it.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to death in 2015 for his role in the deadly Boston Bombings that killed three people and injured nearly 300 others, but last year his sentence was overturned by a First Circuit that found he didn’t receive a fair trial. The case reached the Supreme Court on Wednesday, where the justices grappled with arguments about mitigating evidence and appeared to lean in favor of reinstating his punishment. Law360’s senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani has followed this case for years and joins The Term podcast this week to discuss it.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1200</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[d7b0f754-4f2a-48b1-b6c7-2d9903443370]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1543079370.mp3?updated=1634256364" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E2: Can The CIA Shield Its War On Terror Partners?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/50c38f62-1fd7-4cf6-aede-91a0f5a79203/50c38f62-1fd7-4cf6-aede-91a0f5a79203.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court capped its first oral arguments of the term with the case of Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee subjected to CIA torture during the War on Terror. Can Zubaydah collect evidence to hold the CIA's alleged Polish collaborators liable? Journalist Spencer Ackerman joins Law360's The Term to break down the case.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court capped its first oral arguments of the term with the case of Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee subjected to CIA torture during the War on Terror. Can Zubaydah collect evidence to hold the CIA's alleged Polish collaborators liable? Journalist Spencer Ackerman joins Law360's The Term to break down the case.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court capped its first oral arguments of the term with the case of Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee subjected to CIA torture during the War on Terror. Can Zubaydah collect evidence to hold the CIA's alleged Polish collaborators liable? Journalist Spencer Ackerman joins Law360's The Term to break down the case.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1816</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[50c38f62-1fd7-4cf6-aede-91a0f5a79203]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5450540761.mp3?updated=1633648014" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S3, E1:  Roe, Guns And Religion Headline Justices’ Return</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/53e678a7-c2ac-47c4-8982-25034dc727b2/53e678a7-c2ac-47c4-8982-25034dc727b2.mp3</link>
      <description>We’re back! With the start of the 2021 SCOTUS term just days away, Law360’s weekly Supreme Court podcast is kicking off its third season by welcoming special guest Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog and Howe on the Court to preview all the blockbuster cases on the docket, from the biggest challenge to Roe v. Wade in 30 years, to a gun rights case that would expand the Second Amendment outside the home, and many more.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>We’re back! With the start of the 2021 SCOTUS term just days away, Law360’s weekly Supreme Court podcast is kicking off its third season by welcoming special guest Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog and Howe on the Court to preview all the blockbuster cases on the docket, from the biggest challenge to Roe v. Wade in 30 years, to a gun rights case that would expand the Second Amendment outside the home, and many more.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        We’re back! With the start of the 2021 SCOTUS term just days away, Law360’s weekly Supreme Court podcast is kicking off its third season by welcoming special guest Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog and Howe on the Court to preview all the blockbuster cases on the docket, from the biggest challenge to Roe v. Wade in 30 years, to a gun rights case that would expand the Second Amendment outside the home, and many more. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1897</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[53e678a7-c2ac-47c4-8982-25034dc727b2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5676374710.mp3?updated=1633111213" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E38 Term Finale: A 'Kumbaya Court'? Not So Fast</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/4880d279-18e7-4b58-8297-e8558f49e41a/4880d279-18e7-4b58-8297-e8558f49e41a.mp3</link>
      <description>An uptick in unanimous decisions caught U.S. Supreme Court watchers off-guard this term, but simmering beneath the surface are stark differences among the justices on the direction of the court. We’re talking big takeaways and wrapping up the term this week with the help of Law360 data editor Jackie Bell, who will break down the numbers behind the cases -- including who’s the new “Mr. Majority.”</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>An uptick in unanimous decisions caught U.S. Supreme Court watchers off-guard this term, but simmering beneath the surface are stark differences among the justices on the direction of the court. We’re talking big takeaways and wrapping up the term this week with the help of Law360 data editor Jackie Bell, who will break down the numbers behind the cases -- including who’s the new “Mr. Majority.”</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        An uptick in unanimous decisions caught U.S. Supreme Court watchers off-guard this term, but simmering beneath the surface are stark differences among the justices on the direction of the court. We’re talking big takeaways and wrapping up the term this week with the help of Law360 data editor Jackie Bell, who will break down the numbers behind the cases -- including who’s the new “Mr. Majority.”
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1618</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4880d279-18e7-4b58-8297-e8558f49e41a]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2099264708.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E37: What’s Left Of The Voting Rights Act?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/3fb080d1-0c5c-488d-8282-f2b54739a372/3fb080d1-0c5c-488d-8282-f2b54739a372.mp3</link>
      <description>Eight years after its Shelby County decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has once again blunted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act over the outraged dissents of the liberal minority. This week, the hosts explore the consequences of Brnovich v. DNC and other high court action on the final day of the October 2020 term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Eight years after its Shelby County decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has once again blunted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act over the outraged dissents of the liberal minority. This week, the hosts explore the consequences of Brnovich v. DNC and other high court action on the final day of the October 2020 term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Eight years after its Shelby County decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has once again blunted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act over the outraged dissents of the liberal minority. This week, the hosts explore the consequences of Brnovich v. DNC and other high court action on the final day of the October 2020 term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1347</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[3fb080d1-0c5c-488d-8282-f2b54739a372]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6747986275.mp3?updated=1633111213" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E36: Inside The ACLU's Student Speech Victory</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/ed948067-d22b-4b75-a8dc-5920d2e73d28/ed948067-d22b-4b75-a8dc-5920d2e73d28.mp3</link>
      <description>When a high school cheerleader posted a profane Snapchat three years ago, she could hardly have known the episode would give rise to the biggest Supreme Court ruling on student free speech rights in half a century. This week, The Term talks to the ACLU’s David Cole, who argued her case, on what the victory means. Also this week, the high court rejects NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation for college athletes, and lands on the side of property rights over organized farm labor in California.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>When a high school cheerleader posted a profane Snapchat three years ago, she could hardly have known the episode would give rise to the biggest Supreme Court ruling on student free speech rights in half a century. This week, The Term talks to the ACLU’s David Cole, who argued her case, on what the victory means. Also this week, the high court rejects NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation for college athletes, and lands on the side of property rights over organized farm labor in California.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        When a high school cheerleader posted a profane Snapchat three years ago, she could hardly have known the episode would give rise to the biggest Supreme Court ruling on student free speech rights in half a century. This week, The Term talks to the ACLU’s David Cole, who argued her case, on what the victory means. Also this week, the high court rejects NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation for college athletes, and lands on the side of property rights over organized farm labor in California.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1594</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ed948067-d22b-4b75-a8dc-5920d2e73d28]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6938270248.mp3?updated=1633111213" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E35: ACA Lives, Foster Agency Wins In Blockbuster Day</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/8c8329a4-2849-4695-9b14-12ec0701deb4/8c8329a4-2849-4695-9b14-12ec0701deb4.mp3</link>
      <description>On this week’s episode of The Term, we break down all the blockbuster decisions handed down Thursday by the Supreme Court, where the Affordable Care Act survived another GOP challenge, Nestle and Cargill defeated claims of aiding child slavery on cocoa farms and the court sided with a Catholic foster agency with a policy of refusing to certify same-sex parents.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>On this week’s episode of The Term, we break down all the blockbuster decisions handed down Thursday by the Supreme Court, where the Affordable Care Act survived another GOP challenge, Nestle and Cargill defeated claims of aiding child slavery on cocoa farms and the court sided with a Catholic foster agency with a policy of refusing to certify same-sex parents.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        On this week’s episode of The Term, we break down all the blockbuster decisions handed down Thursday by the Supreme Court, where the Affordable Care Act survived another GOP challenge, Nestle and Cargill defeated claims of aiding child slavery on cocoa farms and the court sided with a Catholic foster agency with a policy of refusing to certify same-sex parents.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1595</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[8c8329a4-2849-4695-9b14-12ec0701deb4]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4648256141.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E34: No Green Cards After Unlawful Entry</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/35445971-de85-4766-b04f-ca7df2f0a037/35445971-de85-4766-b04f-ca7df2f0a037.mp3</link>
      <description>The Term team is still waiting for a flood of opinions expected to drop by the end of the month, but that doesn’t mean we had a slow week at the high court. This week we discuss a new case taken up over government surveillance, an unsuccessful challenge to the male-only draft and a major immigration ruling dashing the hopes of many immigrants with "temporary protected status" of obtaining green cards.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Term team is still waiting for a flood of opinions expected to drop by the end of the month, but that doesn’t mean we had a slow week at the high court. This week we discuss a new case taken up over government surveillance, an unsuccessful challenge to the male-only draft and a major immigration ruling dashing the hopes of many immigrants with "temporary protected status" of obtaining green cards.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Term team is still waiting for a flood of opinions expected to drop by the end of the month, but that doesn’t mean we had a slow week at the high court. This week we discuss a new case taken up over government surveillance, an unsuccessful challenge to the male-only draft and a major immigration ruling dashing the hopes of many immigrants with "temporary protected status" of obtaining green cards. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>761</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[35445971-de85-4766-b04f-ca7df2f0a037]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7030152633.mp3?updated=1633111213" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E33: Computer Misuse Is Not A Federal Crime</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/ae57e0fc-135c-4a74-9339-17858f7d1b8f/ae57e0fc-135c-4a74-9339-17858f7d1b8f.mp3</link>
      <description>A cop who took $5,000 to look up a stripper's license plate information may have broken department protocol and the public trust, but he did not violate federal computer crime law, according to a majority opinion handed down by the Supreme Court on Thursday. On this week’s episode of The Term we explore the closely-watched ruling, plus look at a corporate giant’s failed bid to escape a $2.1 billion product liability judgment.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>A cop who took $5,000 to look up a stripper's license plate information may have broken department protocol and the public trust, but he did not violate federal computer crime law, according to a majority opinion handed down by the Supreme Court on Thursday. On this week’s episode of The Term we explore the closely-watched ruling, plus look at a corporate giant’s failed bid to escape a $2.1 billion product liability judgment.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        A cop who took $5,000 to look up a stripper's license plate information may have broken department protocol and the public trust, but he did not violate federal computer crime law, according to a majority opinion handed down by the Supreme Court on Thursday. On this week’s episode of The Term we explore the closely-watched ruling, plus look at a corporate giant’s failed bid to escape a $2.1 billion product liability judgment.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1075</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ae57e0fc-135c-4a74-9339-17858f7d1b8f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5703363533.mp3?updated=1633111213" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E32: Supreme Court Denies Execution By Firing Squad</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/b13f4e02-1de7-49ff-a285-48b6817ed7a8/b13f4e02-1de7-49ff-a285-48b6817ed7a8.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court handed down rulings affecting immigrants, Superfund pollution sites and more this week as it works to clear its docket of argued cases before summer recess. Law360's The Term recaps all the latest developments, including a prisoner's failed attempt to be executed by firing squad rather than lethal injection that he says will cause severe pain.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court handed down rulings affecting immigrants, Superfund pollution sites and more this week as it works to clear its docket of argued cases before summer recess. Law360's The Term recaps all the latest developments, including a prisoner's failed attempt to be executed by firing squad rather than lethal injection that he says will cause severe pain.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court handed down rulings affecting immigrants, Superfund pollution sites and more this week as it works to clear its docket of argued cases before summer recess. Law360's The Term recaps all the latest developments, including a prisoner's failed attempt to be executed by firing squad rather than lethal injection that he says will cause severe pain.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1145</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[b13f4e02-1de7-49ff-a285-48b6817ed7a8]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2228236144.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E31: The Case That Will Revisit Roe v. Wade</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/74066c14-7305-4bc4-89d7-cea9c24f2f27/74066c14-7305-4bc4-89d7-cea9c24f2f27.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court took an extraordinary step this week when it agreed to hear a closely watched abortion case that many observers speculate could mean the end of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that has protected abortion rights for half a century. On this week’s episode of The Term, we unpack how the case landed on court’s docket and which justices are the most likely targets of advocates when this blockbuster case is argued next year. Also this week: An opinion from Monday that limited the reach of last term’s ruling that convictions by non-unanimous juries are unconstitutional; and a breakdown of some interesting data from the most recent oral argument season.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court took an extraordinary step this week when it agreed to hear a closely watched abortion case that many observers speculate could mean the end of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that has protected abortion rights for half a century. On this week’s episode of The Term, we unpack how the case landed on court’s docket and which justices are the most likely targets of advocates when this blockbuster case is argued next year. Also this week: An opinion from Monday that limited the reach of last term’s ruling that convictions by non-unanimous juries are unconstitutional; and a breakdown of some interesting data from the most recent oral argument season.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court took an extraordinary step this week when it agreed to hear a closely watched abortion case that many observers speculate could mean the end of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that has protected abortion rights for half a century. On this week’s episode of The Term, we unpack how the case landed on court’s docket and which justices are the most likely targets of advocates when this blockbuster case is argued next year. Also this week: An opinion from Monday that limited the reach of last term’s ruling that convictions by non-unanimous juries are unconstitutional; and a breakdown of some interesting data from the most recent oral argument season.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1256</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[74066c14-7305-4bc4-89d7-cea9c24f2f27]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9099880952.mp3?updated=1633111213" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E30: A Conversation About Race And The Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/0fcedca2-1a48-4087-a3f4-18e2e504eaa5/0fcedca2-1a48-4087-a3f4-18e2e504eaa5.mp3</link>
      <description>In light of a slow news week at the Supreme Court, we take the opportunity on this week’s episode of The Term to welcome guests Vernon Burton and Armand Derfner, the co-authors of a forthcoming book examining the high court’s long, fraught history with race, from the first days of the Republic to the modern day Roberts Court.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In light of a slow news week at the Supreme Court, we take the opportunity on this week’s episode of The Term to welcome guests Vernon Burton and Armand Derfner, the co-authors of a forthcoming book examining the high court’s long, fraught history with race, from the first days of the Republic to the modern day Roberts Court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In light of a slow news week at the Supreme Court, we take the opportunity on this week’s episode of The Term to welcome guests Vernon Burton and Armand Derfner, the co-authors of a forthcoming book examining the high court’s long, fraught history with race, from the first days of the Republic to the modern day Roberts Court.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1786</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[0fcedca2-1a48-4087-a3f4-18e2e504eaa5]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5436027194.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E29: Goodbye Arguments, Opinion Season Is Upon Us</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/26816880-8c97-499c-b9b5-3a3d7122cbbc/26816880-8c97-499c-b9b5-3a3d7122cbbc.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court heard its final oral argument of the term this week in a criminal case involving sentencing relief for crack offenders that saw some tough questions for the Biden administration. Law360's The Term dives into the case, then looks ahead to some of the biggest decisions that are expected to come by the end of June.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court heard its final oral argument of the term this week in a criminal case involving sentencing relief for crack offenders that saw some tough questions for the Biden administration. Law360's The Term dives into the case, then looks ahead to some of the biggest decisions that are expected to come by the end of June.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court heard its final oral argument of the term this week in a criminal case involving sentencing relief for crack offenders that saw some tough questions for the Biden administration. Law360's The Term dives into the case, then looks ahead to some of the biggest decisions that are expected to come by the end of June.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1003</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[26816880-8c97-499c-b9b5-3a3d7122cbbc]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8737585527.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E28: Justices Stumped By Cheerleader's Angry Snapchat</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/1ea093d2-4da1-4059-a9c5-0886847e94e2/1ea093d2-4da1-4059-a9c5-0886847e94e2.mp3</link>
      <description>The case of a high school cheerleader whose profanity-laced Snapchat led to a suspension landed in front of the Supreme Court this week, where the justices struggled to balance punishment for disruptive online speech while avoiding all-out censorship and student expression. On this week’s episode of The Term we break down the oral argument, as well as a potential landmark gun rights case the high court added to its docket, and a “textualist showdown” that played out in an opinion handed down on Thursday involving federal immigration law.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The case of a high school cheerleader whose profanity-laced Snapchat led to a suspension landed in front of the Supreme Court this week, where the justices struggled to balance punishment for disruptive online speech while avoiding all-out censorship and student expression. On this week’s episode of The Term we break down the oral argument, as well as a potential landmark gun rights case the high court added to its docket, and a “textualist showdown” that played out in an opinion handed down on Thursday involving federal immigration law.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The case of a high school cheerleader whose profanity-laced Snapchat led to a suspension landed in front of the Supreme Court this week, where the justices struggled to balance punishment for disruptive online speech while avoiding all-out censorship and student expression. On this week’s episode of The Term we break down the oral argument, as well as a potential landmark gun rights case the high court added to its docket, and a “textualist showdown” that played out in an opinion handed down on Thursday involving federal immigration law.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1219</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[1ea093d2-4da1-4059-a9c5-0886847e94e2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2398673032.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E27: Justices Dismantle FTC's Billion-Dollar Weapon</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/671ca4b9-1565-4d86-9614-2beed6be27b8/671ca4b9-1565-4d86-9614-2beed6be27b8.mp3</link>
      <description>With the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court on Thursday nixed a legal strategy that the Federal Trade Commission used for many years to return billions of dollars to consumers. Law360's The Term breaks down the ruling—along with a big defeat for juvenile justice reformers and Justice Amy Coney Barrett's eye-popping book deal.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>With the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court on Thursday nixed a legal strategy that the Federal Trade Commission used for many years to return billions of dollars to consumers. Law360's The Term breaks down the ruling—along with a big defeat for juvenile justice reformers and Justice Amy Coney Barrett's eye-popping book deal.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        With the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court on Thursday nixed a legal strategy that the Federal Trade Commission used for many years to return billions of dollars to consumers. Law360's The Term breaks down the ruling—along with a big defeat for juvenile justice reformers and Justice Amy Coney Barrett's eye-popping book deal.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1186</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[671ca4b9-1565-4d86-9614-2beed6be27b8]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7567456269.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E26: Will These Supreme Court 'Reforms' Go Anywhere?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/ad8b00a1-2d00-4f3e-944f-33e0aa1f2547/ad8b00a1-2d00-4f3e-944f-33e0aa1f2547.mp3</link>
      <description>Long a political non-starter, the idea of "court-packing" is now dominating Washington as Democrats in Congress push legislation to add four seats to the Supreme Court and a presidential commission studies the broader issue of court reform. Will these latest efforts go anywhere? Law360's The Term discusses on this week's episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Long a political non-starter, the idea of "court-packing" is now dominating Washington as Democrats in Congress push legislation to add four seats to the Supreme Court and a presidential commission studies the broader issue of court reform. Will these latest efforts go anywhere? Law360's The Term discusses on this week's episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Long a political non-starter, the idea of "court-packing" is now dominating Washington as Democrats in Congress push legislation to add four seats to the Supreme Court and a presidential commission studies the broader issue of court reform. Will these latest efforts go anywhere? Law360's The Term discusses on this week's episode.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1317</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ad8b00a1-2d00-4f3e-944f-33e0aa1f2547]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4937854127.mp3?updated=1633111214" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E25: How Google Beat Oracle After 10-Year Lawsuit</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/cb562888-daad-4b8a-9fcb-9e61bde1c6b9/cb562888-daad-4b8a-9fcb-9e61bde1c6b9.mp3</link>
      <description>After a decade of litigation, Google has finally defeated a lawsuit from Oracle over the chunks of computer code Google used to develop the Android smartphone platform. This week, The Term welcomes Law360 senior intellectual property reporter Bill Donahue to explain the Supreme Court's ruling in the tech battle—plus we also look at one justice's foray into the discourse of regulating Big Tech.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>After a decade of litigation, Google has finally defeated a lawsuit from Oracle over the chunks of computer code Google used to develop the Android smartphone platform. This week, The Term welcomes Law360 senior intellectual property reporter Bill Donahue to explain the Supreme Court's ruling in the tech battle—plus we also look at one justice's foray into the discourse of regulating Big Tech.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        After a decade of litigation, Google has finally defeated a lawsuit from Oracle over the chunks of computer code Google used to develop the Android smartphone platform. This week, The Term welcomes Law360 senior intellectual property reporter Bill Donahue to explain the Supreme Court's ruling in the tech battle—plus we also look at one justice's foray into the discourse of regulating Big Tech.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1294</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[cb562888-daad-4b8a-9fcb-9e61bde1c6b9]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1742168043.mp3?updated=1633111215" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E24: NCAA Struggles To Make Case Against Athlete Pay</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/bdc4c7fc-3c64-4f71-91e1-84c26bd9f0d6/bdc4c7fc-3c64-4f71-91e1-84c26bd9f0d6.mp3</link>
      <description>The spirit of spring has the justices cleaning out their docket this week with decisions on Florida's oyster fisheries, Facebook's class action liability and long-lived media ownership limits. The Term breaks down all the action, plus we take a deep dive into the NCAA's very bad day at the high court over its "amateurism" rules with Law360 senior sports reporter Zach Zagger.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The spirit of spring has the justices cleaning out their docket this week with decisions on Florida's oyster fisheries, Facebook's class action liability and long-lived media ownership limits. The Term breaks down all the action, plus we take a deep dive into the NCAA's very bad day at the high court over its "amateurism" rules with Law360 senior sports reporter Zach Zagger.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The spirit of spring has the justices cleaning out their docket this week with decisions on Florida's oyster fisheries, Facebook's class action liability and long-lived media ownership limits. The Term breaks down all the action, plus we take a deep dive into the NCAA's very bad day at the high court over its "amateurism" rules with Law360 senior sports reporter Zach Zagger.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1572</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[bdc4c7fc-3c64-4f71-91e1-84c26bd9f0d6]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5891630532.mp3?updated=1633111215" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E23: Roberts, Gorsuch Spar Over 4th Amendment</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/77563159-1089-4255-9b65-785f7cdc681f/77563159-1089-4255-9b65-785f7cdc681f.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court delivered a rare victory for civil rights plaintiffs this week in a case over a police shooting that divided the court's conservative justices. Law360's The Term explores the contentious Fourth Amendment ruling, plus a look at the Boston bomber's death penalty case now facing the court.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court delivered a rare victory for civil rights plaintiffs this week in a case over a police shooting that divided the court's conservative justices. Law360's The Term explores the contentious Fourth Amendment ruling, plus a look at the Boston bomber's death penalty case now facing the court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court delivered a rare victory for civil rights plaintiffs this week in a case over a police shooting that divided the court's conservative justices. Law360's The Term explores the contentious Fourth Amendment ruling, plus a look at the Boston bomber's death penalty case now facing the court.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1089</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[77563159-1089-4255-9b65-785f7cdc681f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7012590287.mp3?updated=1633111215" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E22: The Breyer Retirement Debate Heats Up</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/64fb5c54-74aa-47e6-b280-a61f6ce5da57/64fb5c54-74aa-47e6-b280-a61f6ce5da57.mp3</link>
      <description>Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has found himself under the political spotlight recently with liberals calling on the 82-year-old to retire to avoid a repeat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement by a conservative. On this week’s episode of The Term we break down the debate, plus unpack a more lenient stance by the Biden administration on sentence reductions for those serving time in prison for low-level crack offenses.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has found himself under the political spotlight recently with liberals calling on the 82-year-old to retire to avoid a repeat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement by a conservative. On this week’s episode of The Term we break down the debate, plus unpack a more lenient stance by the Biden administration on sentence reductions for those serving time in prison for low-level crack offenses.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has found himself under the political spotlight recently with liberals calling on the 82-year-old to retire to avoid a repeat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement by a conservative. On this week’s episode of The Term we break down the debate, plus unpack a more lenient stance by the Biden administration on sentence reductions for those serving time in prison for low-level crack offenses.  
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>954</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[64fb5c54-74aa-47e6-b280-a61f6ce5da57]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1500205977.mp3?updated=1633111215" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E21: Outnumbered 8 To 1, Roberts Sticks To Guns</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/6c08ffc2-48f4-45ac-ad8e-7198b59780e5/6c08ffc2-48f4-45ac-ad8e-7198b59780e5.mp3</link>
      <description>It was a matter of standing doctrine, of all things, that spurred the first "solo dissent" of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court career this week. Law360's The Term discusses why that shouldn't come as a surprise—and what lawmakers are saying about "dark money" at the high court.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>It was a matter of standing doctrine, of all things, that spurred the first "solo dissent" of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court career this week. Law360's The Term discusses why that shouldn't come as a surprise—and what lawmakers are saying about "dark money" at the high court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        It was a matter of standing doctrine, of all things, that spurred the first "solo dissent" of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court career this week. Law360's The Term discusses why that shouldn't come as a surprise—and what lawmakers are saying about "dark money" at the high court.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1004</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[6c08ffc2-48f4-45ac-ad8e-7198b59780e5]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5088189770.mp3?updated=1633111215" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E20: Patent Owner Turns Tables On PTAB</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/30df79f2-87d9-4b5f-85b0-94f8489fe976/30df79f2-87d9-4b5f-85b0-94f8489fe976.mp3</link>
      <description>After years of patents being thrown out by the controversial Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one patent owner asked the Supreme Court Monday to return the favor and declare the board itself invalid. Law360's The Term recaps the hearing, along with a crucial moment for the Voting Rights Act.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>After years of patents being thrown out by the controversial Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one patent owner asked the Supreme Court Monday to return the favor and declare the board itself invalid. Law360's The Term recaps the hearing, along with a crucial moment for the Voting Rights Act.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        After years of patents being thrown out by the controversial Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one patent owner asked the Supreme Court Monday to return the favor and declare the board itself invalid. Law360's The Term recaps the hearing, along with a crucial moment for the Voting Rights Act.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1372</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[30df79f2-87d9-4b5f-85b0-94f8489fe976]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1373293776.mp3?updated=1633111215" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E19: Will Court's Latest Cases Be Moot?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/18f35ac8-e4a2-41a8-b810-12269c7f3806/18f35ac8-e4a2-41a8-b810-12269c7f3806.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court swept away the last of the election cases and a Trump subpoena battle this week, so why did it take up two new challenges to Trump-era abortion and immigration policies that could very well be rescinded and rendered moot by President Joe Biden before they're argued? We’re breaking it down on this week’s episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court swept away the last of the election cases and a Trump subpoena battle this week, so why did it take up two new challenges to Trump-era abortion and immigration policies that could very well be rescinded and rendered moot by President Joe Biden before they're argued? We’re breaking it down on this week’s episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court swept away the last of the election cases and a Trump subpoena battle this week, so why did it take up two new challenges to Trump-era abortion and immigration policies that could very well be rescinded and rendered moot by President Joe Biden before they're argued? We’re breaking it down on this week’s episode of The Term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>848</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[18f35ac8-e4a2-41a8-b810-12269c7f3806]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8604118681.mp3?updated=1633111216" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E18: Lurking In The Shadow (Docket)</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/3a877f79-2480-454f-b569-192e62970865/3a877f79-2480-454f-b569-192e62970865.mp3</link>
      <description>The past week saw Congress' first-ever hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, the justices' late-night, unsigned orders on weighty legal questions that don't go through their normal process of public deliberation. On this week’s episode of The Term we unpack a few recent shadow docket rulings and recap some of the notable moments from the hearing, including criticisms that the process lacks transparency and leads to lower court confusion.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The past week saw Congress' first-ever hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, the justices' late-night, unsigned orders on weighty legal questions that don't go through their normal process of public deliberation. On this week’s episode of The Term we unpack a few recent shadow docket rulings and recap some of the notable moments from the hearing, including criticisms that the process lacks transparency and leads to lower court confusion.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The past week saw Congress' first-ever hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, the justices' late-night, unsigned orders on weighty legal questions that don't go through their normal process of public deliberation. On this week’s episode of The Term we unpack a few recent shadow docket rulings and recap some of the notable moments from the hearing, including criticisms that the process lacks transparency and leads to lower court confusion.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1011</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[3a877f79-2480-454f-b569-192e62970865]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8512741993.mp3?updated=1633111216" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E17: Treasure Hunting In The Petition Pile</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/e385d15d-0678-4e6d-8a1a-00ce9a5b5f1b/e385d15d-0678-4e6d-8a1a-00ce9a5b5f1b.mp3</link>
      <description>As the Supreme Court prepares for its next session, Law360's The Term catches up on some noteworthy petitions that the justices appear to be interested in, from a direct attack on Roe v. Wade to the right of U.S. presidents to create offshore national monuments. We also recap a couple of important developments from the past week, including the Biden administration’s change of position in the Affordable Care Act case.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>As the Supreme Court prepares for its next session, Law360's The Term catches up on some noteworthy petitions that the justices appear to be interested in, from a direct attack on Roe v. Wade to the right of U.S. presidents to create offshore national monuments. We also recap a couple of important developments from the past week, including the Biden administration’s change of position in the Affordable Care Act case.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        As the Supreme Court prepares for its next session, Law360's The Term catches up on some noteworthy petitions that the justices appear to be interested in, from a direct attack on Roe v. Wade to the right of U.S. presidents to create offshore national monuments. We also recap a couple of important developments from the past week, including the Biden administration’s change of position in the Affordable Care Act case.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1490</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[e385d15d-0678-4e6d-8a1a-00ce9a5b5f1b]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3844287118.mp3?updated=1633111216" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E16: The 5-4 Lineup You Weren't Expecting</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/f668f856-8a5d-4e38-8a42-594744be87e1/f668f856-8a5d-4e38-8a42-594744be87e1.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court may still be on break, but a bustle of activity in the border wall, "Remain-in-Mexico" and Nazi art theft cases gives The Term podcast team a lot to discuss this week. We dive into the latest high court news on this week’s episode, plus look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first dissent in a surprising 5-4 lineup.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court may still be on break, but a bustle of activity in the border wall, "Remain-in-Mexico" and Nazi art theft cases gives The Term podcast team a lot to discuss this week. We dive into the latest high court news on this week’s episode, plus look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first dissent in a surprising 5-4 lineup.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court may still be on break, but a bustle of activity in the border wall, "Remain-in-Mexico" and Nazi art theft cases gives The Term podcast team a lot to discuss this week. We dive into the latest high court news on this week’s episode, plus look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first dissent in a surprising 5-4 lineup.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1121</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[f668f856-8a5d-4e38-8a42-594744be87e1]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5662057864.mp3?updated=1633111216" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E15: High Court Housekeeping</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/604f6755-0524-44e6-bb99-b1de88efd9d1/604f6755-0524-44e6-bb99-b1de88efd9d1.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court took a break from oral arguments this week and cleared a number of cases from its docket, including an emoluments dispute brought against former President Trump. The court also declined to take up a number of new challenges, including an appeal from disgraced former New York Assemblyman Sheldon Silver and a revisiting of the landmark Janus case. We talk you through the high court’s week of housekeeping on this episode of the Term, plus discuss Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to stay on the sidelines during the upcoming impeachment trial.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court took a break from oral arguments this week and cleared a number of cases from its docket, including an emoluments dispute brought against former President Trump. The court also declined to take up a number of new challenges, including an appeal from disgraced former New York Assemblyman Sheldon Silver and a revisiting of the landmark Janus case. We talk you through the high court’s week of housekeeping on this episode of the Term, plus discuss Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to stay on the sidelines during the upcoming impeachment trial.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court took a break from oral arguments this week and cleared a number of cases from its docket, including an emoluments dispute brought against former President Trump. The court also declined to take up a number of new challenges, including an appeal from disgraced former New York Assemblyman Sheldon Silver and a revisiting of the landmark Janus case. We talk you through the high court’s week of housekeeping on this episode of the Term, plus discuss Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to stay on the sidelines during the upcoming impeachment trial. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>974</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[604f6755-0524-44e6-bb99-b1de88efd9d1]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9720224381.mp3?updated=1633111216" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E14: The Future Of Climate Change Lawsuits</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/4c85b205-23c2-4360-8aaa-8529bffecb29/4c85b205-23c2-4360-8aaa-8529bffecb29.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court wrestled with regulations on media ownership and a procedural question about climate change litigation during a busy week that also saw two justices play central roles in Wednesday's inauguration. And with the start of the Biden administration came the naming of a new acting solicitor general who is no stranger to the high court. We’re catching you up on this week’s episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court wrestled with regulations on media ownership and a procedural question about climate change litigation during a busy week that also saw two justices play central roles in Wednesday's inauguration. And with the start of the Biden administration came the naming of a new acting solicitor general who is no stranger to the high court. We’re catching you up on this week’s episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court wrestled with regulations on media ownership and a procedural question about climate change litigation during a busy week that also saw two justices play central roles in Wednesday's inauguration. And with the start of the Biden administration came the naming of a new acting solicitor general who is no stranger to the high court. We’re catching you up on this week’s episode of The Term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1177</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4c85b205-23c2-4360-8aaa-8529bffecb29]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9244278126.mp3?updated=1633111217" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E13: In The Thick Of It</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/423ed2d2-d1d3-477c-8772-82f959d64bcd/423ed2d2-d1d3-477c-8772-82f959d64bcd.mp3</link>
      <description>With the justices starting to receive their COVID-19 vaccinations, the Supreme Court is off and running in 2021, weighing in on abortion rules, the power of regulators and even Taylor Swift. In this episode of The Term, we press rewind on busy week of oral arguments; break down a ruling from Tuesday night reinstating rules requiring patients to travel to clinics to obtain abortion-inducing medication despite the ongoing pandemic; and look ahead at a novel First Amendment case recently added to the docket that challenges a California requiring charitable organizations to disclose their donors.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>With the justices starting to receive their COVID-19 vaccinations, the Supreme Court is off and running in 2021, weighing in on abortion rules, the power of regulators and even Taylor Swift. In this episode of The Term, we press rewind on busy week of oral arguments; break down a ruling from Tuesday night reinstating rules requiring patients to travel to clinics to obtain abortion-inducing medication despite the ongoing pandemic; and look ahead at a novel First Amendment case recently added to the docket that challenges a California requiring charitable organizations to disclose their donors.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        With the justices starting to receive their COVID-19 vaccinations, the Supreme Court is off and running in 2021, weighing in on abortion rules, the power of regulators and even Taylor Swift. In this episode of The Term, we press rewind on busy week of oral arguments; break down a ruling from Tuesday night reinstating rules requiring patients to travel to clinics to obtain abortion-inducing medication despite the ongoing pandemic; and look ahead at a novel First Amendment case recently added to the docket that challenges a California requiring charitable organizations to disclose their donors.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1378</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[423ed2d2-d1d3-477c-8772-82f959d64bcd]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9201999152.mp3?updated=1633111217" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E12: The Biden Era Begins</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/2849e0b6-a43d-44d8-b510-ebc5fdd5a4a2/2849e0b6-a43d-44d8-b510-ebc5fdd5a4a2.mp3</link>
      <description>With just a few weeks left before the inauguration of a new president and the clock running out at the Supreme Court in several Trump cases, the Term this week is breaking down what to expect from the justices during the Biden administration; whether a conservative majority can frustrate the president-elect’s progressive plans; and what Biden can achieve now that Democrats control both chambers of Congress, including a potential new justice appointment.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>With just a few weeks left before the inauguration of a new president and the clock running out at the Supreme Court in several Trump cases, the Term this week is breaking down what to expect from the justices during the Biden administration; whether a conservative majority can frustrate the president-elect’s progressive plans; and what Biden can achieve now that Democrats control both chambers of Congress, including a potential new justice appointment.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        With just a few weeks left before the inauguration of a new president and the clock running out at the Supreme Court in several Trump cases, the Term this week is breaking down what to expect from the justices during the Biden administration; whether a conservative majority can frustrate the president-elect’s progressive plans; and what Biden can achieve now that Democrats control both chambers of Congress, including a potential new justice appointment.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1213</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[2849e0b6-a43d-44d8-b510-ebc5fdd5a4a2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6069416078.mp3?updated=1633111217" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E11: The End Of The Trump Era</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/8f47503b-0e5c-4828-bf9d-766552541d90/8f47503b-0e5c-4828-bf9d-766552541d90.mp3</link>
      <description>President Donald Trump's tumultuous relationship with the Supreme Court is coming to an end after four years of blockbuster cases, angry tweets and three lifetime appointments. Law360's The Term looks back on the norm-shattering Trump era with law professor Stephen Vladeck.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>President Donald Trump's tumultuous relationship with the Supreme Court is coming to an end after four years of blockbuster cases, angry tweets and three lifetime appointments. Law360's The Term looks back on the norm-shattering Trump era with law professor Stephen Vladeck.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        President Donald Trump's tumultuous relationship with the Supreme Court is coming to an end after four years of blockbuster cases, angry tweets and three lifetime appointments. Law360's The Term looks back on the norm-shattering Trump era with law professor Stephen Vladeck.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1426</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[8f47503b-0e5c-4828-bf9d-766552541d90]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2226687426.mp3?updated=1633111217" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E10: The Push To Overturn The Election</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/9c1ade92-c69a-4243-b479-79a680b8952d/9c1ade92-c69a-4243-b479-79a680b8952d.mp3</link>
      <description>The first opinions of the Supreme Court session are here and Law360's The Term is breaking them down, from a nerdy foray into Delaware's court-system to a groundbreaking religious freedom ruling. Plus, the team scrutinizes an election case the president seems to think will hand him a second term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The first opinions of the Supreme Court session are here and Law360's The Term is breaking them down, from a nerdy foray into Delaware's court-system to a groundbreaking religious freedom ruling. Plus, the team scrutinizes an election case the president seems to think will hand him a second term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The first opinions of the Supreme Court session are here and Law360's The Term is breaking them down, from a nerdy foray into Delaware's court-system to a groundbreaking religious freedom ruling. Plus, the team scrutinizes an election case the president seems to think will hand him a second term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>999</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9c1ade92-c69a-4243-b479-79a680b8952d]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9671256037.mp3?updated=1633111218" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E9: Suing Candy Makers For Child Slavery</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/5eefdc1b-f1c2-496f-bf9d-0ae120b8acbe/5eefdc1b-f1c2-496f-bf9d-0ae120b8acbe.mp3</link>
      <description>This week, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed whether Nestlé and Cargill can be held liable for supporting child slavery on African cocao farms, and heard another census case with big implications for congressional power. We’re breaking it all down on this week’s episode of The Term, plus ending with some highlights from a recent appearance by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the Red Table Talk talk show hosted by Gloria Estefan.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed whether Nestlé and Cargill can be held liable for supporting child slavery on African cocao farms, and heard another census case with big implications for congressional power. We’re breaking it all down on this week’s episode of The Term, plus ending with some highlights from a recent appearance by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the Red Table Talk talk show hosted by Gloria Estefan.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        This week, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed whether Nestlé and Cargill can be held liable for supporting child slavery on African cocao farms, and heard another census case with big implications for congressional power. We’re breaking it all down on this week’s episode of The Term, plus ending with some highlights from a recent appearance by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the Red Table Talk talk show hosted by Gloria Estefan.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1473</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[5eefdc1b-f1c2-496f-bf9d-0ae120b8acbe]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7860819700.mp3?updated=1633111218" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E8: What's On Alito's Mind?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/5c082f20-cbb4-4e59-bbb9-1abc3776bd2e/5c082f20-cbb4-4e59-bbb9-1abc3776bd2e.mp3</link>
      <description>"Here it goes," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. began a scorcher of a speech last Thursday that touched on COVID-19 restrictions, religious freedom, abortion and more. On this week's episode of The Term we discuss what stood out from the conservative justice, who is seldom shy about his views. We also examine President-elect Joe Biden’s pick for White House counsel; Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s fiery dissent in a COVID-related petition; and a bid by Congressional Democrats to pause oral arguments in over access to Trump impeachment documents.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>"Here it goes," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. began a scorcher of a speech last Thursday that touched on COVID-19 restrictions, religious freedom, abortion and more. On this week's episode of The Term we discuss what stood out from the conservative justice, who is seldom shy about his views. We also examine President-elect Joe Biden’s pick for White House counsel; Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s fiery dissent in a COVID-related petition; and a bid by Congressional Democrats to pause oral arguments in over access to Trump impeachment documents.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        "Here it goes," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. began a scorcher of a speech last Thursday that touched on COVID-19 restrictions, religious freedom, abortion and more. On this week's episode of The Term we discuss what stood out from the conservative justice, who is seldom shy about his views. We also examine President-elect Joe Biden’s pick for White House counsel; Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s fiery dissent in a COVID-related petition; and a bid by Congressional Democrats to pause oral arguments in over access to Trump impeachment documents.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1132</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[5c082f20-cbb4-4e59-bbb9-1abc3776bd2e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3659820524.mp3?updated=1633111218" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E7: A Good Day For The ACA</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/8da55ed2-709f-4b8c-9b65-6f9c95ad236d/8da55ed2-709f-4b8c-9b65-6f9c95ad236d.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to once again uphold the Affordable Care Act after a hearing on Tuesday. The team breaks down key moments from the arguments, and what the election means for the Supreme Court, in this week's episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to once again uphold the Affordable Care Act after a hearing on Tuesday. The team breaks down key moments from the arguments, and what the election means for the Supreme Court, in this week's episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to once again uphold the Affordable Care Act after a hearing on Tuesday. The team breaks down key moments from the arguments, and what the election means for the Supreme Court, in this week's episode of The Term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1102</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[8da55ed2-709f-4b8c-9b65-6f9c95ad236d]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1660009573.mp3?updated=1633111218" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E6: Catholic Foster Agency Headed For Win</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/671c51b7-46b3-4127-ba57-e9cc10ad7c95/671c51b7-46b3-4127-ba57-e9cc10ad7c95.mp3</link>
      <description>As the country awaited election results this week, the U.S. Supreme Court turned to a landmark First Amendment case involving a Catholic foster care agency that refused to place children with same-sex couples. The team tackles why the agency could be headed for a win in the case, as well as other high court developments on The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>As the country awaited election results this week, the U.S. Supreme Court turned to a landmark First Amendment case involving a Catholic foster care agency that refused to place children with same-sex couples. The team tackles why the agency could be headed for a win in the case, as well as other high court developments on The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        As the country awaited election results this week, the U.S. Supreme Court turned to a landmark First Amendment case involving a Catholic foster care agency that refused to place children with same-sex couples. The team tackles why the agency could be headed for a win in the case, as well as other high court developments on The Term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1162</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[671c51b7-46b3-4127-ba57-e9cc10ad7c95]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5114363676.mp3?updated=1633111218" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E5: Justice Barrett Enters Election Storm</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/601d827b-5592-4a84-892e-ef78a9484e92/601d827b-5592-4a84-892e-ef78a9484e92.mp3</link>
      <description>Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her judicial oath and received her new chambers this week, before finding herself at the center of a hurricane of election litigation where she could play a decisive role. Catch up on the Supreme Court's last-minute election maneuvering with this week’s episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her judicial oath and received her new chambers this week, before finding herself at the center of a hurricane of election litigation where she could play a decisive role. Catch up on the Supreme Court's last-minute election maneuvering with this week’s episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her judicial oath and received her new chambers this week, before finding herself at the center of a hurricane of election litigation where she could play a decisive role. Catch up on the Supreme Court's last-minute election maneuvering with this week’s episode of The Term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1081</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[601d827b-5592-4a84-892e-ef78a9484e92]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5444006615.mp3?updated=1633111218" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E4: Justices Dive Into Election, Immigration Battles</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/3844f51f-1d2c-4500-b6cf-0094e5815141/3844f51f-1d2c-4500-b6cf-0094e5815141.mp3</link>
      <description>It was a whirlwind week of confirmation news and politically-charged election and immigration cases that the justices weighed in on, so we’re breaking it all down on this week’s episode, plus diving into a conversation with a leading appellate advocate on why the Supreme Court needs more female clerks.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>It was a whirlwind week of confirmation news and politically-charged election and immigration cases that the justices weighed in on, so we’re breaking it all down on this week’s episode, plus diving into a conversation with a leading appellate advocate on why the Supreme Court needs more female clerks.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        It was a whirlwind week of confirmation news and politically-charged election and immigration cases that the justices weighed in on, so we’re breaking it all down on this week’s episode, plus diving into a conversation with a leading appellate advocate on why the Supreme Court needs more female clerks.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1089</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[3844f51f-1d2c-4500-b6cf-0094e5815141]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7736361342.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E3: Breaking Down The Barrett Hearings</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/1749af12-8abf-43fb-b5bf-261cdfeca101/1749af12-8abf-43fb-b5bf-261cdfeca101.mp3</link>
      <description>Judge Amy Coney Barrett is almost through what she described as an "excruciating" confirmation process after finishing her Senate testimony Thursday. This week, the team breaks down the highlights from the hearings with Law360’s congressional reporter.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Judge Amy Coney Barrett is almost through what she described as an "excruciating" confirmation process after finishing her Senate testimony Thursday. This week, the team breaks down the highlights from the hearings with Law360’s congressional reporter.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Judge Amy Coney Barrett is almost through what she described as an "excruciating" confirmation process after finishing her Senate testimony Thursday. This week, the team breaks down the highlights from the hearings with Law360’s congressional reporter.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1211</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[1749af12-8abf-43fb-b5bf-261cdfeca101]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4301175810.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E2: Justices Start Term With Guns Blazing</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/ecccca60-74b0-4279-a8f7-98ed266ea628/ecccca60-74b0-4279-a8f7-98ed266ea628.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court wasted little time making waves in its first week of the 2020 term, from Justice Clarence Thomas’ attack on the “Obergefell” precedent to a multibillion copyright battle between Google and Oracle. And with the election less than a month away, the court also found itself pressed to weigh in on litigation involving election processes during the pandemic. We break down the court’s busy first week on this week’s episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court wasted little time making waves in its first week of the 2020 term, from Justice Clarence Thomas’ attack on the “Obergefell” precedent to a multibillion copyright battle between Google and Oracle. And with the election less than a month away, the court also found itself pressed to weigh in on litigation involving election processes during the pandemic. We break down the court’s busy first week on this week’s episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court wasted little time making waves in its first week of the 2020 term, from Justice Clarence Thomas’ attack on the “Obergefell” precedent to a multibillion copyright battle between Google and Oracle. And with the election less than a month away, the court also found itself pressed to weigh in on litigation involving election processes during the pandemic. We break down the court’s busy first week on this week’s episode.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1136</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ecccca60-74b0-4279-a8f7-98ed266ea628]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8094674897.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S2, E1: The Impact of Amy Coney Barrett</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/522db664-0cbd-4e47-adb5-160e5bf9ce07/522db664-0cbd-4e47-adb5-160e5bf9ce07.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court's 2020 term kicks off in less than a week. On this week’s episode of The Term, we discuss what Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation would mean for some of the biggest cases on the docket, from the fate of the Affordable Care Act to the First Amendment.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court's 2020 term kicks off in less than a week. On this week’s episode of The Term, we discuss what Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation would mean for some of the biggest cases on the docket, from the fate of the Affordable Care Act to the First Amendment.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court's 2020 term kicks off in less than a week. On this week’s episode of The Term, we discuss what Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation would mean for some of the biggest cases on the docket, from the fate of the Affordable Care Act to the First Amendment.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1240</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[522db664-0cbd-4e47-adb5-160e5bf9ce07]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2233202760.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Life And Legacy Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/dc029822-50e1-4c18-9a37-366254905c25/dc029822-50e1-4c18-9a37-366254905c25.mp3</link>
      <description>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among the few on the Supreme Court to have etched her name into legal history long before donning a robe. In a special episode this week, Law360's The Term dives into her legacy as a pioneering women's rights advocate with two guests who worked by her side.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among the few on the Supreme Court to have etched her name into legal history long before donning a robe. In a special episode this week, Law360's The Term dives into her legacy as a pioneering women's rights advocate with two guests who worked by her side.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among the few on the Supreme Court to have etched her name into legal history long before donning a robe. In a special episode this week, Law360's The Term dives into her legacy as a pioneering women's rights advocate with two guests who worked by her side.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2120</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[dc029822-50e1-4c18-9a37-366254905c25]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4999569004.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>We’re Back With Season 2</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/71a7a27d-ddfc-4bf5-b751-524f1a73bf7a/71a7a27d-ddfc-4bf5-b751-524f1a73bf7a.mp3</link>
      <description>It’s been a long and difficult summer full of cancelled vacations, sweaty face masks, and a lack of new episodes from your favorite Law360 Supreme Court podcast, The Term. But we’re back with a new season on Sept. 24, starting with a special episode on Supreme Court clerks, then moving on to the blockbuster high court cases we’ll be watching. So if you enjoyed our show last year, or if you’re looking for a quick, digestible news podcast to get you caught up on the biggest Supreme Court developments, tune in every Thursday.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>It’s been a long and difficult summer full of cancelled vacations, sweaty face masks, and a lack of new episodes from your favorite Law360 Supreme Court podcast, The Term. But we’re back with a new season on Sept. 24, starting with a special episode on Supreme Court clerks, then moving on to the blockbuster high court cases we’ll be watching. So if you enjoyed our show last year, or if you’re looking for a quick, digestible news podcast to get you caught up on the biggest Supreme Court developments, tune in every Thursday.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        It’s been a long and difficult summer full of cancelled vacations, sweaty face masks, and a lack of new episodes from your favorite Law360 Supreme Court podcast, The Term. But we’re back with a new season on Sept. 24, starting with a special episode on Supreme Court clerks, then moving on to the blockbuster high court cases we’ll be watching. So if you enjoyed our show last year, or if you’re looking for a quick, digestible news podcast to get you caught up on the biggest Supreme Court developments, tune in every Thursday.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>121</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[71a7a27d-ddfc-4bf5-b751-524f1a73bf7a]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4354260729.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E39: Term Finale - The Myth Of The Moderate Court</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/9df6fd4b-7ee9-4e70-ae40-c3363f2c9ebc/9df6fd4b-7ee9-4e70-ae40-c3363f2c9ebc.mp3</link>
      <description>In our final episode of the season, The Term podcast team looks back on the Supreme Court's historic 2019 term with a pair of special guests. First we talk to Law360 research and data editor Jackie Bell about some surprising numbers that came out of the court this year. Then, we welcome on Melissa Murray, a constitutional law professor at NYU School of Law and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, for wide-ranging conversation covering everything from the pandemic to the impeachment trial, to debunking the narrative that Chief Justice John Roberts is leading the court in a “moderate” direction.   We’re taking a short hiatus while the justices are on recess, but we’ll be sure to keep you updated with any major news from the court, and we’ll be back for season two when the next high court term gets started this fall.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In our final episode of the season, The Term podcast team looks back on the Supreme Court's historic 2019 term with a pair of special guests. First we talk to Law360 research and data editor Jackie Bell about some surprising numbers that came out of the court this year. Then, we welcome on Melissa Murray, a constitutional law professor at NYU School of Law and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, for wide-ranging conversation covering everything from the pandemic to the impeachment trial, to debunking the narrative that Chief Justice John Roberts is leading the court in a “moderate” direction.   We’re taking a short hiatus while the justices are on recess, but we’ll be sure to keep you updated with any major news from the court, and we’ll be back for season two when the next high court term gets started this fall.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In our final episode of the season, The Term podcast team looks back on the Supreme Court's historic 2019 term with a pair of special guests. First we talk to Law360 research and data editor Jackie Bell about some surprising numbers that came out of the court this year. Then, we welcome on Melissa Murray, a constitutional law professor at NYU School of Law and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, for wide-ranging conversation covering everything from the pandemic to the impeachment trial, to debunking the narrative that Chief Justice John Roberts is leading the court in a “moderate” direction. <br><br>  We’re taking a short hiatus while the justices are on recess, but we’ll be sure to keep you updated with any major news from the court, and we’ll be back for season two when the next high court term gets started this fall. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>2533</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9df6fd4b-7ee9-4e70-ae40-c3363f2c9ebc]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1435401992.mp3?updated=1633111219" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E38: The Justices Wrap Up With Trump Taxes</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/65a40e10-2735-468e-b573-9f85449e39d6/65a40e10-2735-468e-b573-9f85449e39d6.mp3</link>
      <description>In a whirlwind end to the U.S. Supreme Court term, the justices decided just who can -- and can't -- subpoena President Donald Trump's financial documents in a pair of decisions that once again highlighted the chief justice's influence on the court. We break down those rulings on this week’s episode, plus touch on an opinion from earlier this week that lets employers off the hook of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate if they oppose birth control on moral or religious grounds.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In a whirlwind end to the U.S. Supreme Court term, the justices decided just who can -- and can't -- subpoena President Donald Trump's financial documents in a pair of decisions that once again highlighted the chief justice's influence on the court. We break down those rulings on this week’s episode, plus touch on an opinion from earlier this week that lets employers off the hook of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate if they oppose birth control on moral or religious grounds.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In a whirlwind end to the U.S. Supreme Court term, the justices decided just who can -- and can't -- subpoena President Donald Trump's financial documents in a pair of decisions that once again highlighted the chief justice's influence on the court. We break down those rulings on this week’s episode, plus touch on an opinion from earlier this week that lets employers off the hook of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate if they oppose birth control on moral or religious grounds. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1336</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[65a40e10-2735-468e-b573-9f85449e39d6]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5741441369.mp3?updated=1633111220" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E37: It's Roberts' World</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/467505c7-62aa-4701-9256-38f296d01486/467505c7-62aa-4701-9256-38f296d01486.mp3</link>
      <description>As the U.S. Supreme Court edges closer towards the finish line of the term, Chief Justice John Roberts' sway on the bench was increasingly apparent this week in a trio of opinions on abortion, agency independence and the separation of church and state that we’re breaking down on this week’s episode.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>As the U.S. Supreme Court edges closer towards the finish line of the term, Chief Justice John Roberts' sway on the bench was increasingly apparent this week in a trio of opinions on abortion, agency independence and the separation of church and state that we’re breaking down on this week’s episode.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        As the U.S. Supreme Court edges closer towards the finish line of the term, Chief Justice John Roberts' sway on the bench was increasingly apparent this week in a trio of opinions on abortion, agency independence and the separation of church and state that we’re breaking down on this week’s episode. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1134</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[467505c7-62aa-4701-9256-38f296d01486]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9277025356.mp3?updated=1633111220" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E36: Where Are All The Opinions?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/3724d4a9-2853-470c-8af9-4abe6ac18a17/3724d4a9-2853-470c-8af9-4abe6ac18a17.mp3</link>
      <description>The end of the U.S. Supreme Court term is supposed to be around the corner, but with more than a dozen opinions still outstanding, there's a question of whether the justices will go longer into the summer than they have in 24 years. On this week’s episode we discuss how the final stretch of the term could play out, plus dig into one opinion handed down this week that denied federal court review to certain asylum-seeking migrants, and another that preserved – but also reigned in – one of the SEC’s most important enforcement tools.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The end of the U.S. Supreme Court term is supposed to be around the corner, but with more than a dozen opinions still outstanding, there's a question of whether the justices will go longer into the summer than they have in 24 years. On this week’s episode we discuss how the final stretch of the term could play out, plus dig into one opinion handed down this week that denied federal court review to certain asylum-seeking migrants, and another that preserved – but also reigned in – one of the SEC’s most important enforcement tools.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The end of the U.S. Supreme Court term is supposed to be around the corner, but with more than a dozen opinions still outstanding, there's a question of whether the justices will go longer into the summer than they have in 24 years. On this week’s episode we discuss how the final stretch of the term could play out, plus dig into one opinion handed down this week that denied federal court review to certain asylum-seeking migrants, and another that preserved – but also reigned in – one of the SEC’s most important enforcement tools.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>911</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[3724d4a9-2853-470c-8af9-4abe6ac18a17]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9888559186.mp3?updated=1633111220" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E35: DACA, Title VII Bombshells Land Early</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/cd29089c-70bf-4e38-849d-5fe67294459f/cd29089c-70bf-4e38-849d-5fe67294459f.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court dropped two unexpected and explosive decisions this week, granting Title VII protections for LGBT workers and upholding — at least for now — legal protections for the 700,000 young immigrants protected under the DACA program. On this week’s episode we welcome Law360 senior reporter Suzanne Monyak to unpack Thursday’s highly-fractured DACA opinion, then dive into Monday’s landmark LGBT ruling surprisingly authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court dropped two unexpected and explosive decisions this week, granting Title VII protections for LGBT workers and upholding — at least for now — legal protections for the 700,000 young immigrants protected under the DACA program. On this week’s episode we welcome Law360 senior reporter Suzanne Monyak to unpack Thursday’s highly-fractured DACA opinion, then dive into Monday’s landmark LGBT ruling surprisingly authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court dropped two unexpected and explosive decisions this week, granting Title VII protections for LGBT workers and upholding — at least for now — legal protections for the 700,000 young immigrants protected under the DACA program. On this week’s episode we welcome Law360 senior reporter Suzanne Monyak to unpack Thursday’s highly-fractured DACA opinion, then dive into Monday’s landmark LGBT ruling surprisingly authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1160</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[cd29089c-70bf-4e38-849d-5fe67294459f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4930954635.mp3?updated=1633111220" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E34: So Many Blockbusters, So Little Time</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/b616140f-3912-46c4-a55d-f25d233295b9/b616140f-3912-46c4-a55d-f25d233295b9.mp3</link>
      <description>LGBTQ rights. DACA. Trump's taxes. With the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term just three weeks away, we discuss this week the pile of blockbuster opinions left for the court to deliver and make a few predictions about what we might see next — and last.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>LGBTQ rights. DACA. Trump's taxes. With the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term just three weeks away, we discuss this week the pile of blockbuster opinions left for the court to deliver and make a few predictions about what we might see next — and last.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        LGBTQ rights. DACA. Trump's taxes. With the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term just three weeks away, we discuss this week the pile of blockbuster opinions left for the court to deliver and make a few predictions about what we might see next — and last.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>967</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[b616140f-3912-46c4-a55d-f25d233295b9]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8275058079.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E33: Sotomayor Scorches On Pensions, Puerto Rico</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/ac2c00fc-df25-472f-afac-50b44a99a057/ac2c00fc-df25-472f-afac-50b44a99a057.mp3</link>
      <description>In two of the biggest decisions the Supreme Court handed down this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the spotlight with her additional thoughts on the majority opinions. We dive into those on this week’s episode of The Term plus welcome on Law360 senior reporter Emily Brill to break down a key pension fund ruling.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In two of the biggest decisions the Supreme Court handed down this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the spotlight with her additional thoughts on the majority opinions. We dive into those on this week’s episode of The Term plus welcome on Law360 senior reporter Emily Brill to break down a key pension fund ruling.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In two of the biggest decisions the Supreme Court handed down this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the spotlight with her additional thoughts on the majority opinions. We dive into those on this week’s episode of The Term plus welcome on Law360 senior reporter Emily Brill to break down a key pension fund ruling.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1011</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[ac2c00fc-df25-472f-afac-50b44a99a057]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7018631156.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E32: Roberts On Lessons Of The Pandemic</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/93bfd18f-c836-4e18-b751-05dce8192d46/93bfd18f-c836-4e18-b751-05dce8192d46.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court has issued it’s latest COVID-19 decision, this one involving an Ohio federal prison in the midst of a deadly outbreak. We break it down on this week’s episode of The Term, plus visit some of what Chief Justice John Roberts misses most about the world before the pandemic.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court has issued it’s latest COVID-19 decision, this one involving an Ohio federal prison in the midst of a deadly outbreak. We break it down on this week’s episode of The Term, plus visit some of what Chief Justice John Roberts misses most about the world before the pandemic.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court has issued it’s latest COVID-19 decision, this one involving an Ohio federal prison in the midst of a deadly outbreak. We break it down on this week’s episode of The Term, plus visit some of what Chief Justice John Roberts misses most about the world before the pandemic.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>949</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[93bfd18f-c836-4e18-b751-05dce8192d46]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8265106919.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E31: Clarence Thomas Steps Into The Spotlight</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/32b12063-8602-492c-a797-aca6c1122fba/32b12063-8602-492c-a797-aca6c1122fba.mp3</link>
      <description>He's quiet, conservative and controversial. But what do we really know about Justice Clarence Thomas? This week, the team discusses a new documentary on the enigmatic justice that features interviews with the man himself.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>He's quiet, conservative and controversial. But what do we really know about Justice Clarence Thomas? This week, the team discusses a new documentary on the enigmatic justice that features interviews with the man himself.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        He's quiet, conservative and controversial. But what do we really know about Justice Clarence Thomas? This week, the team discusses a new documentary on the enigmatic justice that features interviews with the man himself.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1041</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[32b12063-8602-492c-a797-aca6c1122fba]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3934104040.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E30: Trump Taxes And Frodo Baggins</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/b52ef817-3ac8-4b99-9940-5c35c861227f/b52ef817-3ac8-4b99-9940-5c35c861227f.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court this week dove into several cases that could affect the 2020 election, including high-profile arguments over access to President Donald Trump's financial records and a row over so-called faithless presidential electors that sparked one justice to amusingly reference the "Lord of the Rings" universe. We break it all down on this week’s episode of The Term. And if you enjoy the episode, please leave us a written review!</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court this week dove into several cases that could affect the 2020 election, including high-profile arguments over access to President Donald Trump's financial records and a row over so-called faithless presidential electors that sparked one justice to amusingly reference the "Lord of the Rings" universe. We break it all down on this week’s episode of The Term. And if you enjoy the episode, please leave us a written review!</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court this week dove into several cases that could affect the 2020 election, including high-profile arguments over access to President Donald Trump's financial records and a row over so-called faithless presidential electors that sparked one justice to amusingly reference the "Lord of the Rings" universe. We break it all down on this week’s episode of The Term. And if you enjoy the episode, please leave us a written review!
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1295</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[b52ef817-3ac8-4b99-9940-5c35c861227f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4140361271.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E29: Flushing Arguments Down The Toilet</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/478d275e-e0bf-49d8-9af9-6bafbaba6007/478d275e-e0bf-49d8-9af9-6bafbaba6007.mp3</link>
      <description>There was no shortage of surprises in the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic first week of telephonic arguments, as Justice Clarence Thomas frequently asked questions and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unfortunately had to dial in from a hospital bed. And there were no shortage of bloopers either, including a toilet flush heard across social media. We break it all down on this week’s episode of The Term.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>There was no shortage of surprises in the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic first week of telephonic arguments, as Justice Clarence Thomas frequently asked questions and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unfortunately had to dial in from a hospital bed. And there were no shortage of bloopers either, including a toilet flush heard across social media. We break it all down on this week’s episode of The Term.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        There was no shortage of surprises in the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic first week of telephonic arguments, as Justice Clarence Thomas frequently asked questions and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unfortunately had to dial in from a hospital bed. And there were no shortage of bloopers either, including a toilet flush heard across social media. We break it all down on this week’s episode of The Term.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>938</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[478d275e-e0bf-49d8-9af9-6bafbaba6007]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2063436447.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E28: How The Court's First Phone Hearings Will Work</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/a37724d5-2b13-4726-bbb1-7b3f4c18be4b/a37724d5-2b13-4726-bbb1-7b3f4c18be4b.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court has released the format for how its unprecedented telephone oral arguments will work next week, and they won't be the usual free-for-all court watchers are used to hearing. On this week’s episode of The Term we break those down, plus look at the court's big Monday ruling in an Affordable Care Act case and a not-so-big one on the Second Amendment.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court has released the format for how its unprecedented telephone oral arguments will work next week, and they won't be the usual free-for-all court watchers are used to hearing. On this week’s episode of The Term we break those down, plus look at the court's big Monday ruling in an Affordable Care Act case and a not-so-big one on the Second Amendment.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court has released the format for how its unprecedented telephone oral arguments will work next week, and they won't be the usual free-for-all court watchers are used to hearing. On this week’s episode of The Term we break those down, plus look at the court's big Monday ruling in an Affordable Care Act case and a not-so-big one on the Second Amendment.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1129</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[a37724d5-2b13-4726-bbb1-7b3f4c18be4b]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2315131864.mp3?updated=1633111221" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E27: Unlikely Alliances Take The Spotlight</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/8c8d7715-6c88-43a0-b68d-401e64cf3060/8c8d7715-6c88-43a0-b68d-401e64cf3060.mp3</link>
      <description>In delivering this week’s slate of opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court justices created a few eyebrow-raising alliances in a pair of cases involving the Clean Water Act and the requirement for a unanimous jury. We break down both of those decisions on this week’s Term, plus touch on a case the high court added to its docket with important digital privacy implications.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In delivering this week’s slate of opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court justices created a few eyebrow-raising alliances in a pair of cases involving the Clean Water Act and the requirement for a unanimous jury. We break down both of those decisions on this week’s Term, plus touch on a case the high court added to its docket with important digital privacy implications.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In delivering this week’s slate of opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court justices created a few eyebrow-raising alliances in a pair of cases involving the Clean Water Act and the requirement for a unanimous jury. We break down both of those decisions on this week’s Term, plus touch on a case the high court added to its docket with important digital privacy implications.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1168</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[8c8d7715-6c88-43a0-b68d-401e64cf3060]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4491860446.mp3?updated=1633111222" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E26: To Begin Your Oral Argument, Press 1</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/4121c64a-a38d-4e95-9ac1-2bd103914d70/4121c64a-a38d-4e95-9ac1-2bd103914d70.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court surprised many legal watchers this week when it agreed to hold a slate of telephonic oral arguments in light of the pandemic. The team breaks down what to expect, before diving into a new high court challenge to the Trump administration’s “wealth test” spurred by COVID-19.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court surprised many legal watchers this week when it agreed to hold a slate of telephonic oral arguments in light of the pandemic. The team breaks down what to expect, before diving into a new high court challenge to the Trump administration’s “wealth test” spurred by COVID-19.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court surprised many legal watchers this week when it agreed to hold a slate of telephonic oral arguments in light of the pandemic. The team breaks down what to expect, before diving into a new high court challenge to the Trump administration’s “wealth test” spurred by COVID-19.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1073</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4121c64a-a38d-4e95-9ac1-2bd103914d70]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2259719235.mp3?updated=1633111222" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E25: Dissecting The Court’s First COVID-19 Decision</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/16b8061d-8ce5-41db-92e2-a5c647b89ad7/16b8061d-8ce5-41db-92e2-a5c647b89ad7.mp3</link>
      <description>This week, the team discusses the Supreme Court’s first coronavirus-related ruling in a case involving Wisconsin’s election, which highlighted how the court’s partisan division may play out through the deadly pandemic. We also dive into the latest oral argument postponements, and a pair of additional opinions handed down this week that have 4th Amendment and employment discrimination implications.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week, the team discusses the Supreme Court’s first coronavirus-related ruling in a case involving Wisconsin’s election, which highlighted how the court’s partisan division may play out through the deadly pandemic. We also dive into the latest oral argument postponements, and a pair of additional opinions handed down this week that have 4th Amendment and employment discrimination implications.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        This week, the team discusses the Supreme Court’s first coronavirus-related ruling in a case involving Wisconsin’s election, which highlighted how the court’s partisan division may play out through the deadly pandemic. We also dive into the latest oral argument postponements, and a pair of additional opinions handed down this week that have 4th Amendment and employment discrimination implications.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1175</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[16b8061d-8ce5-41db-92e2-a5c647b89ad7]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9457470510.mp3?updated=1633111222" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E24: Coronavirus Ain't Keeping RBG Down</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/9b647625-4071-402b-adec-a40687fb176a/9b647625-4071-402b-adec-a40687fb176a.mp3</link>
      <description>This week, the team discusses how the coronavirus is affecting life at the U.S. Supreme Court, from tech troubles during an opinion announcement to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous workout routine. Plus, there’s a special conversation with Cate Stetson, co-director of Hogan Lovells LLP’s appellate practice, on what the pandemic means for Supreme Court lawyers.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week, the team discusses how the coronavirus is affecting life at the U.S. Supreme Court, from tech troubles during an opinion announcement to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous workout routine. Plus, there’s a special conversation with Cate Stetson, co-director of Hogan Lovells LLP’s appellate practice, on what the pandemic means for Supreme Court lawyers.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        This week, the team discusses how the coronavirus is affecting life at the U.S. Supreme Court, from tech troubles during an opinion announcement to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous workout routine. Plus, there’s a special conversation with Cate Stetson, co-director of Hogan Lovells LLP’s appellate practice, on what the pandemic means for Supreme Court lawyers.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1256</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9b647625-4071-402b-adec-a40687fb176a]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7604189645.mp3?updated=1633111222" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E23: Justices Press On With Work, At A Distance</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/498b45df-f5b3-4833-b335-79ff5e2b4c11/498b45df-f5b3-4833-b335-79ff5e2b4c11.mp3</link>
      <description>This week’s episode looks at how the U.S. Supreme Court is keeping its gears in motion amid the pandemic, how the stimulus bill could help further remote working at the court and, on a lighter note, the team looks at some of the justices’ travel perks before self-isolation became the new norm.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week’s episode looks at how the U.S. Supreme Court is keeping its gears in motion amid the pandemic, how the stimulus bill could help further remote working at the court and, on a lighter note, the team looks at some of the justices’ travel perks before self-isolation became the new norm.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        This week’s episode looks at how the U.S. Supreme Court is keeping its gears in motion amid the pandemic, how the stimulus bill could help further remote working at the court and, on a lighter note, the team looks at some of the justices’ travel perks before self-isolation became the new norm.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1186</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[498b45df-f5b3-4833-b335-79ff5e2b4c11]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1268554895.mp3?updated=1633111222" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E22: COVID-19 Shuts Down The Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/c97ef040-9a94-47c2-9d80-c9ebfcf86192/c97ef040-9a94-47c2-9d80-c9ebfcf86192.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court has closed to the public and, for the first time in a century, postponed oral arguments because of a public health crisis. This week, the team discusses how the spreading novel coronavirus has upended the current term -- and what may lie ahead for the justices.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court has closed to the public and, for the first time in a century, postponed oral arguments because of a public health crisis. This week, the team discusses how the spreading novel coronavirus has upended the current term -- and what may lie ahead for the justices.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court has closed to the public and, for the first time in a century, postponed oral arguments because of a public health crisis. This week, the team discusses how the spreading novel coronavirus has upended the current term -- and what may lie ahead for the justices.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>642</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[c97ef040-9a94-47c2-9d80-c9ebfcf86192]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2226437719.mp3?updated=1633111223" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E21: Does The Supreme Court Favor The Rich?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/27b656f2-53d0-43d2-a69f-8f15d809da5c/27b656f2-53d0-43d2-a69f-8f15d809da5c.mp3</link>
      <description>The phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved on the front of the Supreme Court, but a new book by journalist and lawyer Adam Cohen argues that the court’s decisions over the last 50 years have disfavored the poor. Cohen joins this week’s Term to discuss the court’s changing composition, key Supreme Court cases that have impacted the poor and the issue of economic diversity on the bench. Also this week, a new juvenile life sentence case taken up by the justices, and a decision to let the Trump administration continue sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration court cases proceed.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2020 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved on the front of the Supreme Court, but a new book by journalist and lawyer Adam Cohen argues that the court’s decisions over the last 50 years have disfavored the poor. Cohen joins this week’s Term to discuss the court’s changing composition, key Supreme Court cases that have impacted the poor and the issue of economic diversity on the bench. Also this week, a new juvenile life sentence case taken up by the justices, and a decision to let the Trump administration continue sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration court cases proceed.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved on the front of the Supreme Court, but a new book by journalist and lawyer Adam Cohen argues that the court’s decisions over the last 50 years have disfavored the poor. Cohen joins this week’s Term to discuss the court’s changing composition, key Supreme Court cases that have impacted the poor and the issue of economic diversity on the bench. Also this week, a new juvenile life sentence case taken up by the justices, and a decision to let the Trump administration continue sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration court cases proceed.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1281</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[27b656f2-53d0-43d2-a69f-8f15d809da5c]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5206366083.mp3?updated=1633111223" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E20: Roberts Rebuke Overshadows CFPB, Abortion Args</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/c7cd4bf9-df8c-4dd2-9c86-b0e22fe0719e/c7cd4bf9-df8c-4dd2-9c86-b0e22fe0719e.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court saw a headline-grabbing week with arguments in two heavily watched cases, and the drama only escalated after a senator’s remarks on an abortion case earned a sharp public rebuke from the chief justice. We dive into that dust up on this week’s show, plus hit the highlights from the week including oral arguments in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case with Law360 Senior Banking Reporter Jon Hill, and the high court’s decision to again weigh in on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court saw a headline-grabbing week with arguments in two heavily watched cases, and the drama only escalated after a senator’s remarks on an abortion case earned a sharp public rebuke from the chief justice. We dive into that dust up on this week’s show, plus hit the highlights from the week including oral arguments in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case with Law360 Senior Banking Reporter Jon Hill, and the high court’s decision to again weigh in on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court saw a headline-grabbing week with arguments in two heavily watched cases, and the drama only escalated after a senator’s remarks on an abortion case earned a sharp public rebuke from the chief justice. We dive into that dust up on this week’s show, plus hit the highlights from the week including oral arguments in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case with Law360 Senior Banking Reporter Jon Hill, and the high court’s decision to again weigh in on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1034</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[c7cd4bf9-df8c-4dd2-9c86-b0e22fe0719e]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7449888731.mp3?updated=1633111223" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E19: A Key Test For Abortion Rights</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/a6aedb63-9ced-4aff-aa6f-e0d450bac563/a6aedb63-9ced-4aff-aa6f-e0d450bac563.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court, which was busy putting out a number of opinions and adding to its docket this week, is set to hear a blockbuster abortion rights case in the coming days. On this week’s Term episode, we break down what to watch in that case.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court, which was busy putting out a number of opinions and adding to its docket this week, is set to hear a blockbuster abortion rights case in the coming days. On this week’s Term episode, we break down what to watch in that case.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court, which was busy putting out a number of opinions and adding to its docket this week, is set to hear a blockbuster abortion rights case in the coming days. On this week’s Term episode, we break down what to watch in that case.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1016</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[a6aedb63-9ced-4aff-aa6f-e0d450bac563]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4045286659.mp3?updated=1633111223" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E18: Billions At Stake In Pipeline, Terrorism Cases</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/1ec883d8-f73f-4102-8b89-27a29bfb36ad/1ec883d8-f73f-4102-8b89-27a29bfb36ad.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court will be back in session next week, so on this week’s Term we preview key arguments scheduled for the returning justices, including a dispute over a national trail that is threatening a $7 billion gas pipeline project and whether a $4.2 billion judgment in a terrorism case can stand.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court will be back in session next week, so on this week’s Term we preview key arguments scheduled for the returning justices, including a dispute over a national trail that is threatening a $7 billion gas pipeline project and whether a $4.2 billion judgment in a terrorism case can stand.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court will be back in session next week, so on this week’s Term we preview key arguments scheduled for the returning justices, including a dispute over a national trail that is threatening a $7 billion gas pipeline project and whether a $4.2 billion judgment in a terrorism case can stand.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1105</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[1ec883d8-f73f-4102-8b89-27a29bfb36ad]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3872913908.mp3?updated=1633111223" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E17: Whitehouse Says ‘Dark Money’ Is Swaying The High Court</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/734a2dd8-3e48-42fd-9a3a-63ab02872b46/734a2dd8-3e48-42fd-9a3a-63ab02872b46.mp3</link>
      <description>This week we’re joined by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who explains why he believes a high-stakes case over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of “dark money” influencing outcomes at the U.S. Supreme Court. The senator also discusses reaction to his amicus brief in a high-profile gun case and his thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts' role in the Senate impeachment trial.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week we’re joined by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who explains why he believes a high-stakes case over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of “dark money” influencing outcomes at the U.S. Supreme Court. The senator also discusses reaction to his amicus brief in a high-profile gun case and his thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts' role in the Senate impeachment trial.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        This week we’re joined by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who explains why he believes a high-stakes case over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of “dark money” influencing outcomes at the U.S. Supreme Court. The senator also discusses reaction to his amicus brief in a high-profile gun case and his thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts' role in the Senate impeachment trial.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1117</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[734a2dd8-3e48-42fd-9a3a-63ab02872b46]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1677347899.mp3?updated=1633111223" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E16: Kagan’s Twitter &amp; Roberts’ ‘Golden Gavel’</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/734b2472-2f03-4937-a9b7-c7073128b9af/734b2472-2f03-4937-a9b7-c7073128b9af.mp3</link>
      <description>The U.S. Supreme Court may be in recess, but the justices are still busy making speeches, attending events, and presiding over some pretty important business in the Senate. This week we recap the justices’ public remarks, including their thoughts on controversial new ethics guidance, Justice Elena Kagan’s secret Twitter account, and why the “golden gavel” Chief Justice John Roberts’ earned may pale in comparison to the pricey watch he wore during the impeachment hearings.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The U.S. Supreme Court may be in recess, but the justices are still busy making speeches, attending events, and presiding over some pretty important business in the Senate. This week we recap the justices’ public remarks, including their thoughts on controversial new ethics guidance, Justice Elena Kagan’s secret Twitter account, and why the “golden gavel” Chief Justice John Roberts’ earned may pale in comparison to the pricey watch he wore during the impeachment hearings.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The U.S. Supreme Court may be in recess, but the justices are still busy making speeches, attending events, and presiding over some pretty important business in the Senate. This week we recap the justices’ public remarks, including their thoughts on controversial new ethics guidance, Justice Elena Kagan’s secret Twitter account, and why the “golden gavel” Chief Justice John Roberts’ earned may pale in comparison to the pricey watch he wore during the impeachment hearings.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1201</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[734b2472-2f03-4937-a9b7-c7073128b9af]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5306392657.mp3?updated=1633111224" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E15: Gorsuch Hates Nationwide Injunctions</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/2ab735ae-bf20-41e0-9133-e4ccfc8cd650/2ab735ae-bf20-41e0-9133-e4ccfc8cd650.mp3</link>
      <description>Justice Neil Gorsuch sure doesn’t like nationwide injunctions, a fact he made abundantly clear this week in a high-profile immigration case. We discuss Gorsuch’s attack on the slew of nationwide injunctions that lower courts have been issuing against the Trump administration. We also talk about what the justices are doing with their winter break and give an update on some cases to watch on the high court’s “shadow docket.”</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Justice Neil Gorsuch sure doesn’t like nationwide injunctions, a fact he made abundantly clear this week in a high-profile immigration case. We discuss Gorsuch’s attack on the slew of nationwide injunctions that lower courts have been issuing against the Trump administration. We also talk about what the justices are doing with their winter break and give an update on some cases to watch on the high court’s “shadow docket.”</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Justice Neil Gorsuch sure doesn’t like nationwide injunctions, a fact he made abundantly clear this week in a high-profile immigration case. We discuss Gorsuch’s attack on the slew of nationwide injunctions that lower courts have been issuing against the Trump administration. We also talk about what the justices are doing with their winter break and give an update on some cases to watch on the high court’s “shadow docket.”
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1060</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[2ab735ae-bf20-41e0-9133-e4ccfc8cd650]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2125503498.mp3?updated=1633111224" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E14: The Larger Battle In A Montana Tax Case</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/f2fc4c00-5a26-4b63-b6ca-105d714c1192/f2fc4c00-5a26-4b63-b6ca-105d714c1192.mp3</link>
      <description>What started out as a relatively low-key tax case has taken on new importance as the latest battleground over the separation of church and state. We’re joined by Law360 tax correspondent Maria Koklanaris to untangle the oral arguments. This week we’ll also discuss Justice Roberts late night admonition and use of an arcane insult at President Trump’s impeachment trial; and we discuss the status of two key Affordable Care Act cases.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>What started out as a relatively low-key tax case has taken on new importance as the latest battleground over the separation of church and state. We’re joined by Law360 tax correspondent Maria Koklanaris to untangle the oral arguments. This week we’ll also discuss Justice Roberts late night admonition and use of an arcane insult at President Trump’s impeachment trial; and we discuss the status of two key Affordable Care Act cases.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        What started out as a relatively low-key tax case has taken on new importance as the latest battleground over the separation of church and state. We’re joined by Law360 tax correspondent Maria Koklanaris to untangle the oral arguments. This week we’ll also discuss Justice Roberts late night admonition and use of an arcane insult at President Trump’s impeachment trial; and we discuss the status of two key Affordable Care Act cases. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>933</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[f2fc4c00-5a26-4b63-b6ca-105d714c1192]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3339980715.mp3?updated=1633111224" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E13: With Trump Trial Looming, Roberts' Mind On Memes</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/37e6c0e8-9a8b-42eb-87e0-8d0d9e03e549/37e6c0e8-9a8b-42eb-87e0-8d0d9e03e549.mp3</link>
      <description>Political scandals, an internet meme and impeachment dominated the news coming out of the Supreme Court this week. We break down what to expect from Chief Justice John Roberts in his role presiding over President Trump’s impeachment trial; where the justices stand after oral arguments over the New Jersey Bridgegate scandal; and what caused Roberts to refer to the “OK, Boomer” meme in court.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Political scandals, an internet meme and impeachment dominated the news coming out of the Supreme Court this week. We break down what to expect from Chief Justice John Roberts in his role presiding over President Trump’s impeachment trial; where the justices stand after oral arguments over the New Jersey Bridgegate scandal; and what caused Roberts to refer to the “OK, Boomer” meme in court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Political scandals, an internet meme and impeachment dominated the news coming out of the Supreme Court this week. We break down what to expect from Chief Justice John Roberts in his role presiding over President Trump’s impeachment trial; where the justices stand after oral arguments over the New Jersey Bridgegate scandal; and what caused Roberts to refer to the “OK, Boomer” meme in court.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>997</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[37e6c0e8-9a8b-42eb-87e0-8d0d9e03e549]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4304429239.mp3?updated=1633111224" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E12: Abortion, Bridgegate And The ACA</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/5626f740-6412-4e43-98cc-3a55b47a65c4/5626f740-6412-4e43-98cc-3a55b47a65c4.mp3</link>
      <description>The new year has kicked off with some blockbuster issues facing the U.S. Supreme Court. We dive in to new filings in a case involving abortion law protections, upcoming arguments related to New Jersey’s Bridgegate scandal, and a petition to strike down the Affordable Care Act.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The new year has kicked off with some blockbuster issues facing the U.S. Supreme Court. We dive in to new filings in a case involving abortion law protections, upcoming arguments related to New Jersey’s Bridgegate scandal, and a petition to strike down the Affordable Care Act.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The new year has kicked off with some blockbuster issues facing the U.S. Supreme Court. We dive in to new filings in a case involving abortion law protections, upcoming arguments related to New Jersey’s Bridgegate scandal, and a petition to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>892</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[5626f740-6412-4e43-98cc-3a55b47a65c4]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW3662862531.mp3?updated=1633111224" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E11: SPECIAL - Berkeley Law Dean On Conservative Takeover</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/5742b807-1b5c-472b-9d11-e3239661c5d9/5742b807-1b5c-472b-9d11-e3239661c5d9.mp3</link>
      <description>It’s the end of the year but for our last episode of 2019, we wanted to look ahead to how the Supreme Court’s newly bolstered conservative majority will flex its muscle the rest of this term and those to come. We’re joined by special guest UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who breaks down the new dynamics on the high court. We’ll also touch briefly on a few notable grants of certiorari that happened this week, including whether Manhattan prosecutors and House Democrats can access President Trump’s personal and business financial records.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>It’s the end of the year but for our last episode of 2019, we wanted to look ahead to how the Supreme Court’s newly bolstered conservative majority will flex its muscle the rest of this term and those to come. We’re joined by special guest UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who breaks down the new dynamics on the high court. We’ll also touch briefly on a few notable grants of certiorari that happened this week, including whether Manhattan prosecutors and House Democrats can access President Trump’s personal and business financial records.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        It’s the end of the year but for our last episode of 2019, we wanted to look ahead to how the Supreme Court’s newly bolstered conservative majority will flex its muscle the rest of this term and those to come. We’re joined by special guest UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who breaks down the new dynamics on the high court. We’ll also touch briefly on a few notable grants of certiorari that happened this week, including whether Manhattan prosecutors and House Democrats can access President Trump’s personal and business financial records.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>864</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[5742b807-1b5c-472b-9d11-e3239661c5d9]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW4083811561.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E10: The Government May Owe ACA Insurers Billions</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/73ed9bba-b05c-4cb7-b187-e8e8e775f9e4/73ed9bba-b05c-4cb7-b187-e8e8e775f9e4.mp3</link>
      <description>The High Court is weighing in on the Affordable Care Act again, this time in a $12 billion fight between the government and health insurers. We break down the oral arguments in the trio of consolidated cases. This week we also discuss a ruling on some unusual intellectual property fees; an addition to the court’s docket over whether states can have laws that prevent the makeup of their courts from becoming overly partisan; and the latest on a battle over Trump’s financial documents.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2019 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The High Court is weighing in on the Affordable Care Act again, this time in a $12 billion fight between the government and health insurers. We break down the oral arguments in the trio of consolidated cases. This week we also discuss a ruling on some unusual intellectual property fees; an addition to the court’s docket over whether states can have laws that prevent the makeup of their courts from becoming overly partisan; and the latest on a battle over Trump’s financial documents.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The High Court is weighing in on the Affordable Care Act again, this time in a $12 billion fight between the government and health insurers. We break down the oral arguments in the trio of consolidated cases. This week we also discuss a ruling on some unusual intellectual property fees; an addition to the court’s docket over whether states can have laws that prevent the makeup of their courts from becoming overly partisan; and the latest on a battle over Trump’s financial documents.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>769</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[73ed9bba-b05c-4cb7-b187-e8e8e775f9e4]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9924174129.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E9: Is This 2nd Amendment Case A Dud?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/e7ebfc8c-4fb3-4682-b5b4-8877af3f06aa/e7ebfc8c-4fb3-4682-b5b4-8877af3f06aa.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in the first Second Amendment gun case in a decade, but will it prove to be a dud? We discuss that possibility this week, as well as the Trump administration seeking another emergency ruling and Justice Kavanaugh’s interest in reviving the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine to curtail executive agency power.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2019 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in the first Second Amendment gun case in a decade, but will it prove to be a dud? We discuss that possibility this week, as well as the Trump administration seeking another emergency ruling and Justice Kavanaugh’s interest in reviving the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine to curtail executive agency power.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in the first Second Amendment gun case in a decade, but will it prove to be a dud? We discuss that possibility this week, as well as the Trump administration seeking another emergency ruling and Justice Kavanaugh’s interest in reviving the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine to curtail executive agency power. 
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>798</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[e7ebfc8c-4fb3-4682-b5b4-8877af3f06aa]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8074736372.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E8: Kagan Knocks New Argument Format</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/464857b2-57f3-4dbf-a6d6-01f6459bb2c0/464857b2-57f3-4dbf-a6d6-01f6459bb2c0.mp3</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court heard no arguments this week, but that doesn’t mean things were dull for high court watchers. We’ll share some of Justice Elena Kagan’s thoughts about the court’s new two-minute oral argument policy (spoiler: she doesn’t love it) and touch down on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first major public speech since his bruising confirmation battle last year. Plus, we’ll discuss the court agreeing to hear the Google-Oracle smartphone war; Trump’s pressing request to block a House committee’s subpoena for his business records; and a high-profile gun case to watch in December.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2019 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>The Supreme Court heard no arguments this week, but that doesn’t mean things were dull for high court watchers. We’ll share some of Justice Elena Kagan’s thoughts about the court’s new two-minute oral argument policy (spoiler: she doesn’t love it) and touch down on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first major public speech since his bruising confirmation battle last year. Plus, we’ll discuss the court agreeing to hear the Google-Oracle smartphone war; Trump’s pressing request to block a House committee’s subpoena for his business records; and a high-profile gun case to watch in December.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        The Supreme Court heard no arguments this week, but that doesn’t mean things were dull for high court watchers. We’ll share some of Justice Elena Kagan’s thoughts about the court’s new two-minute oral argument policy (spoiler: she doesn’t love it) and touch down on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first major public speech since his bruising confirmation battle last year. Plus, we’ll discuss the court agreeing to hear the Google-Oracle smartphone war; Trump’s pressing request to block a House committee’s subpoena for his business records; and a high-profile gun case to watch in December.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>881</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[464857b2-57f3-4dbf-a6d6-01f6459bb2c0]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW2800679893.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E7: Can DACA Survive The High Court?</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/7e2a854e-6f1c-4905-b91d-5468a7945dca/7e2a854e-6f1c-4905-b91d-5468a7945dca.mp3</link>
      <description>On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard blockbuster arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Senior immigration reporter Suzanne Monyak joins the show to share insights into the potential impact of the case, and Jimmy Hoover gives us a report on the atmosphere at First Street that day and how the justices seemed to be leaning. Plus, we discuss the court avoiding gun maker Remington’s bid to stop a lawsuit by the families of Sandy Hook victims and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s absence from the court on Wednesday.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2019 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard blockbuster arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Senior immigration reporter Suzanne Monyak joins the show to share insights into the potential impact of the case, and Jimmy Hoover gives us a report on the atmosphere at First Street that day and how the justices seemed to be leaning. Plus, we discuss the court avoiding gun maker Remington’s bid to stop a lawsuit by the families of Sandy Hook victims and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s absence from the court on Wednesday.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard blockbuster arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Senior immigration reporter Suzanne Monyak joins the show to share insights into the potential impact of the case, and Jimmy Hoover gives us a report on the atmosphere at First Street that day and how the justices seemed to be leaning. Plus, we discuss the court avoiding gun maker Remington’s bid to stop a lawsuit by the families of Sandy Hook victims and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s absence from the court on Wednesday.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>997</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[7e2a854e-6f1c-4905-b91d-5468a7945dca]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9510902118.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E6: Pollution Case Gets Testy, DACA On Deck</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/0c3f825f-371b-4f81-9f9e-db04073481e7/0c3f825f-371b-4f81-9f9e-db04073481e7.mp3</link>
      <description>On this episode of The Term, the team dissects a heated exchange between two justices in a case involving the Clean Water Act and then explores the potential impact of upcoming arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 05:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>On this episode of The Term, the team dissects a heated exchange between two justices in a case involving the Clean Water Act and then explores the potential impact of upcoming arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        On this episode of The Term, the team dissects a heated exchange between two justices in a case involving the Clean Water Act and then explores the potential impact of upcoming arguments over the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>951</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[0c3f825f-371b-4f81-9f9e-db04073481e7]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW5293673493.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E5: Polluting The Pacific &amp; Traffic Stops</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/9eb37215-ab90-4f6a-aae9-226263d8b5f0/9eb37215-ab90-4f6a-aae9-226263d8b5f0.mp3</link>
      <description>On this episode of The Term, the team tackles a pair of cases that will come before the Supreme Court next week: one involving what environmental groups call a massive loophole to the Clean Water Act, and the other about why some allegedly common sense traffic stops may be unconstitutional.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>On this episode of The Term, the team tackles a pair of cases that will come before the Supreme Court next week: one involving what environmental groups call a massive loophole to the Clean Water Act, and the other about why some allegedly common sense traffic stops may be unconstitutional.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        On this episode of The Term, the team tackles a pair of cases that will come before the Supreme Court next week: one involving what environmental groups call a massive loophole to the Clean Water Act, and the other about why some allegedly common sense traffic stops may be unconstitutional.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>985</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[9eb37215-ab90-4f6a-aae9-226263d8b5f0]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW7653572928.mp3?updated=1633111225" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E4: CFPB Under Review &amp; Plurality Problems</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/fa465ed8-c4d9-40e2-8668-6637c1b694e8/fa465ed8-c4d9-40e2-8668-6637c1b694e8.mp3</link>
      <description>This week we discuss the justices taking up a case over the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure. We also weigh in on some denials from the court, and why refusing to take a case is sometimes better than a fractured ruling. Finally, we talk about a big prize for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the marriage advice she says also applies to the court.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>This week we discuss the justices taking up a case over the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure. We also weigh in on some denials from the court, and why refusing to take a case is sometimes better than a fractured ruling. Finally, we talk about a big prize for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the marriage advice she says also applies to the court.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        This week we discuss the justices taking up a case over the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure. We also weigh in on some denials from the court, and why refusing to take a case is sometimes better than a fractured ruling. Finally, we talk about a big prize for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the marriage advice she says also applies to the court.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>961</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[fa465ed8-c4d9-40e2-8668-6637c1b694e8]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW6036999399.mp3?updated=1633111226" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E3: Puerto Rican Debt Crisis &amp; The DC Sniper</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/406445fa-9935-4f14-91ca-a5eb1c73d36f/406445fa-9935-4f14-91ca-a5eb1c73d36f.mp3</link>
      <description>On this episode of The Term, we take a look at two of the last cases that the Supreme Court heard in October -- one involving Puerto Rico's historic $125 billion debt crisis and the other about the younger D.C. sniper's bid to reduce his life sentence.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>On this episode of The Term, we take a look at two of the last cases that the Supreme Court heard in October -- one involving Puerto Rico's historic $125 billion debt crisis and the other about the younger D.C. sniper's bid to reduce his life sentence.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        On this episode of The Term, we take a look at two of the last cases that the Supreme Court heard in October -- one involving Puerto Rico's historic $125 billion debt crisis and the other about the younger D.C. sniper's bid to reduce his life sentence.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1144</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[406445fa-9935-4f14-91ca-a5eb1c73d36f]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9783227244.mp3?updated=1633111226" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E2: Gorsuch Surprises On Title VII</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/e1561ac8-fb0e-4591-b08d-4b0ab38d6527/e1561ac8-fb0e-4591-b08d-4b0ab38d6527.mp3</link>
      <description>In this week’s episode, we break down what went down in the first full week of the 2019-2020 term. We’ll discuss the cases on Law360’s radar that were granted -- or denied -- certiori after the long conference. Then, we’ll dive into the top oral arguments of the week including where the justices leaned on stare decisis in a criminal case and what surprises came out of Tuesday’s arguments in a trio of cases that will decide the extent of LGBTQ rights in the workplace under federal law.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In this week’s episode, we break down what went down in the first full week of the 2019-2020 term. We’ll discuss the cases on Law360’s radar that were granted -- or denied -- certiori after the long conference. Then, we’ll dive into the top oral arguments of the week including where the justices leaned on stare decisis in a criminal case and what surprises came out of Tuesday’s arguments in a trio of cases that will decide the extent of LGBTQ rights in the workplace under federal law.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In this week’s episode, we break down what went down in the first full week of the 2019-2020 term. We’ll discuss the cases on Law360’s radar that were granted -- or denied -- certiori after the long conference. Then, we’ll dive into the top oral arguments of the week including where the justices leaned on stare decisis in a criminal case and what surprises came out of Tuesday’s arguments in a trio of cases that will decide the extent of LGBTQ rights in the workplace under federal law.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>1110</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[e1561ac8-fb0e-4591-b08d-4b0ab38d6527]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW9184878057.mp3?updated=1633111226" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>S1, E1: Justices Return To Historic Cases</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/c28c516b-db2e-4314-afbc-d479cd532b47/c28c516b-db2e-4314-afbc-d479cd532b47.mp3</link>
      <description>In our inaugural episode we kick off the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term with a look at what to watch coming out of the so-called long conference and we talk about two of the big issues the court will hear in their first week. We explain a case that implicates stare decisis and non-unanimous jury verdicts and the potential blockbuster rulings that could come in a trio of cases related to LGBTQ rights in the workplace.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2019 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>In our inaugural episode we kick off the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term with a look at what to watch coming out of the so-called long conference and we talk about two of the big issues the court will hear in their first week. We explain a case that implicates stare decisis and non-unanimous jury verdicts and the potential blockbuster rulings that could come in a trio of cases related to LGBTQ rights in the workplace.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        In our inaugural episode we kick off the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term with a look at what to watch coming out of the so-called long conference and we talk about two of the big issues the court will hear in their first week. We explain a case that implicates stare decisis and non-unanimous jury verdicts and the potential blockbuster rulings that could come in a trio of cases related to LGBTQ rights in the workplace.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>868</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[c28c516b-db2e-4314-afbc-d479cd532b47]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW1466903503.mp3?updated=1633111226" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Introducing The Term, Law360's Supreme Court Podcast</title>
      <link>https://podcasts.law360.com/episodes/8bfcb1fa-0ff2-4e3a-896f-fae3c488f5d2/8bfcb1fa-0ff2-4e3a-896f-fae3c488f5d2.mp3</link>
      <description>Should you listen to Law360's new podcast, The Term? Yes! Senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City tell you what to expect from the show that cuts through a busy Supreme Court docket to get you up to speed on the key cases everyone will be talking about.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:00:00 -0000</pubDate>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <itunes:author>Law360 - Legal News &amp; Analysis</itunes:author>
      <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:summary>Should you listen to Law360's new podcast, The Term? Yes! Senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City tell you what to expect from the show that cuts through a busy Supreme Court docket to get you up to speed on the key cases everyone will be talking about.</itunes:summary>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[
        Should you listen to Law360's new podcast, The Term? Yes! Senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City tell you what to expect from the show that cuts through a busy Supreme Court docket to get you up to speed on the key cases everyone will be talking about.
      ]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <itunes:duration>80</itunes:duration>
      <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[8bfcb1fa-0ff2-4e3a-896f-fae3c488f5d2]]></guid>
      <enclosure url="https://traffic.megaphone.fm/LAW8278391001.mp3?updated=1633111226" length="0" type="audio/mpeg"/>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
